The recent news

Updated: Dec. 18, 2020 (Initial publication: Oct. 15, 2020)

Editorial responsibilities : Direction of the "Regulations & Compliance" series, JoRC & Dalloz

General reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Les outils  de la Compliance, série "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) & Dalloz, 2020, to be published.

In parallel, a book in English Compliance Tools, is published in another collection co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance and  Bruylant. 

This book follows a cycle of conferences organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance and by its partner universities



This volume is the continuation of the books dedicated to Compliance in this collection.

Read the other books ' presentations of the collection about Compliance:


Read the other titles' presentations of the collection.



General presentation of the book : The political dimension of Compliance Law resides in the monumental goals that it aims for and which define it. These goals are internalized in "crucial operators", who willingly or by force must structure themselves and act to achieve "monumental goals", as set by public authorities and which may coincide with the interests of the enterprise. This one designs and controls the Ex Ante reorganization that this implies, under the public authorities supervision. Enterprises, even if their activities are not regulated, thus become transparent and must show the Compliance Tools effectively deployed to effectively achieve these goals. It is a major transformation of economic life in all countries because the Compliance Tools are adopted everywhere and have a global effect

These appear to be very diverse but their unity is profound and bringing it out has the practical benefit of producing a legal regime that is as unified as possible, while allowing their adaptation country by country, sector by sector, entreprise by entreprise. 

This book aims to understand these Compliance Tools to better anticipate the assessment that will be made by Regulators, Supervisors and Courts, as well as the new conceptions of the authors of legal texts which impose new ones every day, while companies must also imagine the most appropriate Compliance Tools.

This collective work specifically apprehends those on which we have few studies when we handle them on a daily basis, such as risk mapping or training or rights, letting more familiar tools shine through more transversal contributions, such as compliance programs, sanctions, whistleblowing or many sorts of settlements. agreements of public interest.

A first chapter takes a legal and economic approach. A second chapter emphasizes the role of risk mapping. A third chapter draws the game of incentives. A fourth chapter identifies the expertise required. A fifth chapter insists on geographic significance. A sixth chapter details the measurement of effectiveness. A seventh chapter explores training. The eighth chapter examines technological tools. The concluding article leads to rights.



Read the general introduction of the book (in French).



Read the presentations of the articles of the book :



























Dec. 9, 2020

Teachings : Generall Regulatory law

Au sens juridique, la responsabilité désigne le fait de "répondre", mais au sens commun la responsabilité désigne le fait d'avoir du pouvoir et de l'exercer dans les marges que donne la liberté d'action. Les deux sens doivent converger dans un système libéral.

Puisqu'il a été montré que les Régulateurs sont les maîtres des secteurs, ils seraient donc logiques qu'ils sont responsables. Mais, c'est encore un point commun qu'ils ont avec les juges, parce qu'ils sont consubstantiellement indépendants, ils ne peuvent pas voir leur responsabilité engagées. Cependant le droit positif a posé le principe de la Responsabilité de l'Etat du fait de leur Autorités de Régulation, tandis que leur irresponsabilité politique comparée à l'ampleur de leurs pouvoirs a souvent était le ferment de leur contestation.

Par ailleurs, le mécanisme général de la responsabilité est utilisé, notamment parce que les mécanismes du Droit de la Régulation sont eux-mêmes défaillants. En effet, comme l'a montré Alain Supiot, l'on peut "prendre la responsabilité au sérieux" et, si l'on applique cette perspective plus particulièrement à l'espace numérique, cela permettra de pallier les défaillances de la Régulation publique elle-même. En effet, il existe des sortes de  "trous noirs régulatoires", dont relève encore notamment le numérique.

Mais cette violence de la responsabilité ainsi conçue ne doit pas s'appliquer à tous les opérateurs économiques. En effet, cette responsabilité "proactive" qui dépasse le mécanisme de l'Ex Post vers l'Ex Ante ne doit s'appliquer qu'aux opérateurs régulés, éventuellement aux "opérateurs cruciaux, pour qu'à travers leur personne, les buts de la régulation soient atteints (mécanisme de compliance). Les opérateurs ordinaires doivent demeurer dans un mécanisme Ex Post, la responsabilité ne devant pas engendrer des "devoirs généraux de prise en charge d'autrui", car l'entreprise ordinaire n'est pas de même nature que l'État.


D'une façon spécifique et au besoin :


D'une façon plus générale et au besoin :


Consulter ci-dessous la bibliographie spécifique à cette leçon portant sur la Responsabilité et la Régulation:

Updated: Dec. 3, 2020 (Initial publication: July 15, 2020)


Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Rights, primary and natural Compliance Tools, Working Paper, July  2020.

This Working paper is the basis for an article to be published in the collective book  Compliance Tools .


There was a time when Regulatory techniques  were above all only calculations of the best tarifications, taken up by monopolistic companies, while Compliance techniques were only obedience to all rules governing us. All this could therefore only be business of abacus and badine, used by engineers and consisted only of mechanical reflexes of "conformity" to all kinds of rules with the corset ensuring that everyone is bent in front of them!footnote-1946. In the perspective of a Regulation and Compliance thus conceived, that is to say effective, it would not be necessary to insert prerogatives for people, since these could only be sources of inefficiency, of cost. and protest, where the order would come from figures set in advance and controlled processes.

Systems have since evolved to integrate these prerogatives of each person: rights. Is this evolution really acquired? Maybe more effectively in Regulation Law than in its extension which is Compliance Law. This may be surprising since Compliance Law, in that it extends Regulatory Law in enterprises should, on the contrary, promote rights by meeting the enterprise, which is a group of people ....!footnote-1986 . But the modern reluctance to define the enterprise (and the company) as a group of people and the preference given to a definition of the company (and the enterprise) as an "asset", a "good" of which investors would be the owners, maybe explains the sidelining of rights not only in Regulatory Law but also in Compliance Law even though it is being deployed in the space of the enterprise!footnote-1987.

In addition, if Regulation has long been the subject of a branch of Law in which rights have full place, the presentation of Compliance as "conformity", that is to say the proven assurance of obedience to all the applicable rules, leaves no space for the prerogatives of people, which appear rather as resistance to the obedience that would be expected of them. There again, the expectation of what would be a good ratio of conformity between behaviors and prescriptions would be obtained by a "design", data processing being the new form of calculation, improved by precision tools where the being human is not required!footnote-1989. His fallibility and the little confidence which one can place in him leads even to exclude the people and to conceive Compliance system between machines, not only to alert of the failures, but also to manufacture the "regulations" and to connect those. here, in a "regulatory fabric" without a jump stitch, entirely enveloping human beings!footnote-1990.

It would therefore be with regret, and probably because some constitutional jurisdictions still attach some value to fundamental rights that the systems of "conformity" of behavior to the rules make some room for the prerogatives of people, their more essential rights. It is sometimes said that this is part of the cost. It would therefore be as by "forcing" that rights would exist in Compliance systems, a kind of price that the effectiveness of Compliance must pay as a tribute to the Rule of Law principle!footnote-1991.

If in a poor definition Compliance is conceived in this only "conformity", leading to a landscape in which the behaviors of the people adjust to the rules governing the situations, Compliance being only the most "effective way" to ensure the application of the rules, in a mechanical perspective of Law, then it would effectively be necessary to reduce the prerogatives of people to a minimal part, because any "additional cost" is intended to disappear, even if it is produced here by constitutional requirements. In the looming battle between the effectiveness of the application of rules and the concern for the legal prerogatives of people who should above all obey and not claim their rights, especially their right not to obey , or their right to keep secret in Compliance techniques which is based on the centralization of information, the effectiveness of efficiency could only, by the very power of this tautology, prevail!footnote-1988... 

The defeat would not be total, however, collaboration would still be possible and active between people availing themselves of their rights and Compliance Law. Indeed, in many respects, if rights have been recognized in Compliance systems, it is not only because Compliance Law, like any branch of Law, can only be deployed with respect for fundamental rights. kept by fundamental legal texts, but also because of the effectiveness of rights as " Compliance Tools".

Indeed, because they constitute a very effective "tool" to ensure the entire functioning of a system whose goals are so difficult to achieve, because every effort must be made to achieve these goals, the public authorities not only rely on the power of crucial operators, but also distribute prerogatives to people who, thus encouraged, activate the Compliance system and participate in the achievement of the "monumental goals". Rights can prove to be the most effective tools to effectively achieve the goals set, to such an extent that they can be considered as "primary tools"  (I).

But it is necessary to be more ambitious, even to reverse the perspective. Indeed because all the Monumental Goals by which Compliance Law is defined can be reduced to the protection of people, that is to say to the effectiveness of their prerogatives, by a mirror effect between rights. given by Law to persons and the rights which constitute the very purpose of all Compliance Law, in particular the protection of all human beings, even if they are in a situation of great weakness, rights become a "natural tool" of Compliance Law (II).

Rights are the Compliance Law future. 

Dec. 2, 2020

Teachings : Compliance Law

Imaginons une scène comme celle-ci :




Albert est votre meilleur ami. Il est encore étudiant. Le Droit, c’est sa passion.

Il suit à titre principal les cours donnés par l’Ecole de l’Innovation et du Savoir Ouvert, dans la Majeure qui porte sur question de l’Interdépendance Autopoïétique des systèmes référentiels globalisés. Cette école a obtenu que le Mastère dont il aura le titre en juin de l’année prochaine en passant un oral écrit lui permette de se présenter à l’examen pour devenir avocat.

Comme Albert est très sérieux, il travaille le mardi et le jeudi matin dans un cabinet d’avocat.

Cela lui plaît beaucoup.

D’autant plus qu’il a fait la connaissance de Gustave, qui est Avocat depuis 3 ans déjà et qui lui raconte plein d’histoires, d’où il résulte toujours qu’il a gagné, dans des dossiers pourtant bien difficiles, mais il maîtrise l’art de convaincre les jurés et le Code de procédure pénale « n’a plus de secret pour lui ». C’est ce qu’il lui raconte pendant le déjeuner qu’ils prennent souvent ensemble.

Ils ne déjeunent pas avec Maître Constant, qui est l’un des associés fondateurs du cabinet. Il est beaucoup trop important. D’ailleurs il n’est jamais disponible, car il passe son temps en réunion, en avion, en conférence ou bien on ne sait pas où il est … La vie des avocats, cela a ses secrets, aussi.

Au cours d’un déjeuner, Gustave semble manquer d’appétit. Lui toujours si content de lui qu’il dévore toujours le plat du jour… Il raconte à Albert qu’il avait trouvé un client en or, Damien ! Un peu voyant dans ses costumes, peut-être, mais tout le monde ne peut pas avoir l’élégance discrète des costumes bleu nuit de Maître Constant…. Damien lui a indiqué ce matin qu’il allait transférer de l’argent pour acheter les douaniers d’un port lointain et qu’il convenait, par sécurité juridique, que ces fonds passent par un compte CARPA, le sien. Gustave, encore frais de ses cours, avait bondi et dans un élan admirable, en faisant de grands gestes, - pour un peu il aurait pris sa robe qui était sur le porte-manteau -, avait évoqué Domat, Pothier, Cicéron, Motulsky, Kelsen, Thucydide ; de guerre lasse, et ne serait-ce que pour qu’il se taise, Damien avait déclaré ne plus vouloir rien faire, afin que tous ces individus ne déboulent pas chez lui…

Il est vrai que Damien n’était peut-être pas quelqu’un de très recommandable… Le Droit contraint-il pour autant Gustave, ou Albert, à alerter les autorités ?

Car des clients peu recommandables, les cabinets d’avocats en ont parfois. Mais choisit-on vraiment ses clients ? Par exemple, Maître Constant a reçu hier Olivia qui lui a exposé avoir transféré des informations défense d’un service, pourtant sécurisé où elle est compliance officer, vers un service administratif d’un pays lointain, en échange de quoi à la fois elle dispose de beaucoup d’argent frais, mais elle craint aussi pour sa vie.

Elle est venue demander à Maître Constant ce qui va se passer si la justice française lui demande des comptes avant qu’elle ne trouve refuge dans un autre pays lointain.

Maître Constant demande à Gustave, qui demande à Albert, qui vous demande, s’il doit raconter tout cela aux autorités publiques, ou s’il peut le faire.

Comme vous êtes l’ami d’Albert, vous allez l’aider à répondre à tout cela.

Dec. 2, 2020

Editorial responsibilities : Direction de la collection "Droit et Économie", L.G.D.J. - Lextenso éditions (30)

Full reference: Racine, J.-B. (ed.), Le droit économique au XXIe siècle. Notions et enjeux, Coll. Droit & Economie, LGDJ-Lextenso, 2020, 726 p.


Summary of the book : 

Economic Law has not been so important than today, at a time of phenomenal changes in our societies. Economics are everywhere and Law is directly requested, to accompany, frame and finalize economics. Economic Law, which remain without definition, must be perceived now as a fundamental understanding tool of the realities of our time. This book proposes both to take stock of what Economic Law is at the start of the XXIst century and to give prospective analysis of what it could be in the years to come. It has been designed as a collective research based on  30 key-words (like the firm, the market, globalization, artificial intelligence). Each author has taken a notion by placing it in a logic of Economic Law. It is therefore on a transversal and thematic analysis that the book is based.

Economic Law is an open house. While it seeks diverse schools of thought, it gives pride of place to diversity. The book has been realized in this spirit. If it gather many authors from Nice's school, it is also open to other perspectives and opinions. Economic Law, through its research topics and analysis methods is in constant change. This research shows that economics is a topic which crosses every legal branches, beyond business Law. 

The book is aimed at students wishing to familiarize themselves with Economic Law process, researchers intending to explore Economic Law themes in depth, and also practitioners who are looking for keys to understanding the current issues raised by the relationship between Law and Economics. 


List of authors:

  • Jean-Baptiste Racine
  • Éric Balate
  • Jennifer Bardy
  • Jean-Sylvestre Bergé
  • Walid Chaiehloudj
  • Jacques Chevallier
  • Bruno Deffains
  • Catherine Del Cont
  • Pascale Deumier
  • Isabelle Doussan
  • Aude-Solveig Epstein
  • Marie-Anne Frison-Roche
  • Giulio Cesare Giorgini
  • Lemy Godefroy
  • Marie-Angèle Hermitte
  • Clotilde Jourdain-Fortier
  • Gilles J. Martin
  • Frédéric Marty
  • Séverine Menétrey
  • Mehdi Mezaguer
  • Eva Mouial Bassilana
  • Irina Parachkévova-Racine
  • Thomas Perroud
  • Valérie Pironon
  • Patrice Reis
  • Fabrice Riem
  • Jean-Christophe Roda
  • Mahmoud Mohamed Salah
  • Fabrice Siiriainen
  • Katja Sontag
  • Marina Teller
  • Anne Trescases


Read the table of contents (in French)

Read Jean-Baptiste Racine's introductive article (in French)

Read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's article (in French) and read the bilingual working paper on which this article is based

Dec. 2, 2020


Dec. 1, 2020

Antechronological CV




Academic Titles and diploma (for more details, s. general CV,) :

♦ Full professor of University, first Class.

♦ Major (first place) of the Agrégation des Facultés de Droit en droit privé et sciences criminelles (French National recruitment Contest for recrutement of University Professors in Private and Criminal Law), 1991, 

♦ PHD in Law, Paris Panthéon-Assas University, Summa Cum Laude ; thesis published

♦ Master in Private Law, Panthéon-Sorbonne University, Cum Laude  

♦ Bachelor in Philosophy, Sorbonne University,

♦ Master in Procedural Law, Panthéon-Assas University, Summa Cum Laude 

Dec. 1, 2020

Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., New SEC Report to Congress about Whistleblower Program: what is common between American and European conceptionNewsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 1st of December 2020

Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation


Summary of the news

Like every year since the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) and especially its Office of the Whistleblowers (OWB) handed to the Congress of the United-States a report about the success of its program concerning whistleblowers, especially estimated with the amount of financial rewards granted to them during the year. This report especially presents the amount granted to whistleblowers, the quality of the collected information and the efficacy of SEC's whistleblowers' protection process.

If Americans condition the effectiveness of whistleblowing to the remuneration of whistleblowers, Europeans oppose the "ethical whistleblower" who shares information for the love of Law to the "bounty hunter" uniquely motivated by financial reward and favor the former to the later, as it is proven in the French Law Sapin II of 2016 (which do not propose financial reward to whistleblowers) or the British Public Interest Disclosure of 1998 (which just propose a financial compensation of the whistleblower's losses linked to whistleblowing). 

However, American and European conceptions are not so far from each other. As United-States, Europe has a real care for legal effectivity, even if, because of their different legal traditions, Americans favor effectivity of rights while European favor effectivity of Law. If it places effectivity at the center of its preoccupations, Europe should conceive with less aversion the possibility to financially incite whistleblowers. Moreover, United-States and Europe share the same common willingness to protect whistleblowers and if rewarding would enable a better protection, then Europe should not reject it, as shows the recent declarations of the French Defenders of Rights. It is not excluded that both systems converges in a close future.