The recent news

April 21, 2021


Full reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Incitation et Compliance, un couple à propulser pour accroître l'utilité du Droit de la Compliance, in Frison-RocheM.-A. (ed.), Les outils  de la Compliance, serie "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2021, p. 123-130



Summary of the article: The theory of incentives targets the mechanisms which do not use directly constraint (except to present sanctions themselves as incentives) but which leads nevertheless to expected behaviors. To appreciate the links which must or must not be done between incentives and Compliance, we should proceed in two times. 

First, the association appears natural between incentive mechanisms and "Compliance Law" since the later is defined in a dynamic way. Indeed, if it is defined placing its legal normativity in its "monumental goals", as the end of corruption, the detection of money laundering in order to underlying criminality disappears, or as the effective protection of environment or the concrete care of human beings, then what matters is not the means in themselves but the effective tension towards these "monumental goals". In this perspective, what was related to public policies led by States, because they are definitively not able to do it, the charge is internalized in the firms which are able to tend towards this goals: "crucial operators" because they have the geographical, technological, informational and financial means. 

In this perspective, the internalization of public willingness provoking a split with the concept of State linked to a territory which deprives Politics of its constraint power, incentive mechanisms appear as the most efficient mean to reach these monumental goals. They appear as this "natural" mean both negatively and positively defined. Negatively in which they do not need in Ex Ante institutional localizable sources and sanction power in Ex Post: it is enough to substitute the interest to obligation. Positively, incentives relay through operators' strategies what was the so critical and joked form of public action: the "plan". The duration is thus injected thanks to Compliance mechanisms, as we can see it through the development of it in the care for environment ("plan climat") or through the educational mechanism, which could be conceived only in duration.  

However, the opposition seems radical between Compliance Law and Incentives. And this because of three convictions often developed and that we have to overcome. First, the idea that in a general way, there would be a Law only if there is a mechanism of immediate constraint which is associated to the norm. As long as the incentive is not based on obligation, then it will be nothing... Secondly, and as if that were a kind of consolation ..., Compliance would not be really Law either ... We so often say that it is only about a methodology, a range of processes without sense, procedures to follow without trying to understand, process that algorithms integrate in a mechanic without end and without sense or that on the contrary, Compliance would be full of sense by Ethics and Morality, which are far from Law. While incentives talk to the human spirit which calculate, Compliance would be so a process through which machines will be connected to other machines, so an extra soul, where calculation has no place... Thirdly, solutions would be to be find in Competition Law because it can do without States, submit them and approach what is a-sectorial, especially finance and digital, the world being financialized and digitalized. The violence of Competition Law which comes in Ex Ante thanks to "Compliance sanctions" applying for example to essential infrastructures Law, by continuing to deny the salience of the duration and taking care of the "market power" would be also not compatible with a marriage with incentive mechanisms which rely on duration and power of those to which it is applied, converging towards goals, which are set by what Competition Law ignores: the project. This project which pretends to build the future is the one of politics and of companies, which use their deployed power in time to concretize it. It is without any doubt there that the future of Europe is. 

To overcome this triple difficulty, it is thus necessary, in a second time, to modify our conception of Law, especially thanks to Compliance Law, in which this new branch is autonomous from Competition Law, and even sometimes opposed to it, in order to the insertion of incentive mechanisms permit to unknown or against Competition Law organizations to reach "monumental goals" which are imperative to take into consideration. For example, the taking into consideration of climate challenges or the building of a sovereign identity of the data. This is expressly set by European Commission which supervises such initiatives, supervision being what is articulated with Compliance, in a couple that go beyond Regulation, and replaces in Ex Ante Competition Law, salient branch for Ex Post. All the texts which are in the process of expressing it are based on this reformed couple: Compliance and Incentive.

This couple supposes that we recognize as such the existence of companies as project carriers, project which is the creation of marketed wealth circulating on a market, which could be an industrial project specific to a geographical zone both economical and political. Regulation is deployed to go away from the notion of sector and to transform itself in supervision of crucial firms in the correspondance between the project and the action, what refers to the notion of "plan". In this, banking supervision is just the advanced bastion of all thematic, energetic, climatic and health plans, or more broadly industrial and technological that could by incentive be implemented, this conception of Compliance permitting to build zones which are not reduced to immediate market exchange. The incentive corresponds to the fact that Compliance Law relies on the power of the firm to reach its own political goals, for example fighting against disinformation in the digital space or obtaining a healthy environnement. This supposes that Compliance stops to be only conceived as a model of rules effectivity, for example of Competition Law, to be recognized as a substantial branch of Law. A branch which expresses political goals. A branch which is anchored in crucial firms whose it recognizes the autonomy with regards to markets. This makes it possible, in particular through the coupling with incentive mechanisms leading to long-term collaborative operations supervised by public authorities, not to be governed by simple Competition Law, inapt to bring projects to fruition.



Read the bilingual working paper, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks, on which this article is based


Read a general presentation of the book in which the article has been published.



April 21, 2021


► Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Les droits subjectifs, outils premiers et naturels du Droit de la Compliance , in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Les Outils de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2021, p. 301-323



► English Summary of this article written in French: In the traditional conception of the architecture of the sectors regulated by Law, and in Compliance Law which extends the regulatory techniques, rights have little place. But this configuration no longer takes place; on the contrary, rights are at the center of Regulatory and Compliance systems, and will be more and more so. They are and will be the primary tools of Compliance Law 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 done to achieve these goals, the public authorities not only rely on the power of crucial operators, but also distribute prerogatives to people and organizations who, thus encouraged, activate the Compliance system and participate in the achievement of the "monumental goal". Rights can prove to be the most effective tools for actually achieving the goals set, so much so that they can be seen as "primary tools".

But it is pertinent to have more pretension and to conceive rights as the most "natural" tools of Compliance Law. Indeed because all the Monumental Goals by which Compliance Law is defined can be expressed by the protection of persons, that is to say to the effectiveness of their prerogatives, by a mirror effect between rights. given as tools by Law by to persons and rights which constitute the very goal of all Compliance Law, in particular the protection of all human beings, even if they are in a situation of great weakness, rights becoming a "natural tool" of Compliance Law.

We are only at the beginning of their deployment and it is undoubtedly on them that Digital space in which we now live would be regulated, so that we will not suffocated there and that it will constitute for people a civilized space.






April 21, 2021


► Full reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Approche juridique des Outils de la Compliance : construire juridiquement  l'unité des outils de la Compliance à partir de la définition du Droit de la Compliance par ses "buts monumentaux", in  Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Les outils  de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance and Dalloz, 2021, p. 27-38


Read a general presentation of the book in which this article has been published.



► Summary of the article : The "tools of Compliance" do not stack on top of each other. They form a system, thanks to a unity drawn from the goals that all these multiple and different tools serve: the "Monumental Goals" by which Compliance Law is defined.

All these tools are configured by these goals and for mastering all these techniques, it is essential to put them all in perspective of what Compliance Law is, which is designed teleologically with regard to its goals. Extension of Regulatory Law and like it, Compliance Law is built on a balance between the principle of competition and other concerns that public authorities claim to take care of. Compliance Law has moreover more "pretensions" in this respect, for example in environmental matters. All the means are then good, the violence of the tools marrying without difficulty with the voluntary commitments since it is the goals which govern this branch of Law.

As legal solutions adopted show, a common method of interpretation and common levels of constraint for all Compliance Tools result from this definition. Starting from the goals (in which legal normativity is housed), the interpretation of the different tools is thus unified. Moreover, the different degrees of constraint do not operate according to the consideration of sources (traditional legal criterion) but by the goals, according to the legal distinction between obligations of means and obligations of results which result from the articulation between tools, of which the establishment is an obligation of result, and the goal, of which the achievement is only an obligation of means.



🚧 Read the bilingual working paper on which this articles relies


📕 Read a general presentation of the book in which this article has been published.



April 21, 2021


Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Décrire, concevoir et corréler les outils de la Compliance, pour en faire un usage adéquat, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Les Outils de la Compliance, series Regulation & Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2021, p. 3-24




Summary of the article: The article is the general introduction to the book on Compliance tools. In its first part it develops the overall problematic. In its second part, it presents each of the contributions, placed in the overall construction of the work.




Read a general presentation of the book in which this article has been published

March 31, 2021

Organization of scientific events

This scientific event is placed under the scientific responsibility of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Jean-Baptiste Racine. It is organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and by the Centre de recherche sur la Justice et le Règlement des Conflits (CRJ)  of the  Panthéon-Assas (Paris II) University, with the active support of the International Chamber of Commerce ICC.

This event is the third colloquium of the 2021 colloquia cycle around the general theme of Compliance Juridictionnalization.



The different interventions will be then transformed into contributions in the books La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance  and Compliance Juridictionnalization  which will be published in the Regulation & Compliance serie, jointly published by the JoRC and Dalloz for the book in French and by JoRC and Bruylant for the book in English. 

This colloquium will take place the 31st of March 2021.

The manifestation will be live broadcasted on Zoom.

To register:


Presentation of the theme: 

The arbitrator is the ordinary judge of international trade. It was natural that he or she encountered Compliance: by definition Compliance Law takes hold of the whole world and follows the paths of international trade while it can only be deployed with the help of institutions which, by nature are spreading around the world and need authorities like the Courts.

The conference is based on the already perceptible connection points between Compliance and Arbitration to better identify what is emerging for tomorrow: contradiction or convergence between the two; weakening or consolidation. We are already seeing the impact that Compliance can have on the arbitrator's treatment of corruption or the consideration of money laundering. More generally, where do we stand with the arbitrator's knowledge of the many technical issues related to compliance? Beyond these, will the courts and arbitrators be able to achieve the goals, themselves new, sometimes monumental, pursued by Compliance Law?

Through this joint exploration of these avenues, the fate of compliance clauses inserted in contracts, the relevance in the matter of private codes of conduct, etc. will be examined.

Tomorrow, as of today, is the arbitrator a full and complete judge of Compliance Law?

How, with what specificities and what controls?


Notably will speak:

  • Mathias Audit, professeur à l'Université Panthéon-Sorbonne - Paris I (full professor at Sorbonne - University - Paris)


  • Cécile Chainais, director of the Centre de Recherche sur la Justice et le Règlement des Conflits (CRJ) and professeur à l'Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II) (Full professor at Panthéon-Assas (Paris II) University) 


  • Claire Debourgprofesseure à l'Université Paris X- Nanterre (Full professor at Paris X - Nanterre) 


  • Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professeur à Sciences Po - Paris (Full Professor at Sciences Po - Paris)) and Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)


  • Catherine Kessedjianprofesseur émérite de l'Université Panthéon-Assas (professor emeritus of Panthéon-Assas - Paris II University)



  • Alexis Mourre, president of the ICC International Court of Arbitration


  • Jean-Baptiste Racine, professeur à l'Université Panthéon-Assas - Paris II (Full Professor at Panthéon-Assas - Paris II University)


  • François-Xavier Trainprofesseur à l'Université Paris X-Nanterre (Full Professor at Paris X-Nanterre University)




Read a detailed presentation of the colloquium below: 



March 22, 2021


General reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., The Future of legal uncertainty notion with regards with the treatment of extraordinary situations: economic crisis (L'avenir de la notion d'insécurité juridique au regard du traitement des situations extraordinaires: crise économique),  in "Insécurité juridique : émergence d'une notion ?", Cour de cassation, 22nd of March 2021. 


Read the general program of the colloquium (in French)


See the first part of the colloquium (in French)

See the second part of the colloquium in which Marie-Anne Frison-Roche speaks (in French)


Read the second working paper elaborated since 15th of March 2021 when appears the possibility that this website definitively disappears after the fire of the firm OVH on 9-10 of March. 

Read the first working paper elaborated in February which momentarily disappears after the fire at OVH but which was restored on 21st of March 2021, the day before the conference. It is therefore not finished.

Updated: March 22, 2021 (Initial publication: Jan. 25, 2021)

Teachings : Sectorial Regulatory Law - 2021

Cet enseignement se déroule au semestre de printemps 2021, à la suite du cours semestriel qui a porté sur le "Droit commun de la Régulation".

Comme pour celui-ci, il est entièrement assuré par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professeur d'Université, titulaire à Sciences po.

Comme de nombreux étudiants qui suivent ce présent cours-séminaire n'ont pas suivi ce cours, il est important de se reporter au matériau du cours de Droit commun de la Régulation.  Dans la mesure où ce présent séminaire est le prolongement de ce cours qui, en raison des nombreux retours des principes de droit commun dans diverses matières juridiques, s'est souvent éloigné du Droit de la Régulation, cette consultation peut demeurer utile même pour les étudiants ayant suivi ce premier cours.

La crise sanitaire actuelle rendant plus difficile l'apprentissage, il apparaît nécessaire ne pas débuter directement le cours-séminaire sur les problématiques spécifiquement sectorielles : les trois premières séances seront donc consacrées à des bases de Régulation dès l'instant qu'elles se retrouvent dans chacun des secteurs et que si certains sont classiques (comme l'existence et le fonctionnement des "Autorités de Régulation" ou des "Autorités de Supervision", certaines problématiques sont naissantes et déterminantes pour l'avenir : comme le renouvellement de la pertinence de la référence au secteur, ou l'internalisation de la Régulation dans les Entreprises, ou les buts communs ou spécifiques de la Régulation ce qui conduit à reclasser les secteurs. 

Cela opéré et ayant donné lieu à discussion, le Cours de Droit sectoriel de la Régulation vise à montrer la persistance de la spécificité de tel et tel secteurs. Il ne peut les examiner tous mais il s'agit de mesurer à quel point les spécificités sectorielles imprègnent les règles. Ainsi chaque secteur est à la fois gouverné par des règles communes à tous (ce "droit commun" qui donna lieu à un cours complet précédent et dont la perspective aura été reprise dans la perspective sectorielle) et par ce qui lui est propre, sans doute avant tout ce qui est afférent à l'objet technique lui-même (le rail, le téléphone, la monnaie, etc.). Le Cours fait place également  à la "régulation du numérique", bien que l'espace digital ne puisse plus guère être analysé comme un "secteur", ni en conséquence sa régulation comme une "régulation sectorielle". Cette question sera reprise dans le semestre 3 d'automne dans le cours-séminaire de Droit de la Compliance 

En raison de l'hétérogénéité des étudiants inscrits, il est concevable que le choix des secteurs étudiés plutôt que d'être arrêté par avance puissent être arrêtés directement avec les étudiants lors de la première séance. 

Ce livret détaille la façon dont les étudiants, qui suivent cet enseignement situé dans l'École d'affaires publiques de Science po, sont évalués afin de valider cet enseignement. Il précise la charge du travail qui est demandé.

Les thèmes des  leçons qui composent successivement  le cours sont énumérés. Comme il s'agit d'une perspective thématique les bibliographies sont insérées dans les leçons et non plus dans une bibliographie générale, laquelle allait de soi pour la présentation du "Droit commun de la Régulation" et peut continuer un intérêt dans une perspective sectorielle..

A partir de ce livret, chaque document propre à chaque leçon est accessible.

Voir ci-dessous plus de détails sur chacun de ces points, ainsi que la liste des leçons et les annales des sujets d'examen.

March 21, 2021


Ce document de travail a été élaboré pour servir de base à une conférence se tenant le 22 mars à la Cour de cassation sur le thème de l'Insécurité juridique en cas de situation exceptionnelle, notamment en cas de crie économique : voir la présentation de la conférence et sa vidéo

Il a été fait plutôt que de renoncer à faire cette conférence. Ce qui aurait été le résultat d'un "effet domino".

Quasiment le sujet même de cette conférence.

En effet, il a été élaboré sur page blanche en remplacement d'un premier document de travail, élaboré en février 2021, et non encore fini lorsque l'incendie qui s'est déclenché dans la nuit du 9 au 10 mars 2021 dans les entrepôts d'OVH a fait disparaître de très nombreux sites. Soit temporairement, soit définitivement. Suivant que les sites et leur sauvegarde avaient été situés dans tel ou tel bâtiment.

La perspective d'une possible sauvegarde de la sauvegarde de ce présent fût évoquée et la possible restauration du site envisagée par OVH pour le 22 mars, le jour même du colloque.

La sauvegarde des sauvegardes n'étant pas acquise, le document de travail initial n'étant pas achevé, j'ai choisi de reprendre le sujet sous un autre angle. 

Car s'il est vrai que pouvoir accéder à sa documentation et sa bibliothèque, lesquelles sont sur mon site, est une bonne assise pour produire quelque chose, réfléchir sans cela est une méthode, ici contrainte, qui est également recevable. 

Il suffit de regarder autour de soi.


Lire ci-dessous ⤵️