The recent news

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Place et rôle des entreprises dans la création et l'effectivité du Droit de la Compliance en cas de crise" ("Place and rôle of Companies in the Creation and Effectiveness of Compliance Law in Crisis"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2022, p. 339-352.

____

📝read the article (in French)   

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references, and hyperlinks

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): This article has a very topic: the place of private Companies, regarding the chapter's issue: "the ordeal of a crisis". The crisis constitutes a "test" it brings evidence. Let us take it as such.

Indeed, during the health crisis, Companies have helped the Public Authorities to resist the shock, to endure and to get out of the Crisis. They did so by force, but they also took initiatives in this direction. From this too, we must learn lessons for the next crisis that will come. It is possible that this has already started in the form of another global and systemic crisis: the environmental crisis. In view of what we have been able to observe and the evolution of the Law, of the standards adopted by the Authorities but also by the new case law, what can we expect from Companies in the face of this next Crisis, willingly and strength?

________

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le principe de proximité systémique active, corolaire du renouvellement du principe de souveraineté par le Droit de la Compliance" ("The principle of active systemic proximity: corollary of the renewal of the principle of sovereignty by Compliance Law"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2022, p. 501-520.

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): Surprisingly, it is often in a quarrelsome, angry, dissatisfied tone that we first speak of Compliance, especially when Compliance takes a legal form, because it is then we talk about sanctions coming from afar. These sanctions would strike both extremely hard and in an illegitimate way, Law only therefore takes its part in Compliance to increase its brutality: the Law is what would prolong the war between States to better hit this kind of civilian population that would be the companies..., in a new kind of "planetary total war"...

Why so much detestation, which can only be generated by such a presentation?

Because, thanks to the power of Law, Compliance would therefore be the means for a State, finally found, to meddle in the affairs of others to serve its own interests, including those of its companies, to go to war against other States and to the companies they care about without even having to formally declare the war to them. Compliance Law would finally allow a State that is not even a strategist, just smarter, to leave its territory to regulate others. It is true that it seems even more exasperating that it would also be under the guise of virtue and good purposes. Thus, it is not possible to count the number of the writings that describe and comment on the occurrences of the expression "Trojan horse", "economic war", etc. There are thus more articles on this subject of Compliance Law as a means of going to dictate to subjects of law who are nevertheless subject to other legal systems their behavior and to sanction them for having failed to do so, than on all other technical Compliance matters.

As soon as the term "extraterritoriality" is dropped, the knives are drawn. The dejection of defeat... because who can fight against American power, American Law seducing everyone? The call for resistance, or at the very least for "reaction"... In any case, it would be necessary to put the analysis back on its true terrain: politics, conquest, war, so leaving the legal technique there, area which would be good for the naive and above all count the divisions amassed on each side of the borders, then note that only the United States would have had the ingenuity to count many of them, with their armada of judges, prosecutors and lawyers, with Compliance Law amassed like so many gold coins since the 1930s, American companies relaying the assault by internalizing Compliance Law through internal codes, law that is "soft" only in name, and community standards governing the planet according to American principles, the solution then consisting of line up as many of them as possible in reaction, then attempt to "block" the assault. Because if there is no Global Law, Compliance Law would have succeeded in globalizing American Law.

The technique of blocking laws would therefore be the happy outcome on which the forces should concentrate to restore "sovereignty", since Europe had been invaded, by surprise by some famous texts (FCPA) and some cases whose evocation (BNP case) to the French ear sounds like a Waterloo. Compliance Law would therefore only be a morne plaine...

But is this how we should understand the notion of Sovereignty? Has the so-called question of "the extraterritoriality of Compliance Law" not been totally biased by the question, certainly important but with both very precise and extremely specific outlines, of embargoes which have almost not related to Compliance Law?

The first thing to do is therefore to see more clearly in this kind of fight of extraterritoriality, by isolating the question of embargoes from other objects which should not be assessed in the same way (I).

This done, it appears that where Compliance Law is required, it must be effectively indifferent to the territory: because Compliance Law intervenes where the territory, in the very concrete sense of the land in which we are anchor is not present in the situation to be governed, situation to which our minds have so much difficulty adapting and which, however, is now the most common situation: finance, space, digital. If we want the idea of ​​civilization to remain there, that the notion of "limit" be central there. However, Sovereignty is not linked to omnipotence, it is the grandchildren who believe that, it is on the contrary linked to the notion of limits (II).

But if the limit had been naturally given to human beings by the territory, the ground on which we walk and the border on which we stumble and which protects us from aggression, if the limit had been naturally given to human beings by death and the oblivion into which our body and our imagination eventually fall. Indeed, technology erases both natural limits. The Law was the very reflection of these limits, since it was built on the idea of ​​life and death, with this idea that, for example, we could no longer continue to live after our death. Digital technology could challenge this. In the same way, Law had in the same "natural" way reflected the terrestrial borders, since Public International Law being internal Public Law, took care that each sovereign subject remained in its terrestrial borders and did not go beyond, without the agreement of others, Public International Law organizing both the friendly reception of the other, by treaties and diplomacy, as well as unfriendly entry, by the Law of War, while  Private International Law welcomes foreign legal systems if a extraterritorial element is already present in the situation.

The complexity of the rules and the subtlety of the solutions do not modify the solidity of this base, always linking the Law to the material reality of this world which are our bodies, which appear and disappear and our "being" with them, and the earth squared by borders. Borders have always been crossed, International Commercial Law being only an economic and financial translation of this natural taste for travel which does not question the territory, human beings passing from one to another.

But the Global has arrived, not only in its opportunities, being not an issue because one can always give up the best, but also in global risks whose birth, development and result are not mastered and of which it is not relevant to thinking only of repairing the damage, because preventing risks from degenerating into a systemic catastrophe is what is at stake today. What if territory slips away and hubris seizes human beings who claim that technology could be the new wings leading a fortunate few to the sun of immortality? We could go towards a world that is both catastrophic and limitless, two qualifiers that classical philosophers considered identical.

Law being what brings measure, therefore limits in a world which, through technology, promises to some the deliverance of all these "natural" limits, could, by the new branch of Compliance Law, again inserting limits to a world which, without this contribution, would become disproportionate, some being able to dispose of others without any limit: in doing so, Compliance Law would then become an instrument of Sovereignty, in that it could impose limits, not by powerlessness but on the contrary by the force of Law. This explains why Compliance is so expressly linked to the political project of "Digital Sovereignty".

To renew this relationship between Law and Sovereignty, where the State takes a new place, we must think of new principles. A new principle is proposed here: the Principle of "Proximity", which must be inserted into the Ex-Ante and systemic Law that is Compliance Law. Thus inserted, the Principle of Proximity can be defined in a negative way, without resorting to the notion of territory, and in a positive way, to posit as being "close" what is close systemically, in the present and in the future, Compliance Law being a branch of Systemic Law having as its object the Future.

Thus, thinking in terms of Proximity consists of conceiving this notion as a Systemic Principle, which then renews the notion of Sovereignty and founds the action of entities in a position to act: Companies (III).

If we think of proximity not in a territorial way, the territory having a strong political dimension but not a systemic dimension, but if we think of systemic proximity in a concrete way through the direct effects of an object whose situation immediately impacts ours (as in the climatic space, or in the digital space), then the notion of territory is no longer primary, and we can do without it.

If the idea of ​​Humanism should finally have some reality, in the same way that a company donneuse d'ordre ("order giver") has a duty of Compliance regarding who works for it, this again meets the definition of Compliance Law as the protector of human beings who are close because they are internalized in the object consumers take. It is this legal technique that allows the transmission, with the thing sold, of the procedural right of action for contractual liability.

Therefore, a Principle of Active Systemic Proximity justifies the action of companies to intervene, in the same way that public authorities are then legitimate to supervise them in the indifference of the formal legal connection, principe of indifference already functioning in the digital space and in environmental and humanist vigilance.

It is therefore appropriate to no longer be hampered by what is a bad quarrel of the extraterritoriality of Compliance Law (I), to show the consubstantial Indifference to the territory of this new branch of Law (II) and to propose the formulation of a new Principle: the "Principle of Active Systemic Proximity (III).

________

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The judge, the obligation of compliance and the company. The probationary compliance system, Working Paper, August 2022.

____

📝this Working paper had been made for an article: 

📕 published in its French version ("Le juge, l'obligation de compliance et l'entreprise. Le système probatoire de la compliance") in the book La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in the series 📚Régulations & Compliance

 📘published in tis English version in the book Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in the series 📚Compliance & Regulation

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: To articulate the probationary system of compliance, it should first be admitted that Evidence is a general system, built on a "probationary square" functioning whatever the situation, and that it seems that Compliance Law rejects it, being incompatible with major probative principles, as soon as Compliance is defined as the obligation that companies would have to show (which is evidence) their respect for all the regulations applicable to them.

But fortunately, Compliance does not have to receive this definition. Compliance Law consists of all the principles, institutions, rules, and decisions which, in an alliance between public authorities and crucial companies, tend in a substantial way to the achievement of Monumental Goals. A branch of Ex Ante Law that protects systems and the human beings involved in them, Compliance Law aims to detect and prevent so that in the future systems will be less harmful than they would be if we do nothing, even will be better.

From this required action of companies, which requires the establishment of structures and series of behaviors, a specific probationary system emerges. It is composed firstly of specific proof objects, constituted on the one hand by the structures and on the other hand by the behaviors. Secondly, the specificity of compliance, often denounced, lies in the burden of proof, the burden of which rests on the company, but it is necessary to analyze the interference with the other branches of law, which compliance cannot have destroyed. . Thirdly, the scope of the probative issues is such that the means of proof have multiplied, according to the triptych of the effectiveness, efficiency and effectiveness expected of the compliance system itself regarding the Monumental Goals (and not the regulations). Fourthly, because Compliance Law is a branch of Ex Ante Law and the Judge is nevertheless at the center, it is logical that all efforts focus on the pre-constitution of evidence.

🔓read the developments below ⤵️

► Full Reference: Tardieu, H., Frison-Roche, M.A., Gouriet, M., Gronlier, P., Compliance, and resulting consequences on the labelling framework of Gaia-X, July 2022.

____

📝 read the article.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "L'appui du Droit de la Compliance pour la maîtrise quotidienne du Droit de la concurrence" ("The support of Compliance Law for the daily mastery of Competition Law"), in C. Lemaire & F. Martucci (eds.), Liber Amicorum Laurence Idot. Concurrence et Europe, vol. I, pref. C. Lemaire & F. Martucci, foreword B. Lasserre, Concurrences, 2022, pp. 369-374

____

► English Summary of the article: Competition Law has become so huge and has included so many regulations and "regulatory" perspective that we end up giving up trying to grasp it as a whole, preferring to become a specialist in one of its parts.  That would be to lose sight of the simple and strong reason that unites the whole and gives it its breath: Freedom.

Freedom experienced by the persons in their daily economic action, Freedom guarded by Competition Law, always returning to its principle: Free Competition. Therefore, the European Union places great emphasis on Competition. To make effective and to keep it in this state, “Competition Policy” is based on Competition Law, but if authorities and judges do not blame companies for their power, they do not rely on it.

To do this, Competition Law must be supported by Compliance Law, which strongly encourages companies to act for the effectiveness and the promotion of competitive principles. Competition Law is thus slipping from the Ex-Post towards the Ex-Ante, the commitments of companies leading them to cease being passive, even punished, to become convinced actors and themselves pedagogues. Something to please a great Professor of Competition Law, to whom homage is paid here.

____

📗read the Table of Contents of the book in which this article is published (in French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

📝read the article (in French)

________

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., entretien avec Olivia Dufour, « La Cour suprême a déclenché la bombe de la sécession. Que faire ? », 5 juillet 2022.

____

► Lire l'entretien 

____

💬 Entretien mené à propos du sens, de la valeur et de la portée système de l'arrêt Dobbs v. Jackson rendu par la Cour suprême des Etats-Unis le 24 juin 2022.

► Présentation de l'interview par Olivia Dufour : Alors que l'arrêt Dobbs v. Jackson du 24 juin 2022 de la Cour suprême des Etats-Unis sur l'avortement n'en finit pas de susciter l'émotion, déjà d'autres droits fondamentaux menacent de perdre leur qualité de droit constitutionnel fédéral. A commencer par le mariage homosexuel. Mais ce n'est pas la seule conséquence de cette nouvelle jurisprudence ultra-conservatrice. Pour le professeur Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, ce qui s'apparente à un "suicide institutionnel" de la part de la Cour a déclenché un mouvement de sécession. En d'autres termes, les Etats-Unis sont en passe de se désunir. Pour autant, rien n'est perdu. Explications. 

Les questions posées étaient les suivantes : 

Actu-Juridique : L'arrêt de la Cour suprême américaine sur l'avortement a beaucoup ému en France. En réalité, cela ne semble être que le début d'un mouvement de fond. Qu'en est-il ❓ ?  

🔑Réponse MaFR

Actu-Juridique : Qu'est-ce que cette conception originaliste qui semble désormais être celle de la Cour suprême 'arrêt de la Cour suprême américaine sur l'avortement a beaucoup ému en France. En réalité, cela ne semble être que le début d'un mouvement de fond. Qu'en est-il ❓  

🔑Réponse MaFR

Actu-Juridique : On comprend donc que l'avortement n'ayant pas été envisagé au XIX siècle, il ne peut pas être protégé par la Constitution au XXIème siècle❓  

🔑Réponse MaFR

Actu-Juridique : Cela engendre donc un séisme dépassant de loin les seules conséquence d'un revirement de jurisprudence ❓  

🔑Réponse MaFR

Actu-Juridique : C'est donc en vertu de cette logique que le port d'arme est qualifié, contrairement au droit à l'avortement, de droit constitutionnel à valeur fédérale ❓  

🔑Réponse MaFR

Actu-Juridique : Est-ce également cette nouvelle logique qui a présidé à l'arrêt du 30 juin 2022 sur la lutte contre les gaz à effet de serre ❓  

🔑Réponse MaFR

Actu-Juridique : En quoi l'arrêt sur l'avortement peut-il bouleverser les Etats-Unis ❓  

🔑Réponse MaFR

Actu-Juridique : Actuellement, l'opinion semble à la fois sidérée et impuissante, faut-il se résoudre à voir prospérer cette nouvelle jurisprudence ❓  

🔑Réponse MaFR

Actu-Juridique : En France, cet arrêt a suscité la crainte que l'avortement ne soit remis en cause ici aussi et certains réclament l'inscription du droit à l'IVG dans la Constitution. Est-ce une bonne idée ❓  

🔑Réponse MaFR

Actu-Juridique : Mais alors que faire pour protéger le droit à l'IVG en France ❓  

🔑Réponse MaFR

Actu-Juridique : Revenons aux Etats-Unis, comment empêcher que la Cour suprême ne revienne sur le caractère fédéral de nombreux droits ? Le Congrès pourrait-il intervenir ❓  

🔑Réponse MaFR

Actu-Juridique :Une telle situation pourrait-elle se produire en Europe ❓  

🔑Réponse MaFR

_____

♾️follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the  Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance, Artificial Intelligence and Business Management: the right measure" ("Compliance, Intelligence artificielle et gestion des entreprises : la juste mesure"), participation to the Conference coordinated by Mustapha Mekki, L'intelligence artificielle et la gestion des entreprises. July 1st, 2022. 

____

🎥 see the conference (in French)

____

 consult the slides having been used as brief notes for deliver the lecture (inf French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper having been used as basis for this conference

____

📝This work will be the basis for an article.

____

► Summary of the Lecture: Of the next European Regulation on artificial intelligence, the European Commission has a quite neutral conception of AI for obtaining a consensus between the Member States, while the Regulators and certain States have a more substantial conception of technology, wanting its power to be used to protect people, firstly from these new tools themselves, secondly from what is an amplification of the evils of the classic world, such as hate or misinformation. This is the reflection of two conceptions of Compliance.

Firstly, Compliance can be defined as neutral processes that increase the effectiveness of what would be the obligation for companies or their desire for efficient risk management (in particular the consideration of "legal risks") to prove being "conform" to all regulations that are applicable to itself and all persons to whom the firm is accountable. This is often referred to as the "compliance obligation" or "obligation of conformity".

This conception implies considerable practical consequences for the company which, in order to succeed in this "total exploit", would then have to resort to artificial intelligence tools constituting a "total and infallible solution", which mechanically generate for it the obligation to "know " all the "regulatory mass", to detect all "non-compliances", to conceive its relationship to the Law in terms of "risk of non-compliance", fully supported by Compliance by Design which could, without human intervention , eliminate legal risk and ensure "compliance total efficiency" in Ex Ante.

The "legal price" of this technological dream is extremely high because all the "regulatory" requirements will then be transformed into obligations of result, any failure generating liability. The Compliance probationary system will become overwhelming for the company, both in terms of burden of proof, means of proof, and transfers, without exemption from proof. Objective responsibilities for others will multiply. The "law of conformity" will multiply Ex Ante systemic penalties, the border with criminal law being less and less preserved.

It is essential to avoid this, both for businesses and for the Rule of Law. For this, we must use Artificial Intelligence to its proper extent: it may constitute a "massive aid", without ever claiming to be a total and infallible solution, because it is the human who must be at the center of the compliance system functioning thank to the firms and not the machinery.

For this, it is necessary to adopt a substantial conception of Compliance Law (and not a sort of Conformity Law or Obedience Law). It does not at all cover all the applicable regulations and it is not at all "neutral", being in no way a series of processes. This new branch of Law is substantially built on Monumental Goals. These are either of a negative nature (preventing a systemic crisis from happening, in many but specific perspectives: banking, financial, health, climate, etc.), or of a positive nature (building a better balance, in particular between human beings, in the company and beyond).

In this conception which appears more and more strongly, artificial intelligence finds its place, more modest. As Compliance Law is based on information, Artificial Intelligence is essential to capture it and make first connections, first stages for successive analyses, done by human beings, making what is essential: the commitment of the company, both by the leaders and by all those who are "embarked" by a "culture of Compliance" which is at both built and common.

This restores the required seal between Criminal Law and what can be asked of the mechanical use of Artificial Intelligence; this puts the obligation of means back as a principle. This restores the principal place to the lawyer and the compliance officer, so that the culture of compliance is articulated with the specificities of a sector and the identity of the company itself. Indeed, the culture of compliance being inseparable from a culture of values, Compliance by design requires a dual technique, both mathematical and legal culture. It is why European Compliance Law, because it is rooted in the European humanist tradition, is a model.

________

For further:

📘Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, 2022

📘Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2022

📘Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Tools, 2021

📓Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'apport du Droit de la Compliance à la Gouvernance d'Internet, 2019 

📕Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Pour une Europe de la Compliance, 2019

📕Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Régulation, Supervision, Compliance, 2017

📕 Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Internet, espace d'interrégulation, 2016

📝 Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance law,  2022,

📝 Frison-Roche, M.-A., Role and Place of Companies in the Creation and Effectiveness of Compliance Law in Crisis, 2022

📝 Frison-Roche, M.-A., Assessment of Whistleblowing, and the duty of Vigilance, 2022

📝Frison-Roche, M.-A., Drawing up Risk Maps as an obligation and the paradox of he "compliance risks", 2021

__________

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Droit à l’avortement : « Le processus de sécession est dans la décision » , Entretien avec Laurence Neuer, Le Point, 29 juin 2022.

____

💬 Lire l'entretien. 

________