Publications

 Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A.., Le principe de proximité systémique active, corolaire du renouvellement du Principe de Souveraineté par le Droit de la Compliance, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, série "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC), to be published.

,___

🚧 read the Bilingual Working Paper, with technical developments, references and links, basis of this article.

____

► English Summary of this Article:  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).

____ 

📕go to the general presentation of the book, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, in which this article is published.

___

 read the presentations of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book:

📝 Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance

📝 Définition du Principe de Proportionnalité et Définition du Droit de la Compliance 

📝 Rôle et place des entreprises dans la création et l'effectivité du Droit de la Compliance en cas de crise 

📝 Appréciation du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation de vigilance au regard de la compétitivité internationale

📝Le principe de proximité systémique active, corolaire du renouvellement du Principe de Souveraineté par le Droit de la Compliance

📝 La dynamique des Buts Monumentaux du Droit de la Compliance

________

 

 

________

Publications

 Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A.., Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, to be published.

___

🚧 read the bilingual Working Paper, with technical developments, references and links, basis of this article

____

► English Summary of this Article:  Compliance Law can be defined as the set of processes requiring companies to show that they comply with all the regulations that apply to them. It is also possible to  define this branch of Law by a normative heart: the "Monumental Goals". These explain the technical new legal solutions, thus made them clearer, accessible and anticipable. This definition is also based on a bet, that of caring for others that human beings can have in common, a universality. 

Through the Monumental Goals, appears a definition of Compliance Law that is new, original, and specific. This new term "Compliance", even in non-English vocabulary, in fact designates a new ambition: that a systemic catastrophe shall not be repeated in the future. This Monumental Goal was designed by History, which gives it a different dimension in the United States and in Europe. But the heart is common in the West, because it is always about detecting and preventing what could produce a future systemic catastrophe, which falls under "negative monumental goals", even to act so that the future is positively different ("positive monumental goals"), the whole being articulated in the notion of "concern for others", the Monumental Goals thus unifying Compliance Law.

In this, they reveal and reinforce the always systemic nature of Compliance Law, as management of systemic risks and extension of Regulation Law, outside of any sector, which makes solutions available for non-sector spaces, in particular digital space. Because wanting to prevent the future (preventing evil from happening; making good happen) is by nature political, Compliance Law by nature concretizes ambitions of a political nature, in particular in its positive monumental goals, notably effective equality between human beings, including geographically distant or future human beings.

The practical consequences of this definition of Compliance Law by Monumental Goals are immense. A contrario, this makes it possible to avoid the excesses of a "conformity law" aimed at the effectiveness of all applicable regulations, a very dangerous perspective. This makes it possible to select effective Compliance Tools with regard to these goals, to grasp the spirit of the material without being locked into its flow of letters. This leads to not dissociating the power required of companies and the permanent supervision that the public authorities must exercise over them.

We can therefore expect a lot from such a definition of Compliance Law by its Monumental Goals. It engenders an alliance between the Political Power, legitimate to enact the Monumental Goals, and the crucial operators, in a position to concretize them and appointed because they are able to do so. It makes it possible to find global legal solutions for global systemic difficulties that are a priori insurmountable, particularly in climate matters and for the effective protection of people in the now digital world in which we live. It expresses values that can unite human beings.

In this, Compliance Law built on Monumental Goals is also a bet. Even if the requirement of "conformity" is articulated with this present conception of what Compliance Law is, this conception based on Monumental Law is based on the human ability to be free, while conformity law supposes more the human ability to obey.

Therefore Compliance Law, defined by the Monumental Goals, is essential for our future, while conformity law is not.

____ 

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

____

 read the presentation of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book:  

📝 Définition du Principe de Proportionnalité et Définition du Droit de la Compliance 

📝 Rôle et place des entreprises dans la création et l'effectivité du Droit de la Compliance en cas de crise 

📝 Appréciation du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation de vigilance au regard de la compétitivité internationale

________

Publications

 Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A.., The Principle of Active Systemic Proximity, a corollary of the renewal of the Principle of Sovereignty by Compliance Law, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published.

,___

🚧 read the Bilingual Working Paper, with technical developments, references and links, basis of this article.

____

► Summary of this Article:  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).

____ 

► See the general presentation of the book, 📘Compliance Monumental Goals, in which this article will be published

____

► read the presentations of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book: 

📝Compliance Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law

📝Definition of Principe of Proportionality and Definition of Compliance Law,

📝 Assessment of Whistleblowing and the duty of Vigilance

___

June 15, 2022

Publications

 Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A.., La dynamique des Buts Monumentaux du Droit de la Compliance (("The Dynamics of the "Compliance Law Monumental Goals"), in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, to be published.

____

► English Summary of this Article:  This article constitutes the afterword of the book Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance.

Its purpose is to show the consistency of the book, in that the Monumental Goals themselves, by their normativity, give Uniqueness to Compliance Law, giving it simplicity and strength.

Restituting each of the contributions and articulating them all in an overall demonstration, this article highlights this consistency of the Compliance mechanisms which join the primary function of the Law: the protection of human beings, now and in the future.

___

 read the presentations of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book:

📝 Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance

📝 Définition du Principe de Proportionnalité et Définition du Droit de la Compliance 

📝 Rôle et place des entreprises dans la création et l'effectivité du Droit de la Compliance en cas de crise 

📝 Appréciation du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation de vigilance au regard de la compétitivité internationale

📝Le principe de proximité systémique active, corolaire du renouvellement du Principe de Souveraineté par le Droit de la Compliance

____

This article is free access. 

Read the article in English⤵️

April 14, 2022

Publications

 Référence complète :  Frison-Roche, M.-A., Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, collection "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz, à paraître.

____

 lire le document de travail sur lequel cet article est basé

___

 Résumé de l'article : L'on peut définir cette branche du droit comme l'ensemble des procédés obligeant les entreprises à donner à voir qu'elles respectent l'ensemble des réglementations qui s'appliquent à elles. L'on peut aussi définir cette branche par un cœur normatif : les "buts monumentaux". Ceux-ci permettent de rendre compte du droit positif nouveau, rendu ainsi plus clair, accessible et anticipable. Ils reposent sur un pari, celui du souci de l'autre que les êtres humains peuvent avoir en commun, forme d'universalité. 

Par les Buts Monumentaux, apparaît une définition du Droit de la Compliance qui est nouvelle, originale et spécifique.  Ce terme nouveau de "Compliance" désigne en effet une ambition nouvelle : que ne se renouvelle pas à l'avenir une catastrophe systémique. Ce But Monumental a été dessiné par l'Histoire, ce qui lui donne une dimension différente aux États-Unis et en Europe. Mais le cœur est commun en Occident, car il s'agit toujours de détecter et de prévenir ce qui pourrait produire une catastrophe systémique future, ce qui relève de "buts monumentaux négatifs", voire d'agir pour que l'avenir soit différent positivement ("buts monumentaux positifs"), l'ensemble s'articulant dans la notion de "souci d'autrui", les Buts Monumentaux unifiant ainsi le Droit de la Compliance. 

En cela, ils révèlent et renforcent la nature toujours systémique du Droit de la compliance, comme gestion des risques systémiques et prolongement du Droit de la Régulation, en dehors de tout secteur, ce qui rend disponibles des solutions pour les espaces non-sectoriels, notamment l'espace numérique. Parce que vouloir empêcher le futur (faire qu'un mal n'advienne pas ; faire qu'un bien advienne) est par nature politique. Le Droit de la Compliance concrétise par nature des ambitions de nature politique, notamment dans ses buts monumentaux positifs, notamment l'égalité effectif entre les êtres humains, y compris les êtres humains géographiquement lointains ou futurs. 

Les conséquences pratiques de cette définition du Droit de la Compliance par les Buts Monumentaux sont immenses. A contrario, cela permet d'éviter les excès d'un "droit de la conformité" visant à l'effectivité de toutes les réglementations applicables, perspective très dangereuse. Cela permet de sélectionner les outils efficaces au regard de ces buts, de saisir l'esprit de la matière sans être enfermé dans son flot de lettres. Cela conduit à ne pas dissocier la puissance requise des entreprises et la supervision permanente que les autorités publiques doivent exercer sur celles-ci. 

L'on peut donc attendre beaucoup d'une telle définition du Droit de la Compliance par ses Buts Monumentaux. Elle engendre une alliance entre le Politique, légitime à édicter les Buts Monumentaux, et les opérateurs cruciaux, en position de les concrétiser et désignés parce qu'aptes à le faire. Elle permet de dégager des solutions juridiques globales pour des difficultés systémiques globales a priori insurmontables, notamment en matière climatique et pour la protection effective des personnes dans le monde désormais numérique où nous vivons. Elle exprime des valeurs pouvant réunir les êtres humains.

En cela, le Droit de la Compliance construit sur les Buts Monumentaux constitue aussi un pari. Même si l'exigence de "conformité" s'articule avec cette conception d'avance de ce qu'est le Droit de la Compliance, celui-ci repose sur l'aptitude humaine à être libre, alors que la conformité suppose davantage l'aptitude humaine à obéir. 

C'est pourquoi le Droit de la Compliance, défini par les Buts Monumentaux, est essentiel pour notre avenir, alors que le droit de la conformité ne l'est pas.

 

____

📝 lire la présentation générale du livre, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, dans lequel l'article est publié.

_____

 Lire les présentations des autres contributions de Marie-Anne Frison-Roche dans cet ouvrage : 

📝 Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance,

📝 Rôle et place des entreprises dans la création et l'effectivité du Droit de la Compliance en cas de crise 

📝 Appréciation du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation de vigilance au regard de la compétitivité internationale

________

 

Updated: April 4, 2022 (Initial publication: Oct. 4, 2021)

Publications

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A.L'hypothèse de la catégorie des causes systémiques portés devant le juge, document de travail, oct. 2021 et avril 2022.

____

Ce document de travail sert de base à une intervention introductive🎤 L'hypothèse de la catégorie des causes systémiques, dans une conférence plus générale, coordonnée et modérée, 🧱L'office du juge et les causes systémiques, qui fait partie d'un cycle général portant sur Penser l'office du juge, et se tiendra le 9 mai 2022 dans la Grand Chambre de la Cour de cassation.  

Il a été élaboré en octobre 2021 pour construire la conférence à partir de cette hypothèse selon laquelle parmi la diversité des "causes" apportées aux juges par les justiciables, certaines constituent une catégorie spécifique : les "causes systémiques", justifiant un traitement à la fois spécifique (en ce qu'elles sont systémiques, appelant notamment des solutions procédurales communes à toutes et se distinguant du traitement des causes non-systémiques) et un traitement commun au-delà de la diversité des juges qui en connaissent (juges judiciaire et administratif, juge pénal et non-pénal, juge français et non-français, juge de l'ordre juridique internet et juge de l'Union européenne, etc.). Ce thème spécifique des "causes systémiques", l'hypothèse de l'existence de celles-ci, a été enrichi en avril 2022. 

Ce document de travail ne vise pas à traiter l'ensemble du sujet, à savoir à la fois déterminer cette catégorie des "causes systémiques" et les conséquences qu'il faut en tirer sur l'office du juge, puisque c'est l'objet même de la conférence construite sur plusieurs interventions : il vise la première partie du sujet, à savoir l'existence même de cette catégorie processuelle nouvelle qui serait les "causes systémiques", laissant pour d'autres travaux les conséquences pratiques à en tirer dans le traitement processuel qu'elles appellent.

___

📝Ce document de travail sert également de base à un article à paraître.

____

Résumé du document de travail : xx

________

Lire ci-dessous les développements⤵️

Updated: Feb. 5, 2022 (Initial publication: Oct. 10, 2021)

Publications


► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Duty of Vigilance, Whistleblowing and International Competitiveness, Working Paper, September 2021.

____

 

🎤 this Working Paper is the basis for a conference , in the colloquium Effectiveness of Compliance and International Competitiveness, co-organised  by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Center for Law and Economics of the Panthéon-Assas University (Paris II),   November 4, 2021

____

📝this Working Paper is also the basis for an article. This article is to be published 

in its French version in the book 📕Les buts monumentaux de la Compliancein the series 📚Régulations & Compliance

 in its English version in the book 📘Compliance Monumental Goals, in the series la collection 📚Compliance & Regulation

____

► Working Paper Summary: The "Compliance Tools" are very diverse. If it has been chosen to study more particularly among these the obligation of vigilance and the whistleblower, these rather than others and to study them together, it is because they present in the perspective of the specific topic chosen, namely "international competitiveness", and for companies, and for economic zones considered, and for legal system inseparable from them, a uniqueness: these are mechanisms which release Information. 

By order of the law, the company will not only stop ignoring what it covered with the handkerchief that Tartuffe held out to it or that a conception of Company Law legitimately allowed it to ignore. This article does not examine if this revolution made by Compliance Law expresses in the legal system is on the one hand legitimate and on the other hand effective: the article measures what is happening at the regard to "international competitiveness".

Compliance Law is therefore be examined here through its instruments, and not in relation to its normativity. In fact, its instruments are intended to provide Information and to make this information available, in its presentation, in its intelligibility and in the hands of those who are able to use Information in perspective of the Compliance Monumental Goals, achieving them. 

Regarding this central notion of Information, international competitiveness will be more particularly concerned because Compliance Law will oblige the company itself to seek out, then expose to everyone's eyes, in particular its competitors, its weaknesses, its projects, its alliances, its flaws. This does not pose a problem if its competitors themselves are often subject to this new branch of Law, which goes far beyond transparency, which is already a new mechanism because a company is not a transparent organization and Competition Law that governs ordinary businesses never required this. But if they are not subject to this incredibly special branch of Law that is Compliance Law, then there is a distortion of competitiveness by the very fact of the Law.

It is possible to pretend that the markets like virtue, that they give it credit because they are themselves based on the idea of "promise", which is ultimately based on a moral concept, but this provision of Information to others, while others remain opaque, is a major problem of competitiveness, which the legal requirement of "loyal commercial practices" only very partially considers.

Therefore, it is necessary to first examine what is the economic and financial power of the information captured by the company on itself thank to Compliance Law making available to all but firstly to the compagny itself through the whistblowing mechanism, organised by the laws, differently in the US and Europe (I). Compliance Law also obliges companies to be accountable not only for what they do but also for what others do for them. Through the obligation of Vigilance, objective Ex Ante obligation and duty, the company obtains a power of Information on others which could well resolve what is often presented as the dispute aporetic of the extraterritoriality of Compliance Law, thus making accountable companies hitherto protected by their "preserved" legal system and thereby affected by the effectiveness of Compliance Law (II).

____

read below the developments

Oct. 22, 2021

Publications

 

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A.Le principe de proximité systémique active, corolaire du renouvellement du Principe de Souveraineté par le Droit de la Compliance, document de travail, octobre 2021

____

🎤 Ce document de travail avait été élaboré pour servi de base à l'intervention de clôture du colloque Effectivité de la Compliance et Compétitivité internationale, coorganisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et le Centre de recherche en Droit et en Économie de l'Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II), se tenant le 4 novembre 2021, Salle des Conseils, Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II). 

🚧Il était corrélé à un premier document de travail ayant pour thème l'Appréciation du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation de vigilance au regard de la compétitivité internationale, élaboré également pour ce colloque. 

La gestion du temps n'a permis que la prise de parole sur ce thème-ci relatif aux techniques juridiques du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation et devoir de vigilance.

____

📝Ce présent document de travail a donc été ultérieurement utilisé pour constituer la base d'un article, Le principe de proximité systémique active, corolaire du renouvellement du Principe de Souveraineté par le Droit de la Compliance, lequel est publié

📕dans sa version française dans l'ouvrage Les buts monumentaux de la Compliancedans la collection 📚 Régulations & Compliance

 📘dans sa version anglaise dans l'ouvrage Compliance Monumental Goalsdans  la collection 📚 Compliance & Regulation

____

► Résumé du document de travail : Les rapports entre le Droit de la Compliance et la notion de Souveraineté sont abîmés par une mauvaise querelle de départ, souvent appelée celle de "l'extraterritorialité du Droit de la Compliance", elle-même qualifiée en tant que telle comme une attaque à la Souveraineté des Etats, une sorte de guerre contre cette sorte de population civile que sont "ses" entreprises, frappées par des sanctions économiques. Dans une confusion juridique générale, oscillant entre panique et rage, entre le cas pourtant si particulier des embargos décrétés par un Etat contre un autre, une contamination s'est faite avec la question plus vaste des sanctions économiques internationales, puis avec le Droit de la Compliance, lui-même réduit ainsi à n'être qu'une petite partie du Droit pénal international.

Le Droit de la Compliance, présenté comme outil masqué de guerre entre Etats, en a été d'une part profondément dénaturé. D'autre part, toutes les forces ont été mobilisées pour "réagir" et frapper en retour ou à tout le moins "bloquer", ou, si l'on ne pouvait rien faire d'autre, recopier l'arsenal, limitant la Compliance à la question de la corruption.

C'était réduire le Droit de la Compliance à peu, alors que nous avons tant besoin de sa force et qu'il exprime au contraire la puissance du Juridique lui-même dans un espace supra-national où les Etats sont peu présents. Ils sont peu présents parce que le territoire lui-même s'y dérobe et que les Etats demeurent liés au territoire. Or, la finance, le numérique et le spatial, ces grands enjeux de Régulation ont besoin de limites, parce que les êtres humains, même faibles, ne doivent pas être broyés par plus forts qu'eux. Non, la civilisation, essentiellement liée à la limite, ne doit pas se perdre dans ces nouveaux espaces. 

Or, la Souveraineté ne s'exprime pas dans la toute-puissance, ce sont les petits-enfants et les tyrans qui pensent cela. Elle s'exprime dans la limite, que le sujet se donne et qu'il donne. Le Droit de la Compliance, prolongeant en cela le Droit de la Régulation, est ce qui est en train de donner des limites à ces trois espaces sans territoire que sont la finance, le numérique et le spatial. En ce qu'il appréhende directement les risques globaux qui se jouent des territoires, par exemple le risque climatique. En ce qu'il limite les discours de haine qui nie l'idée de civilisation dans l'espace numérique. En ce qu'il se saisit directement de l'avenir. En ce qu'il noue directement une alliance entre les Autorités politiques et les Opérateurs cruciaux en Ex Ante 

C'est pourquoi sur la base du Droit de la Compliance l'Europe numérique souveraine s'élabore, l'industrie d'un cloud souverain se construit. Ainsi le Droit de la Compliance n'est pas l'ennemi de la Souveraineté, c'est le contraire : il est ce par quoi la Souveraineté va se déployer dans un monde qui doit se penser sans territoire en mettant pourtant le projet politique en son cœur. 

Pour cela il faut construire un nouveau principe, qui est l'inverse de la fermeture et de l'exclusion, correspondant au projet de l'Europe souveraine : celui de la "proximité systémique active. 

____

Lire ci-dessous les développements⤵️

Sept. 15, 2021

Publications

►  Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Ex Ante Responsibility, Working Paper, December 2021.

 

____

 

📝This Working Paper has been the basis for an article written in French in the Archives de Philosophie du droit (APD), in the book La Responsabilité (2022).

____

 

►  Working Paper Summary: Quel est le temps auquel s'articule la responsabilité ? La question est si classique que toutes les réponses ont été dessinées : si l'on est responsable plus aisément par rapport au temps, car l'on peut alors plus aisément faire un lien entre la situation appréhendée, sa réalisation dans le passé la rendant plus facilement connaissable, et le poids de "responsabilité" que l'on impute sur une personne, l'on peut articuler la responsabilité avec le futur. Si l'on brise le poids de cette responsabilité avec un évènement ou une situation, par exemple. Le Principe Responsabilité de Jonas ou l'Ethique de la Responsabilité font ainsi voyager la Responsabilité dans le temps, par un rapport entre le Droit et l'Ethique. 

D'ailleurs l'on pourrait soutenir que le Droit peut faire ce qu'il veut et imputer une responsabilité à quiconque pour le temps qu'il désigne, par exemple désigne comme porteur d'une responsabilité, c'est-à-dire d'un poids, celui qu'il veut. Le "responsable" serait alors le titulaire d'une sorte de "poids pur", qui le charge parce que le Droit l'a voulu pour le temps qu'il veut, par exemple un devoir d'agir pour que le futur soit dessiné comme le veut le Droit, alors même que le Responsable n'a rien à se reprocher dans le passé. 

Mais les Cours constitutionnelle défendent un rapport minimal entre la Responsabilité et le poids que celle-ci fait porter une personne, fut-t-elle morale, gardant ainsi le lien consubstantiel entre le Droit et la Morale, la technique juridique de la Responsabilité ne pouvant équivaloir à celle d'un prélèvement obligatoire.

Ainsi l'idée d'une Responsabilité Ex Ante est simple dans son principe (I). Elle est celle d'un poids juridiquement posé sur une personne soit par elle-même (engagement), soit par la Loi ou par le Juge sur une personne de faire quelque chose pour que n'advienne pas quelque chose qui adviendrait ou pour qu'advienne quelque chose qui n'adviendrait pas si elle ne le faisait pas.

Mais les conditions juridiques pour admettre un tel poids alors même que le lien avec une situation passée serait brisé est plus difficile (II). On continue certes continuer à voir dans le futur le passé, ce qui facilite le voyage dans le temps, et fonda par exemple le contrôle Ex Ante du contrôle des concentrations. Mais l'on peut se briser même de cette facilité et regarder non plus le rapport entre le passé et le futur, mais le présent et le futur : ce que l'on sait déjà aujourd'hui du futur, ce qui met en jeu le rapport entre le Droit et la Science ; ce que l'on observe de l'emprise de la personne présente sur le moment présent, c'est-à-dire le Pouvoir, ce qui fait en jeu le rapport entre le Droit et l'Economie politique.

Dans cette dimension-là, la contrainte de la Responsabilité Ex Ante est alors maniée par le Juge, dont l'office lui-même devient un office Ex Ante. Les pouvoirs obligés Ex Ante par une telle responsabilité maniée par le Juge étaient les personnes en situation de pouvoir, sont non seulement les entreprises, mais encore les Etats, qui perdent le privilège - partagé avec les contractants - de disposer juridiquement du futur, et notamment en leur sein le Législateur. 

Une telle révolution, qui se déroule sous nos yeux, s'explique parce qu'il faut agir maintenant pour que le futur ne soit pas catastrophique. La science nous informe qu'il le sera entéléchiquement. Il est donc juridiquement requis de désigner des responsables, non pas parce qu'ils auraient fait quelque chose, la dimension Ex Post n'étant pas le sujet, mais pour qu'ils fassent quelque chose, la Responsabilité Ex Ante étant un élément central de cette nouvelle branche du Droit qu'est le Droit de la Compliance. 

 

Aug. 25, 2021

Publications

 Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A.Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance, document de travail, août 2021

____

📝Ce document de travail constitue la base de l'article, Les buts monumentaux, cœur battant du droit de la compliance, qui constitue l'introduction 

📕dans sa version française, de l'ouvrage Les buts monumentaux de la Compliancedans la collection 📚Régulations & Compliance

 📘dans sa version anglaise, de l'ouvrage Compliance Monumental Goals, dans la collection 📚Compliance & Regulation

____

► Résumé du document de travail : L'on peut définir cette branche du droit comme l'ensemble des procédés obligeant les entreprises à donner à voir qu'elles respectent l'ensemble des réglementations qui s'appliquent à elles. L'on peut aussi définir cette branche par un cœur normatif : les "buts monumentaux". Ceux-ci permettent de rendre compte du droit positif nouveau, rendu ainsi plus clair, accessible et anticipable. Ils reposent sur un pari, celui du souci de l'autre que les êtres humains peuvent avoir en commun, forme d'universalité. 

Par les Buts Monumentaux, apparaît une définition du Droit de la Compliance qui est nouvelle, originale et spécifique.  Ce terme nouveau de "Compliance" désigne en effet une ambition nouvelle : que ne se renouvelle pas à l'avenir une catastrophe systémique. Ce But Monumental a été dessiné par l'Histoire, ce qui lui donne une dimension différente aux États-Unis et en Europe. Mais le cœur est commun en Occident, car il s'agit toujours de détecter et de prévenir ce qui pourrait produire une catastrophe systémique future, ce qui relève de "buts monumentaux négatifs", voire d'agir pour que l'avenir soit différent positivement ("buts monumentaux positifs"), l'ensemble s'articulant dans la notion de "souci d'autrui", les Buts Monumentaux unifiant ainsi le Droit de la Compliance. 

En cela, ils révèlent et renforcent la nature toujours systémique du Droit de la compliance, comme gestion des risques systémiques et prolongement du Droit de la Régulation, en dehors de tout secteur, ce qui rend disponibles des solutions pour les espaces non-sectoriels, notamment l'espace numérique. Parce que vouloir empêcher le futur (faire qu'un mal n'advienne pas ; faire qu'un bien advienne) est par nature politique. Le Droit de la Compliance concrétise par nature des ambitions de nature politique, notamment dans ses buts monumentaux positifs, notamment l'égalité effectif entre les êtres humains, y compris les êtres humains géographiquement lointains ou futurs. 

Les conséquences pratiques de cette définition du Droit de la Compliance par les Buts Monumentaux sont immenses. A contrario, cela permet d'éviter les excès d'un "droit de la conformité" visant à l'effectivité de toutes les réglementations applicables, perspective très dangereuse. Cela permet de sélectionner les outils efficaces au regard de ces buts, de saisir l'esprit de la matière sans être enfermé dans son flot de lettres. Cela conduit à ne pas dissocier la puissance requise des entreprises et la supervision permanente que les autorités publiques doivent exercer sur celles-ci. 

L'on peut donc attendre beaucoup d'une telle définition du Droit de la Compliance par ses Buts Monumentaux. Elle engendre une alliance entre le Politique, légitime à édicter les Buts Monumentaux, et les opérateurs cruciaux, en position de les concrétiser et désignés parce qu'aptes à le faire. Elle permet de dégager des solutions juridiques globales pour des difficultés systémiques globales a priori insurmontables, notamment en matière climatique et pour la protection effective des personnes dans le monde désormais numérique où nous vivons. Elle exprime des valeurs pouvant réunir les êtres humains.

En cela, le Droit de la Compliance construit sur les Buts Monumentaux constitue aussi un pari. Même si l'exigence de "conformité" s'articule avec cette conception d'avance de ce qu'est le Droit de la Compliance, celui-ci repose sur l'aptitude humaine à être libre, alors que la conformité suppose davantage l'aptitude humaine à obéir. 

C'est pourquoi le Droit de la Compliance, défini par les Buts Monumentaux, est essentiel pour notre avenir, alors que le droit de la conformité ne l'est pas.

________

Lire les développements ci-dessous ⤵️

Feb. 8, 2021

Publications

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'invention de la vigilance : un terme nouveau pour une Responsabilité en Ex Ante, Document de travail, février 2021. 

____

Ce document de travail sert de base à une conférence donnée à Oslo le 9 février 2021.

Pour aller plus loin, ➡️La Responsabilité Ex Ante2022

____

 

Lire ci-dessous le document de travail⤵️

Updated: Dec. 21, 2020 (Initial publication: Dec. 11, 2019)

Publications

This working document serves as the basis for two conference given in the symposium made under the direction of Lucien Rapp, Les incitations, outils de la Compliance ("Incitations: Compliance Tools").

Référence : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance et Incitations : un couple à propulser, in Faculté de droit de l'Université Toulouse-Capitole, et Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC),Les incitations, outils de la Compliance, 12 décembre 2019, Toulouse. 

This Working Paper has been the basis for two conferences in the colloquium in Toulouse (France) under the scientific direction of Lucien Rapp, about Les incitations, outils de la Compliance ("Incitations, as Compliance Tools"), on December 12, 2019, the first one about The sanction as incitation and the second one about Incitations and Compliance Law (synthesis of this colloquium). sur le thème de la sanction comme incitation, la seconde en synthèse de ce colloque sur 

After it has been the basis for the article, to be published in the books Les outils de la Compliance and Compliance Tools in the Series Régulations & Compliance.

Read a general presentation of this book.  

____

Summary of this Working Paper: Compliance and Incentives appear at first glance to be totally opposite. Not only because sanctions are at the heart of Compliance and that sanction is associated with constraint while incentive is associated with non-constrained!footnote-2044, but also because incentives are linked to self-regulation and that Compliance Law requires a strong presence of public authorities. Thus, one should choose: either Compliance or Incentives! Either the effectiveness of one or the effectiveness of the others; either the techniques of one, or the techniques of others; either the philosophy of one or the philosophy of the others. Resign yourself to the waste that such a necessary choice would involve. But putting the terms thus is thinking poorly about the situations and reducing the fields of the solutions which they call for. If we take a rich definition of Compliance Law, we can on the contrary articulate Compliance and Incentives.

To do this, the concept of “incentive Compliance” should be developed. This concept is not only appropriate, but it is necessary in a new conception of Sovereignty. For example for the digital Europe.

_________

 

Read the developments below. 

 

1

Voir cette question analysée d’une façon autonome, Frison-Roche, M.A., Résoudre la contradiction entre « sanction » et « incitation » sous le feu du Droit de la Compliance, 2020.

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

Publications

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 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. 

1

Contre cela, la critique radicale, savante et fondée d'Alain Supiot, dans l'ensemble de son oeuvre et plus particulièrement dans La gouvernance par les nombres, 2015. 

2

Sur la définition de l'entreprise comme un groupe de personnes qui se réunissent pour entreprise, v. le travail de référence d'Alain Supiot, par exemple son article d'introduction "L'entreprise...", dans l'ouvrage qu'il a dirigé L'entreprise dans la mondialisation ...., 2015 ...

3

Si l'entreprise pouvait renaître comme idée de cristallisation d'une idée commune entre des personnes, naturellement titulaires de droits subjectifs, exerçant ensemble leur liberté d'entreprendre pour réaliser un projet commun, ce qui correspond à la définition classique du contrat d'entreprise donnée à l'article 1832 du Code civil, cela renforcerait considérablement la présence des droits subjectifs dans le Droit de la Compliance et conforterait la nature humaniste de celui-ci.

En outre, dans une telle définition la loi de la majorité, qui n'est qu'une loi de fonctionnement d'une catégorie de sociétés que sont les sociétés de capitaux, deviendrait moins puissante, au profit des "droits propres" de tout associé (au-delà du cercle des sociétés de personnes), sans qu'il soit besoin d'aller chercher au-delà du cercle des associés ou titulaires de titres émis par la société ou l'entreprise (dit shareholders) et d'aller donner le "droit à la parole" à des personnes qui, parce qu'elles sont "concernées" (les "parties prenantes", les skateholders) ont désormais de plus en plus le "droit à la parole". 

4

La Compliance by Design reflète ces tensions. Elles sont particulièrement bien décrites par Cécile Granier. V. ....

5

Contre cette conception de la légalité, qui prévoit tout et à laquelle il faudrait prouver par avance et que l'on se "conforme" entièrement, ce qui est contraire aux principes mêmes du libéralisme dont le principe est la liberté d'agir et non pas l'obéissance, Carbonnier affirme que les règles sont faites ne pas s'appliquer et qu'elles ne sont que le "mince vernis" des choses, qu'il convenait de se méfier de la "passion du Droit". V. not. son dernier ouvrage Droit et passion du droit sous la Vième République, 1995. Carbonnier est considéré comme le plus grand juriste français du XXième siècle. Il rédigea les lois qui réformèrent en profondeur le Code civil et publia des ouvrages sur "l'art législatif". 

6

Au contraire, l'Etat de Droit n'est pas un coût extérieur au système de Compliance efficace, que celui-ci doit internaliser. Il est le fondement même du Droit de la Compliance. Voir dans ce sens la démonstration faite par le président de la Cour de Justice de l'Union européenne, Koen Laearnt, ..., in Pour une Europe de la Compliance, 2019. 

7

Sur la démonstration comme quoi la Constitution, en ce qu'elle contient de l'incalculable, est broyée dans cette façon de faire, v. Alain Supiot, Intervention 2019

Dec. 2, 2020

Publications

Nov. 1, 2020

Publications

Sept. 16, 2020

Publications

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Se tenir bien dans l'espace numérique, in Penser le droit de la pensée. Mélanges en l'honneur de Michel Vivant, Lexis Nexis and Dalloz, 2020, pp. 155-168

Read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's article (in French)

Read the working paper, written in English, on which this article is based, enriched with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks

 

Summary of the article: 

The digital space is one of the scarce spaces not framed by a specific branch of Law, Freedom also offering opportunity to its actors to not "behave well", that is to express and diffuse broadly and immediately hateful thoughts through Hate speechs, which remained before in private or limited circles. The intimacy of Law and of the legal notion of Person is broken: Digital permits to individuals or organizations to act as demultiplied and anonymous characters, digital depersonalized actors who carry behaviors that are hurtful to other's dignity. 

Against that, Compliance Law offers an appropriate solution: internalizing in digital crucial operators the mission to disciplinary and substantially hold the digital space. The digital space has been structured by powerful firms able to maintain order. Because Law must not reduce digital space to be only a neutral market of digital prestations, these crucial operators, like social networks or search engines, must be forced to substantially control behaviors. It could be about an obligation of internet users to act with their face uncover, "real identity" policy controlled by firms, and to respect others' rights, privacy rights, dignity, intellectual property rights. In their Regulatory function, digital crucial firms must be supervised by public authorities. 

Thus, Compliance law substantially defined is the protector of the person as "subject of law" in the digital space, by the respect that others must have, this space passing from the status of free space to the one of civilized space, in which everyone is obliged to behave well. 

______

 

Read to go further: 

June 18, 2020

Publications

This working document, "The Dreamed Compliance Law", is the basis for an article, written in French, "La compliance" (Compliance), inserted in the collective work to be published under the direction of Jean-Baptiste Racine, Le Droit économique du XXIème siècle (The XXIe century Economic Law , in the Serie Droit & Economie LGDJ-Lextenso, 2020.

________

 

No one can know what the Law of the 21st century will be. Pretending to know it is just not to realize its ignorance. Why then writing about it, since the future is always surprising?

One can only write about the unknown part of the Law of tomorrow. If the future is then modeled on what was written, so much the better for the prophet, a tribute that can, for example, be paid to Pierre Godé!footnote-1813 who described in 1999 what was going to be 10 years later "Law of the future" constituted by Environmental Law!footnote-1804. If the future denies the author or if its contours in no way follow the lines of the written word, this is not serious since the writing of the Law, even if it has the specificity of being partly prescriptive in that it has the power to write the future, a normative pen that rounds up letters!footnote-1805, it participates in all writing: above all to be that of a dream.

Lévi-Strauss argued that teaching is defined as dreaming out loud. Teaching and describing the Law of a century that we will never know gives even more freedom to dream about it. This freedom increases when the object is a branch of Law in the process of being born, state of the stammering "Compliance Law" of which some still maintain, as it was made for Regulation Law, that there is not existing. The hand can then, as it pleases, trace its beautiful or hideous features: what face will Compliance Law have, as soon as we assume that it will exist?

It may as well be a nightmare (I) as a happy dream (II).

It is up to us to choose in which category this branch of Law will flourish. Because what we can be sure of is this fulfillment. It is certainly already taking sides to presuppose the very existence of Compliance Law. Not only to consider it possibility with hostility because to be an enemy of something or someone is already to recognize their existence. Before that, two objections radically block the very existence of Compliance Law and their shadow remains in the future of it!footnote-1809.

Firstly, it is said that Compliance does not come under Law, but for example only ethics since it would consist in keeping well in companies which care about the interest of others or the planet, for example by spontaneous care of the environment; Compliance being a crystallization of social responsibility, the one for which we have our conscience, we express our "raison d'être" and we are not accountable!footnote-1807. Or it would consist in technologically putting in place tools for capturing technical information using data storage and processing methods. Compliance is then a sub-category of "Data Regulation"!!footnote-1814, a mechanical concept in which Law is no more present. In these two perspectives, Compliance Law cannot exist, no more tomorrow than it would exist today. These two radical conceptions, completely entrusting Compliance mechanisms to everyone except lawyers, do not make sense because it suffices to note the development of judgments and laws to measure the legal phenomenon already present!footnote-1808.

Second, there would be many Compliance mechanisms but insufficient to constitute a branch of Law. Indeed we would find Compliance in Company Law, Labor Law, Financial Law, Banking Law, Criminal Law, Administrative Law, European Law, International Law, etc.

These classic branches, which have been formed for so long, depending on the point of view adopted, would gain in modernity or be threatened with decay by this kind of extension which will be Compliance. There would thus be as many "little legal sectoral rules" as there are branches of law. These new internal developments would be like a new bud, on which care should be taken - if the tree regains its strength - or a weed to be eradicated - if the French garden loses its perspective.

Thus the matter being scattered as many as specialist lawyers, often criminalists or specialists in banking and Financial Law, then tomorrow all specialists in all branches of Law, this could constitute the most radical obstacle to the constitution of Compliance Law. Indeed, we would come back to confuse Compliance and the "modernization" of Law itself as a whole, since it would only be a question of perfecting each of the classic branches of the legal system.

If we keep in this half-sleep that is any projection in the future the hope of a constituted branch of Law, we must discard these two perspectives of annihilation, either in the total absence of Law or in recovery by all Law. To dismiss the sorrowful spirits who see no future in Compliance and keep only its enemies in the space of this article, let us assume that Compliance Law will exist in the 21st century. In what form and by what means, in the palm of which institutions, in the shadow of which legal system? Since it is a question of projecting ourselves onto the black screen of our nights of dreamy lawyers, let us take the current state only as a trailer. Like the one developed by the genius who by the contempt not only brought down into the flames of hell the cinema which has become a consumer industry with which producers force-feed us but offered us the vision of its future. What is what we see today the trailer? We let our imagination run wild since the trailer films are autonomous works compared to the film which follows them.

We have no idea what will happen and what we are watching from the brief and violent current images of Compliance Law, the cinema of which rather makes a hero of the whistleblower!footnote-1811 and a character of the narrow and ridiculous importance of the compliance officer!footnote-1812, does little to help us. But if we force the features of the present lineaments, the alternative of this Law in childhood is therefore that of a nightmare (I) or an idyllic solution for difficulties that will increase (II).

Everything will depend on the concept that we will retain of Compliance Law. Because the script is not written, because Compliance Law is a Law with a political dimension, that it is defined by the ambitions that we can claim to have by setting monumental goals that we are going to achieve, a claim that will make it one major branch of the Law of tomorrow, or we can abandon any claim, lower our heads and arms, and reject any claim. It is then that the power of Compliance Law, which will be no less great, will turn against us, human beings, as in a nightmare.

 

1

Mélanges Pierre Godé, off-trade book, 2019. 

3

It is in particular the idea of the movement of analysis of Law & Literature which poses that by telling the past in one way or another, by thus inventing it, Law, and in particular the Judge, invents the future and being written, creates it. On this movement which was powerful in the United States, v. Cabrillac, R. et Frison-Roche, M.-A., Droit et Littérature, à paraître. 

4

See infra I. Compliance Law as nightmarish octopus. 

5

On the fact that "social responsibility" makes it possible not to be legally responsible, cf. Supiot, A., Du nouveau au self-service normatif: la responsabilité sociale des entreprises, 2004; this is not the subject of this article and this question will not be developed here.

6

See, for instance, ..., Replace Regulation by norm by Regulation by Data, 2020. 

7

See, for instance, Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance Law (monography), 2016 ; Compliance Law, 2020. 

8

On what the cinema does with the whistleblower, with the availability of trailers and extracts from the films, see Frison-Roche, M.-A., introduction of the article The impossible unicity of the legal category of whistleblowers, 2019. 

9

Frison-Roche, M.-A., ... (retrouver sur LinkedIn). 

April 24, 2020

Publications

This interview was conducted in French with Olivia Dufour, for an article published in French in the digital publication Actualité Juridique.

Its subject is  the confrontation between the current health crisis situation and the Compliance Law. 

 

Summary. After defining Compliance Law, distinguishing the procedural and poor definition and the substantial and rich definition, the starting point is to admit the aporia: the type of health crisis caused by Covid-19 will be renewed and it is imperative to prevent it, even to manage it, then to organize the crisis exit. Public Authorities are legitimate to do so, but because this type of crisis being global and the State being consubstantially linked to borders, States are hardly powerful. Their traditional International Law shows their  limits in this current crisis and one cannot hope that this configulration will improve radically.

In contrast, some companies and markets, notably the financial markets, are global. But the markets are not legitimate to carry out such missions and counting on the generosity of certain large companies is far too fragile in front of the "monumental goal" that is the prevention of the next health crisis, crisis which must never happen.

How to get out of this aporia?

By Compliance Law, basis of, in a literal and strong sense, the "Law of the Future". 

We need to be inspired by the Banking and Financial Compliance Law. Designed in the United States after the 1929 crisis to tend towards the "monumental goal" of the absence of a new devastating crisis in the country and the world,  this set of new legal mechanisms gave duty and power of supervision, regulation and compliance to market authorities and central bankers. These are independent of governments but in constant contact with them. Today, they claim to have as first priority the fight against climate change. Now and for the future, they must also be given the responsibility and the powers to prevent a global health disaster, similar to a global ecological disaster, similar to a global financial disaster. This does not require a modification of the texts because their mandate consists in fighting instability. Stability must become a primary legal principle, of which the fight against monetary instability was only a first example. By the new use that central banks must make of it by preventing and managing health crises, Compliance Law will ensure that the future will be not catastrophic.

March 22, 2020

Publications

This working paper is the basis for an article in the French Law Journal Le Clunet.

 

When we compare the terms "Compliance" and "Extraterritoriality", it is often with dissatisfaction, even anger and indignation. On the momentum, after having expressed a principle of disapproval of such a merger, attention is focused on how we can fight against it, to break the link between Compliance and Extraterritoriality. But do we have to go so fast? Is this negative initial assessment correct?

Indeed, thus gone, it is frequently explained that the binding mechanisms of Compliance are suffered, that they come from abroad!footnote-1750, that they apply with efficiency but in an illegitimate way, without agreement of the one who must submit to it, whose resistance is therefore certainly ineffective but nevertheless justified. In the same spirit, when we start to shell the cases, like so many scars, sort of rosary, even crown of thorns, BNPP case!footnote-1718, Astom case!footnote-1717, etc., the wounds not yet closed turn into reproaches made against the rules, public authorities, even reproaches made against named people.

We are leaving this kind of complaint against X, which targets what would be this appalling "Compliance", this Law which would be both hostile and mechanical which would not have been able to stay within the limits of borders, Compliance being thus placed in contrast to sovereignty and protection, which presuppose staying within its limits!footnote-1716 and being able to protect companies from abroad. More concretely, this presentation targets more directly the United States, which uses "the legal weapon", slipped under what is then designated as "the artifice of the Law" with extraterritorial scope. But this effect would in reality be the very object of the whole: their hegemonic will to better organize at least a global racket, notably through the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and at best a world government through notably the embargoes.Those who believed otherwise would be naive or foolish. This silences the opponents because who likes this costume? So the world would be put in a ruled cut; what the mafia could not have done, Compliance Law would have obtained, offering the whole world to the United States thanks to the extraterritoriality of its national Law.

Compliance Law would thus become the very negation of Law, since it has the effect, even the purpose (barely concealed by strategic, powerful and shameless States), of counting borders for nothing, whereas Public International Law, in that it is built between the sovereign subjects of law that are the States presupposes the primary respect for borders to better exceed them while Private International Law takes the same postulate to better welcome foreign Law in situations presenting a foreign element!footnote-1726. Jurists believed in the force of Law; by Compliance, we would return to the sad reality that only the powerful, here the United States, dominate and - ironically - it is under the pretext of Law that they do it. It would be necessary to be well duped, or accomplice, to see there still legal where there is only the balance of powers. When one is more intelligent or skilful than that, one understands that the "small" can only be "subject" to the Compliance Law, one would have to be powerful to be the normative source and its enforcement agent. It is then towards this mis-named Department of Justice (DoJ) that the fearful, hateful and resigned glances turn. 

If you see it that way, what should you do then? The answer is obvious: react!

It is necessary to save the sovereignty, France, companies, the Law itself. If that is how the question is posed, how can we disagree? It is therefore necessary to destroy the Compliance Law and the extra-territoriality of American Law which had found this "Trojan horse", an expression so frequently used. This is the basis for the administrative reports available, for example the Berger-Lellouche!footnote-1719 parliamentary reports and the Gauvainfootnote-1720 report. Both of them broadly develop the two preceding claims, namely that the extra-priority of compliance mechanisms is illegitimate and harmful, since it is a mechanism invented by the Americans and harming the Europeans, or even invented by the Americans to harm Europeans, the description being made in much more violent terms than those used here. The description seems acquired, the reflections therefore relate to the remedies. The reaction is most often to "block" the Compliance Law in its extraterritorial effect.

But without discussing the effectiveness of the remedies proposed downstream, it is necessary to return to this description so widely shared made upstream. Because many elements on the contrary lead to affirm that ComplianceLaw first of all and by nature can only be extraterritorial and that it must be. Whether or not the State in which it was created has malicious intentions. The description which is made to us most often describes particular cases from which we draw generalities, but we cannot reduce Compliance Law to the already cooled cases, as BNPP case, or to the always hot case of the American embargo on Iran. Furthermore, one cannot take the issue of embargoes and draw conclusions, legitimate for it, but which would apply to the whole of Compliance Law. The fact that theCompliance Law is a branch of Law at the stage still of emergence can lead to this confusion which consists in taking the part for the whole, but it is very regrettable because what is justified for the embargoes does not is in no way relevant for all Compliance Law, of which precisely the Law of embargoes is only a small part, even an abusive use. This overlapping is not often perceived, because the definition of Compliance Law and its criterion are not clearly enough defined, namely the existence of a "monumental goal"!footnote-1725, which does not exist in an embargo decided unilaterally by an order decreed by the President of the United States, but which exists in all other cases and fully justifies extraterritoriality, extraterritoriality which is even consubstantial with Compliance Law (I).

Once we have distinguished the embargoes, as an atypical, sometimes even illegitimate part, of Compliance Law, we should continue this work of distinction by emphasizing that the United States has certainly invented Compliance Law!footnote-1721 but only developed a mechanical concept for the prevention and management of systemic risks. Europe has taken up this systemic conception of the protection of systems, for example financial or banking, but superimposed another conception, drawing on its deep humanist tradition!footnote-1722, whose protection of personal data is only an example and whose monumental goal is the protection of the human being. This primary concern then justifies the European use of Compliance mechanisms to interfere with global objects regardless of their location, especially the environment, and to block the entry onto the ground of objects that enter, which is contrary to Competition Law but builds a legitimate barrier under this Compliance Law, in the indifference of an extraterritorial origin (II).

Indeed, this branch of the new Law which is Compliance Law is not reducible to Competition Law!footnote-1723, any more than it is not reducible to a method. It is a substantial, extraterritorial Law because the "monumental goals" which give it substantial unity are extraterritorial. This can directly contribute to the future of a Europe which on the one hand will be able to pursue, in an extraterritorial manner, monumental humanist goals, in the field of the environment or the protection of personal information or access to the Law (in particular by the technique of compliance programs) and which, on the other hand, by the techniques of traceability of products!footnote-1724, will have the means not to bring in products manufactured in an indecent manner, except in countries which do not grant value than in Competition Law to enter the WTO.

 

 

Read the developments below.

 

Updated: Sept. 24, 2019 (Initial publication: Aug. 31, 2019)

Publications

 

Summary : In August 2019, about the fire devastating the Amazon, the French Minister of Ecology says that this fact "is not just the business of a state" (n'est pas que l'affaire d'un Etat). This assertion denies the postulates of Public International Iaw (I). This supposes a new system, based on the idea that the power of the State on its territory is erased when the object that is there is no longer related to this "part" but to the All that is Universe (II). Let's accept the augur. First question: if it is not only the case of a State, whose business is it? (III). Second question: to anticipate the other cases that fall under this regime, what should be the criteria in the name of which the All will have to prevail over the part and who will then take care of the case of which the "local" State is divested? (IV). Because the perspective goes beyond the environment, beyond Brazil, beyond the States. It leads to Compliance Law animated by "monumental goals" that are the concern for the Universe and humans, in a humanist spirit. Let's go.

 

___

On August 27, 2019, on the French radio France Inter, Elisabeth Borne, French Minister of Ecology (Transition écologique) expresses it clearly:  "Quand on est sur un enjeu tel que l'Amazonie, ça n'est pas que l'affaire d'un État", that can be translated : "When we are on a stake such as the Amazon, it is not only the business of one State ".

Starting from one case, "the Amazon", the Minister, thus taking up the position of the French President, associates a general consequence: "it is not only the affair of one State".

This is not a trivial sentence.

 

This affirmation denies, and why not, the entire system of Public International Law (I). By a new reasoning based on the idea that the All prevails, as by an effect of nature, on the Part (II).

 

Admitting this, it leads to opening two sets of questions. The first is related to the following main question: if it is not only the case of one State, of which is this the concern (III)? The second set of questions revolves around the questioning of the criteria on behalf of which other cases must be seized in the name of "All " and how to do it (IV).

 
 
I. THE QUESTIONING OF THE CLASSIC SYSTEM OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
 
Since forever, but this is not suffcient to keep the system only for that, the world is legally organized around the concept of territory, which has as for corollary the notion - already more legal - of border. On this basis rests the postulate of International Law: parties, taking the legal form of States, which, if they have common interests, come into contact (A). Admittedly, the notion of "right of interference" has called into question that (B), but in the name of an altruism that does not destroy the territory. The new idea that appears here is that the territory would be no more than a part of an All, in the name of which one would be legitimate to speak, even to decide in the place of the State in whose territory an event takes place (C).
 

A. The postulate of Public (and Private) International Law: parties (States) which, because of common interests, are in contact

The notion of State includes in its very definition the notion of territory (a territory, a population, institutions).

Thus the State governs through its institutions what is happening on its territory. For example, if there is a fire, or a risk of fire, the State makes arrangements through all legal, financial, technical and human instruments available to it. It is accountable for what it does through its political and legal responsibility.

When what is happening on its territory exceeds this one, in fact (epidemic, catastrophe with the consequences exceeding the borders, migrations, etc.) either according to its own opinion or according to that of the other States, the States, being sovereign subjects of Law in  the international system, act together on a pre-built legal basis: bilateral or/and multilateral treaties!footnote-1675, having created legal integrated zones (like the European Union or the United States) or international institutions (like the IMF).

A particular technique has been developed for several millennia - but here again the seniority is not sufficient to keep the system: diplomacy, anchored in each state in a particular ministry: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which each national government has. If one State totally excludes one phenomenon in the territory of another, the progressive procedure of ceasing diplomatic ties begins.

This can result in wars.

In the "case of the Amazon" both the President of Brazil and the President of the United States stick to the classical construction of Law.

Indeed, the former asserted that the Amazon is in the territory of Brazil, thus falls under the jurisdiction of the power of the Brazilian State and the Brazilian Law, from which it follows that another State does not have to come to interfere. However, the French President takes the floor not as this forest extends also on a French territory but as it is the business of the World. On the contrary, the President of Brazil claims the closing effect, which excludes a third State from taking over directly something - even a difficulty - that takes place in the territory of another.

The President of the US federal State has said that these are joint decisions between the President of Brazil and other heads of State, sovereign subjects of Law, who must agree to organize a solution to solve a local problem . Because in the same way that States can declare war, they can help each other!footnote-1676.

The whole Public (and Private) International Law is therefore based on this assumption: "parts" of the world, on which sovereign parties (States) have taken contact, because circumstances make something that falls within one of them or several others.

This is precisely what is called into question. The notion of the "right of interference", whose evocation we hardly hear any more, had already done so. But on another basis.

 

B. The "right of interference": idea that somebody can directly interfere with what happens in a country , an idea that does not question the postulate of the International Maw, an idea that rests on something else: a " right for the other "

The "right of interference" is the idea that in certain territories, things happen that are inadmissible.

In memory of the jus cogens, a kind of "Natural Law" of Public International Law, Another, that could be another state, can come to meddle with what is happening in a territory that is closed, without declaring war. to the state that keeps its borders.

It is the need of others, for example those who die in mass on this territory, or the nature that is devastated in the indifference of the State on whose soil the disaster is happening, which founds this "right" of another state to come and take charge.

The foundation of this "right" is therefore a "duty".

 

C. The new idea: a territory is only part of the Globe, whose fate is everyone's concern

The idea is new because it is not based on altruism. And no more about self-interest. Yet, de facto and de jure , the Amazon is not on the sole territory of Brazil.

France is particularly well placed to say something about it since part of the Amazon is on French territory.

Thus the inaction of the main concerned Brazil directly affects the interest of France, a "forest" being a block that can not be divided. If we were in Property Law, we would say that we are in indivision with Brazil and that in this respect, with the other States on whose territories this forest extends, a solution must be found.

Because of the indivisibility of this particular object which is this particular fores!footnote-1644, it is necessary that the States whose territory is concerned have a say in the matter.

But this is not the argument put forward by France, particularly by the President of the Republic.

It is said that the whole world is concerned about the fate of the Amazon. It could be said that, in this respect, when what could be described as a "global forest" is well treated, its management does indeed fall within the power of Brazil, Brazilian companies and the Brazilian State, but when it is abused to the point of seeing its future compromised, when fires may make it disappear, then this forest appears not to be localized in Brazil but being located in the World, of which Brazil is only a part!footnote-1648.

This reasoning, which then gives voice to everyone, for in the world every state is included in it, is a new reasoning.

The economic-political theory of the "commons" does not account for it because it is not a very legal theory!footnote-1656

 

II. THE NEW REASONING THAT COVERS THE CLASSIC REASONING OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

The new reasoning adopted by the Minister consists in saying that the Amazon does not concern only Brazil. This forest should therefore be directly related to the World (A). This is a welcome change in the system but based on a paradox (B).

 

A. When the Amazon is in danger of death, then it should no longer be attached to this part of the World that is Brazil, but directly to the World

This forest is presented as the "lung" of the planet, it is the "future" of humanity. In this, it can concern only one State, not even the one on whose territory this "Humanity good" is located!footnote-1643

As such, without the need to declare war to Brazil, another State may speak, for example the French State through the one that represents it in the international order, that is to say its President, to say what to do, since according to him the President of Brazil does not say or do what it is absolutely necessary to do for the whole planet and for the future of Humanity.

This induces a complete renewal of international institutions.

Indeed a direct attachment to the World and no longer to Brazil gives the forest object a special status because of a goal that exceeds Brazil: save the Amazon would impose because it would save the world. Therefore, it can no longer be the subject of Brazil, which would be like "dispossessed" by a goal that is imposed on it: to save the Amazon rainforest, even though it is mainly on its territory, while other States become legitimate to dispose of this object, even if the forest would not be in part in their territory, even if they would not be affected in their own interests.

This contradicts all Public International Law!footnote-1645; because the agreement of the political representatives of Brazil is no longer required and no one yet evokes the need to declare war to Brazil, and fortunately!

Such an upheaval justifies that such an affirmation is accepted with difficulty. One understands better than first consequence, which is not so innocuous, one of the first rules of diplomacy which is the politeness, between the heads of state, with regard to the spouses of these , have be broken!footnote-1657, that the remarks have slipped on personal questions, etc.

 

B. A welcome but paradoxical change in the system

Why not change the system?

This is difficult to admit, not only because it is brutal, but because it is paradoxical.

The paradox is the following. It is recognized that the theme of the disappearance of borders by "globalization"!footnote-1647 no longer reproduces the reality of facts!footnote-1646, especially not the Chinese situation, the digitalization having on the contrary allowed the construction of even stronger boundaries. What we called "globalization" now belongs to the pastWhat we called "globalization" now belongs to the past!footnote-1660. So today we should recognize on one side the reality of borders - which had not disappeared or are reborn - but only to better step over them, since - based on the concern of the world - states, yet each in their borders, would be legitimate to go directly to intervene in the business of others. 

The paradox is therefore, on the one hand, the rejection of the allegation of a de facto disappearance of borders by an economic interdependence, technology having denied "globalization" as a fact !footnote-1649 and the linked resurgence of borders allowing States to affirm more than ever that they would be "sovereign masters at home", which should logically lead to let Brazil decide for the Amazon, while yet on the other side we witness the questioning of the postulate of Public International Law as recognition of sovereignty and construction from agreements between states, requiring the agreement of the state whose territory is concerned (except war), questioning which leads to allow all to meddle with the fate of the Amazon, as if there was no border.

This paradox leads to two questions.

The first question is: if "it's not juste one State affair", who's concerned?

The second question is: after the "case of the Amazon", what are the other cases? And how are we going to provide solutions, if we no longer have the solutions of Public International Law, that is to say, the agreement of the country whose territory is concerned and which we do not want not go to war?

If we have clear ideas on the answers to be given to these two sets of questions, then because indeed when the future of all is in progress it can not be the affair of a single State, it is necessary to question Public International Law. But do we have clear ideas on these two questions? And what are the possibilities for possible solutions?

 

See the text following below.

Updated: Sept. 5, 2019 (Initial publication: April 30, 2019)

Publications

►  Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'apport du Droit de la Compliance dans la Gouvernance d'Internet  (The contribution of Compliance Law to the Internet Governance), Report asked by the French Government, published the 15th July 2019, 139 p.

_____

►  Report Summary. Governing the Internet? Compliance Law can help.

Compliance Law is for the Policy Maker to aim for global goals that they requires to be achieved by companies in a position to do so. In the digital space built on the sole principle of Liberty, the Politics must insert a second principle: the Person. The respect of this One, in balance with the Freedom, can be required by the Policy Maker via Compliance Law, which internalises this specific pretention in the digital companies. Liberalism and Humanism become the two pillars of Internet Governance.

The humanism of European Compliance Law then enriches US Compliance law. The crucial digital operators thus forced, like Facebook, YouTube, Google, etc., must then exercise powers only to better achieve these goals to protect persons (against hatred, inadequate exploitation of data, terrorism, violation of intellectual property, etc.). They must guarantee the rights of individuals, including intellectual property rights. To do this, they must be recognized as "second level regulators", supervised by Public Authorities.

This governance of the Internet by Compliance Law is ongoing. By the European Banking Union. By green finance. By the GDPR. We must force the line and give unity and simplicity that are still lacking, by infusing a political dimension to Compliance: the Person. The European Court of Justice has always done it. The European Commission through its DG Connect is ready.

 

► 📓 Read the reporte (in French)

📝 Read the Report Summary in 3 pages (in English)

📝 Read the Report Summary in 6 pages (in English)

____

 

►  Plan of the Report (4 chapters): an ascertainment of the digitization of the world (1), the challenge of civilization that this constitutes (2), the relations of Compliance mechanisms as it should be conceived between Europe and the United States, not to mention that the world is not limited to them, with the concrete solutions that result from this (3) and concrete practical solutions to better organize an effective digital governance, inspired by what is particularly in the banking sector, and continuing what has already been done in Europe in the digital field, which has already made it exemplary and what it must continue, France can be force of proposal by the example (4).

____

 

📝  Read the written presentation of the Report done by Minister Cédric O (in French).

🏛 Listen to the oral  presentation of the Report by Minister Cédric O durant the parliamentary discussion of the law against hate contente on the Internet (in French).

____

 

💬 Read the interview published the 18 July 2019 : "Gouvernance d'Internet : un enjeu de civilisation" ( "Governing Internet: an Issue of Civilization"), given in French, 

📻 Listen the Radio broadcast of July 21, 2019 during which its consequences are applied to the cryptocurrency "Libra" (given in French)

🏛 Presentation of the Report to the Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel- CSA (French Council of Audiovisual) on Septembre 5, by a discussion with its members presentation (in French)

💬 Read the  Interview published the 20 December 2019 : "Le droit de la compliance pour réguler l'Internet" ("Compliance Law for regulate Internet"), given in French

____

 

 

read below the 54 propositions of the Report ⤵️

Feb. 13, 2019

Publications

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Creating "Regulation Law" at Dauphine, in Huault, I. and Bouchard, B. (ed.), 50 years of Research in Dauphine. 1968-2019, 2019, pp. 110-114

Read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's article (in French)

 

Read also: 

The foreword of the book written by Bruno Bouchard (in French)

The preface of the book written by Ivar Ekeland (in French)

The table of contents of the book (in French)

Nov. 7, 2018

Publications

Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Le système juridique français constitue-t-il un atout ou un handicap pour nos entreprises et nos territoires ? in Pébereau, M. (dir.), Réformes et transformations, PUF, 2018.

 

Résumé : La formulation de la question posée est comme une fermeture de tout débat, posant implicitement que le Droit devrait servir l'Économie et le servir "bien" (atout) plutôt que "mal" (handicap), alors qu'il faudrait s'accorder sur une méthode consistant pour chaque discipline à l'œuvre à ne prendre l'ascendant sur l'autre (I). Ce jugement doit être global, porter sur le droit en tant qu'il est un système. Quand on lit les différents travaux, ils ne portent que sur tel ou tel mécanisme, au mieux sur tel ou tel branche du Droit, ce qui méconnaît le fait que le Droit français est un système (II). C'est pourtant bien qu'en tant qu'il est un système que le Droit français doit être saisi, l’appréhender non seulement par ses signaux forts, mais aussi par ses signaux faibles Ceux-ci peuvent constituer les atouts les plus précieux (III).  Plus encore, il est fructueux de donner plein effet à ce terme si particulier et peu souvent valorisé qu’est le terme de « territoire », placé dans la question, terme si ancien et aujourd'hui si intriguant puisque de "nouveaux territoires" s'offrent à nous : le digital, l’Europe. Et là, le système juridique français, que peut-il apporter, portant alors ce que l’on pourrait appeler la gloire française, car le Droit est comme le Politique une discipline qui porte des « prétentions », par exemple celle de construire l’Europe, par exemple l’Europe digitale (IV).

 

Lire l'article.

 

Lire le document de travail ayant servi de base à l'article

 

Updated: Sept. 1, 2018 (Initial publication: May 10, 2018)

Publications

This working paper has served  as a basis for an article written in French in the book Compliance : Entreprise, Régulateur, Juge ("Compliance: Enterprise, Regulator, Judge"), published in May 2018 in the Regulations Series of Dalloz editions (Paris).

See the other books published in this collection (presentation in French), directed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche (presentation in English).


ABSTRACT: The Company, the Regulator and the Judge are three key figures for the construction of an emerging Compliance Law. An important risk lies in a confusion of their respective roles, the company becoming a regulator, the regulator becoming a board of a place that goes to the conquest of others, the judge standing back. It is appropriate that each plays his role and that their respective function is not distorted. If this confusion is avoided, then the points of contact can multiply and one observes it. But as soon as everyone remains in its place, we can go further than these points of contact and if they agreed, the three characters can reach common goals. This is all the more legitimate since Compliance Law, as Regulation Law, is teleological in nature, which makes these branches of law profoundly political. These common goals are technical, such as risk prevention. They can be more political and higher, if there is a shared will, without ever one of the characters being captured by another: it is then to concern by the human being. The designation of this common goal to the Company, the Regulator and the Judge can be expressed in one word: Europe.

June 7, 2018

Publications

L'on semble bien obnubilé par le "RGPD"...  Que l'on étudie virgule après virgule. Cela se comprend puisqu'il faut bien des modes d'emploi.

Il convient aussi de regarder ce qui a constitué son terrain et son contexte, avant de comprendre de quoi ce Règlement est porteur. 

Pour le comprendre, il faut sans doute regarder certains détails, certains mots (sa "lettre"), son but (son "esprit"). D'ailleurs,classiquement en Droit dans le Code civil il est rappelé que pour connaître l'esprit d'un texte il faut partir de sa lettre, c'est-à-dire de ses mots. Et là, l'on est bien ennuyé pour que nous ne parlons que par sigles : RGPD, RGPD ... Mais ce sigle est-il même exact ? Est-ce là le titre du Règlement de 2016 ? Non. Le juriste, qu'il soit européen ou américain, de Civil Law ou de Common Law, ne lit pas les commentaires : il lit les textes, les lois et les jurisprudences. Il cherche les définitions et les qualifications. Il replace les mots qui se saisissent des réalités dans l'ensemble : par exemple : la "donnée". Il en cherche la définition. Qui définit ce qu'est une "donnée" ?

Puis il prend une perspective. Non pas parce qu'il est un bel esprit, qui aime les perspective. Non, le juriste est plutôt un esprit besogneux, assez plat. La perspective vient de la matière. Mais on sommes en "Droit économique". Et même en "Droit de la régulation". Or, dans ces matières-là, il n'est pas contesté que la "norme", le principe, celui qui donne un sens aux définitions, aux qualifications, aux règles techniques, qui donnent des solutions aux cas non prévus par le texte, est dans le but poursuivi par les dispositions : c'est un Droit de nature "téléologique".

Quel est le but du "RGPD". Il suffit de lire le titre de ce Règlement. Cela est bien difficile, puisqu'un sigle l'a désormais recouvert ... Mais ce règlement du 27 avril 2016 est  relatif à la protection des personnes physiques à l'égard du traitement des données à caractère personnel et à la libre circulation de ces données

Il a donc deux buts : la protection des personnes ; la circulation des données.

Il faut donc poser que le but du Règlement est la construction de l'Europe numérique, sur le principe de circulation des données, principe libéral classique qui construit un espace par la dynamique de la circulation : c'est la perspective de l'Europe numérique qui anime le Règlement (I). Pour ce faire, quelle est la nouveauté du système ? Elle tient en une seule chose. Car le Parlement français a insisté sur le fait que la nouvelle loi de transposition adoptée le 17 mai 2018 vient modifier la loi informatique et Libertés de 1978 sans la remplacer. La nouveauté tient dans le fait que ce ne sont plus les Autorités publiques, nationales ou de l'Union qui sont en charge de l'effectivité du dispositif, mais les entreprises elles-mêmes : la Régulation digitale (qui demeure publique) a été internalisée dans les entreprises. Il s'agit désormais d'un mécanisme de "Compliance". En cela, le "RGDP" est non seulement le bastion avancé de l'Europe numérique, mais encore le bastion avancé de "l''Europe de la Compliance". Celle-ci a un grand avenir, notamment vis-à-vis des Etats-Unis, et les entreprises y ont un rôle majeur. Le numérique n'en est qu'un exemple, le Droit européen de la Compliance étant en train de se mettre en place.