ComplianceTech® ↗️ pour lire cette fiche en français, veuillez cliquer sur le drapeau français
►Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Rapport de synthèse (Conclusion) in André C., Frison-Roche, M.-A., Malaurie, M. and Petit, B., Les Buts monumentaux de la Compliance (Compliance Monumental Goals), Colloquium co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Laboratoire Dante of Paris-Saclay University,
📅 September 16, 2021.
🧭 Maison du Barreau, 12 place Dauphine 75004 Paris
► Conclusions' Summary: Based on the multiple contributions of the day, the first part of this synthesis focuses on the practical interest of having Monumental Goals attached to compliance techniques.Conceptually defining these Monumental Goals as normative legal rules of Compliance Law has the first practical advantage of making clear this scattered and almost incomprehensible material, allowing us to better understand it. The second practical advantage is to bring together the various branches of law in that they all contain compliance mechanisms, the points of contact thus discerned leading to a unification of technical legal rules. The third practical advantage is to provide the various sources of law concerned with a means of applying and interpreting the law. The fourth practical advantage is to give meaning to all these technical provisions.
In the second part of this synthesis, it appeared that these practical considerations therefore justify undertaking the "conceptual adventure". This one can take three pillars, in this "cathedral" that Dominique de la Garanderie designed, this "monument" corresponding well to the adjective Monumental which is better suited to these Goals than does the adjective "Fundamental", because it is a question of building, of building for a future which is not fatal. The first conceptual pillar consists in conceptualizing the Monumental Goals so that the Compliance Law finding a substantial meaning thus gives in a normative way a meaning to all the technical provisions which serve it in an instrumental way. The second conceptual pillar consists of giving everyone their place, that of public authority, that of the company and that of the population, each concerned and each not having to take the place of the other in the determination of the monumental goals, the company being in particular free in the design of the means while the political authority being in charge of drawing the Goals, the company being able to copy them on its own account. This conception does not depend on legal systems but on goals and legitimacy, in particular on the definition chosen for what is a company. The third conceptual pillar derives precisely from the humanist conception that one can claim to have of the Compliance Monumental Goal, risk management being only a means to achieve it. Humanism effectively carried by Compliance, taken on their own account by the companies alone capable of making them concrete, is what makes it possible to distinguish texts that are nevertheless technically similar, depending on whether they apply in Rule of Law systems or in systems which are note governed by the Rule of Law Principle.
This is why the technical future of Compliance Law lies in this conceptual adventure that it is necessary to lead.
🎥 see Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's conclusion in video (in French, with English subtitles)
📅 This colloquium is part of the Cycle of colloquium 2021 organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partners around Compliance Monumental Goals.
📘 This manifestation is in French but the interventions will be part of an English collective book directed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Compliance Monumental Goals, co-edited by the JoRC and Bruylant.
📕 An equivalent book in French, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, directed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, will be co-published by the JoRC and Dalloz.