Référence générale : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Game of Thrones: a so classical Law. For the moment. Working paper, 2018,  http://mafr.fr/en/article/game-of-thrones-un-droit-si-classique/

 This working paper has been written to be the base for an article published in French, "Game of Thrones : un Droit si classique. Pour le moment", for a collective book Game of Thrones et le Droit. 

Summary. In this series filled with grandiose surprises, epic characters, reversals, and all the more so as it began to run faster than the book it was born, we would find only what we know already of Law: it would be enough to raise the disguises, as one does in a fable. We then find the classic legal rules (I), the reproduction in decal of the feudal legal organization (II), sometimes contested in the name of exogenous principles (III). But it is remarkable that the series is not over yet. But what will happen does not refer to legal issues that we do not control ourselves? Unknown season in the full sense of the term, frozen legal terrain and uncertain soil of a Law that would take the form of "faceless" and "walking dead"? (IV).

This working paper has served as a basis for an article subsequently published in French in the Law Journal Recueil Dalloz (see Compliance et personnalité, Recueil Dalloz, 2019).

It is enriched with notes, references and links. 

Summary: Compliance Law is often presented as empty and a mechanical set of procedures, in which human beings do not matter. It is the opposite.

The concern of human beings justifies it fights against the legal technique of the personality. Indeed as Compliance Law is an legal construction around Information and even in its core function of prevention of the systemic risks and its markets protection, the Compliance Law sets the requirement to know "genuinely" the person who is "relevant" - behind the legal person - for the purpose set, for example the fight against corruption or money laundering, establishing in principe what are only exception in Corporate Law or Competition Law.

In a more European conception of Compliance Law, as Law of direct protection of human beings beyong legal personnalities, from near the company and even far, humans being the real and effective beneficiaries of the new branch of Law. 

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Pour une conception humaniste du Droit des affaires et de son enseignement,  document de travail, février 2019

____

📝ce document de travail a été élaboré pour servir de base à un article publié un an et demie après sa remise, en novembre 2020  dans les  📘

____

Alain Couret est un grand professeur de Droit et un très bon technicien de celui-ci. On se surprend soi-même non seulement à devoir souligner cette maîtrise technique insérée dans l'activité d'enseignement mais à prévenir qu'il s'agit d'une grande qualité.  Cette maîtrise technique et l'aptitude à transmettre le savoir juridique par la compréhension de ses principes de base, n'est-ce pas le métier même de professeur ? Si chacun l'admet, alors désigner ainsi Alain relèverait du pléonasme...

Mais l'on entend souvent aujourd'hui que l'art juridique ne serait plus qu'un art de tordre les textes et les mots dans tous les sens, que ceux-ci s'y prêteraient, voire qu'ils seraient faits pour cela, qu'il faudrait apprendre avant tout à argumenter et à contredire si habilement que le tiers spectateur, qu'il soit juge, auditoire ou opinion publique, sera persuadé à la fin que, dans le cas particulier auquel la discussion est cantonné, l'intérêt défendu est bien le meilleur, que c'est bien celui-ci qu'il faut protéger et non pas celui de l'adversaire, qu'il faut rendre effectif cet intérêt singulier-là. Quitte à penser différemment dans le cas suivant. D'ailleurs, il sera possible par la suite de soutenir une autre cause, puisque les situations ne sont jamais semblables. Dans cette façon de faire, connaître techniquement le Droit et ses principes de base apparaît secondaire. La technique ? Cela serait les machines qui s'en chargeront. Les principes ? Ils seraient à éviter, parce que cela ne servira à rien : à chaque cas sa solution.

Par ses enseignements et ses écrits, Alain Couret exprime le contraire : le Droit des affaires n'est pas réductible à un amas réglementaire, repose sur des principes qui reflètent la conception que l'on se fait de la place des êtres humains dans les échanges, dans l'entreprise, dans l'organisation marchande. Enseigner le Droit des affaires, c'est transmettre ces principes. C'est aussi les discuter. Ecrire, dans une continuité avec l'enseignement, c'est au besoin inventer d'autres principes, tandis que les machines continuent de stocker par milliers les dispositions techniques posées là, chacune équivalente à une autre. Enseigner des principes, seuls les êtres humains sont aptes et soucieux de le faire, à l'exemple d'Alain Couret. Si on l'oublie, alors les professeurs étant devenus des répétiteurs, les machines répéteront bien mieux qu'eux par un débit infatigable les "paquets réglementaires". Mais inventer de nouveaux principes, seuls les êtres humains ont souci à le faire, à travers des idées. Lorsqu'un auteur prit  l'image d'algorithmes qui "rêvent", c'était pour mieux poser qu'ils ne le font pas!footnote-1485, tandis que Lévi-Strauss définissait l'enseignement comme le fait pour une personne particulière de rêver tout haut. 

Et le Droit des affaires, n'est-à-ce pas d'imagination et d'humanisme dont il a besoin, plus que jamais, puisque l'intimité des affaires et de la technologie mécanise les êtres humains ? , à travers des personnalités comme celle d'Alain Couret, alors même que nous allons toujours plus vers un pointillisme et une déshumanisation, à laquelle sa conception réglementaire participe ? 

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "What can Compliance Law build relying on the European Humanist Tradition", Working Paper, January 2019.

____

This working paper has served as a basis for an article published in French in the collective publication Pour une Europe de la Compliance in the serie Regulation & Compliance.

____ 

Compliance is often presented as a complex, technical, almost incomprehensible set, in that it consists only of empty and moving procedures, mechanical corpus about which the goal would be a question that would not arise.

The question of the purpose of these huge compliance devices might not even have to be asked. And this for two reasons.

Firstly it would only be a matter of following "processes", that is, mechanical and endless procedures. This conception of compliance is often called "kafkaes". Closer to closer, one thinks first of all of the book written by Kafka's The trial l and Welles' adaptation to the cinema in which the charcters are surrounded by walls that are narrowing around them, but it is rather to his novel In the penal colony that must be thought, that is to say to a procedural system of isolation which we do not understand the foundation, which makes it without foundation and without end but also which takes mainly the form of a machine in which the person is placed and which mechanically writes the Law on and under the skin of his back. This internalization of the rule in the body of the condemned - that the French legal system before the French Revolution associated only with "enormous crimes" - being the ordinary way of actual and ordinary application of the rules can correspond to a certain vision of the Compliance, detached from any purpose.

The question of the purpose of Compliance may also not have to arise for a second reason, almost the opposite: they would always be devices that are specific to particular sectors. Thus, the banking sector, the insurance sector, the drug sector, the agri-food sector, the telecommunications sector, the energy sector, etc. Then the opposite happens: too many goals! Since each of these sectors has specificities such that it includes purposes that are specific to each of them. For example continuity for energy, access information for telecommunications, control of systemic risk for banking and finance, protection and secret for private information, etc. Now, either these ends so diverse are indifferent to each other, or they can contradict each other. Therefore, to ask the question of the purpose of compliance mechanisms would be to move to the stitution of not even trying to understand "processes" to be exceeded by too many substantial purposes pursued at the same time and in contradictorily senses ... .

This is why the question of the purpose of the Compliance is not asked in a main way. Even less if it is superimposed with another goal that is the European construction ....

But on the contrary, if we confront this question of the aims of the Compliance Mechanisms by crossing it with another issue, older but also under construction, namely the question of Europe, it is possible to make an alliance of these two difficulties to transform them as an asset. That one can help the other. Indeed, both Europe and Compliance in their current states are two constructs with uncertain goals or behaviors most often only "reactive" (I). If we do not want to mobilize all our strength to limit our weakness, which leads rather to feed it, we can go draw on the unity of this Europe so diverse but which finds it unity in the protection of the human being by the very idea of ​​"person". However, Compliance Law can have the same unity, despite the diversity of sectors, and thus fill the meaning of these multiple procedures, providing the balance between information and secrets, circulation of data and conservation of that they concern, common and dialectic purpose that this European Compliance Law. in the process of being constituted can give the world an example in relying on the European tradition  (II). 

This working paper serves as the basis for an intervention in the conference held at the Collège de France.

Read the presentation of this conference (made in French). 

SUMMARY : 

For the moment, Compliance can be considered as almost "nothing" because in Europe Compliance is just a "reaction", verty technical, costly and empty against the U.S.(I). And for the moment, we only see one accumulation of mechanical sectorial constraints guided by the concern of efficiency, without associating this to the construction of the Europe .(II) On the contrary, what is before us, the tools and actors being already available : formulating the political goal of the Compliance Law: building Europe, a market where the center is the Person (III. 

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Competition Law & Compliance Law , Working Paper, October 2018.

____

► this Working Paper has served as basis for an Article published later in French in the Review Concurrences  ; read the presentation in English of this Article. 

____

► Summary and introduction : Compliance Law is a new branch of Law, still under construction. One can have a "narrow definition" of seeing it as the obligation of businesses to show that they are constantly and actively complying with the law. One can have a richer definition, of a substantive nature, defining it as the obligation or the own will of certain companies to achieve "monumental goals" that go beyond economic and financial performance.The Competition Law partly integrates its two conceptions of Compliance: Precursor, the Competition Law concretizes dynamically the first conception of the Compliance Law (I) It is with more difficulties but also much more future that the Competition Law can express in dialectic the second conception of the Compliance Law as internationalization of these "monumental goals", especially in the digital space (II).

►   This working document was intended to serve as a support for a conference pronounced in French in the conference Droit et Ethique ( Law & Ethics) of May 31, 2018 in a symposium organized by the Court of Cassation and the Association Française de Philosophie du Droit.  French Association of Philosophy of Law on the general theme Law & Ethics.

See a general presentation of this conference. 

Rather, it has served as a support for the article to be published in the Archives de Philosophie du Droit (APD). This article is written in French. 

►   Summary: It is through the Law that the human being has acquired a unity in the West (I). What religion could have done, the Law also did by posing on each human being the indetachable notion of him of "person" (I.A). But this is what is challenged today, not the personality and the power that the human being has to express his freedom but the unity that implies in the disposition that we have of ourselves in repelling the desire that others have always had to dispose of us. Current law tends to "pulverize" human beings into data and transform into neutral legal services what was considered before as the devouring of others. The legal concept of "consent", ceasing to be proof of a free will but becoming an autonomous concept, would suffice (I.B.).

To prevent the reigning of the "law of desires", which merely reflects the adjustment of forces, we must demand here and now the ethical sovereignty of Law, because Law can not be just just be just the interests adjustment (II). We can form this request if we do not want to live in an a-moral universe (II.A), if we see that the unity of the person is the legal invention that protects the weak human being (II.B.). If we admit this imperative, then we must finally ask who in the legal system will express and impose it, especially the legislator or the judge, because we seem to have lost the ability to recall this principle of the Person on which the West was so centered. But the principles that are no longer said disappear. There would then remain only the case-by-case adjustment of interests between human beings in the world field of particular forces. At this yardstick, Law would be more than a technique of securisation of particular adjustments. Law would be reduced at that and would have lost its link with Ethics. (II.C).

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.

► Complete reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Yes to the principle of the will, No to the pure consents, working document for an article written in French Oui au principe de volonté, Non aux consentements purs, to Mélanges dedicated to Pierre Godé, 2018, available at http://mafr.fr/ en / article / yes-in-principle-of-the-desire-not in the consent /

► Summary: Pierre Godé devoted his thesis to defend the freedom of the human being, freedom that the person exercises by showing his will. This will manifests itself, even tacitly, by this trace of "consent". In a liberal society, politically and economically, that is to say a society based on the principle of the will of the person, consent must always be defined as the manifestation of the will, this link between consent and will being indivisible ( I). But by a perversion of liberalism, "consent" has become an autonomous object of the freedom of the person, mechanical consent that has made it possible to transform human beings into machines, machines to desire  and machines to be desired, in a world of " pure consents","where we keep clicking, consenting to all without ever wanting. This consent, which has been split from the free will of the person, is the basis of the markets of the Human and the illiberal democracies, threats against human beings (II). The future of Law, in which Pierre Godé believed, is to continue to aspire to protect the human being and, without countering the free will of the human being as the movement of the law of the consumption had been tempted to, to renew with a liberal movement of Law and to fight against these systems of pure consents (III).

🔻read the article below (in French).

L’on présente la situation de GPA en disant souvent qu’elle est « complexe », ce qui implique mille réflexions avant d’avoir une opinion nette, voire que cela exclut d’en avoir une. La position adéquate serait bien plutôt de dessiner de multiples solutions : parce qu’il y aurait tant de cas possibles, mille cas possibles, allant de la plus horrible des situations à la plus admirable, ce qui doit impliquer mille solutions adaptées à chaque cas, de l’exclusion horrifiée dans certains cas à l’admission enthousiaste dans d’autres. Mais de position de principe, non, cela serait tout à la fois impossible, car réducteur de la réalité humaine et inadéquat, car cette réalité serait si « complexe ».

Cette complexité ne serait comprise que par quelques experts qui diront ce que l’opinion publique doit penser, experts qui raconteront les cas qu’ils connaissent dans leur diversité, puisque la GPA relève de leur domaine d’expertise. Ainsi la GPA serait une question d’expertise, dont nous ne devrions pas avoir souci en ce que cela ne concerne que quelques milliers de cas, qui ne peut être véritablement comprise que de professionnels en médecine ou en droit de la famille, et qui doit recevoir des centaines de solutions adaptées à chaque cas, solutions élaborées par ces experts.

Cela est faux. La situation de GPA est simple. Et la position qu’elle appelle est également simple. Il faut faire un choix : dire Oui à la GPA ou dire Non à la GPA. C’est non seulement aisé à faire mais c’est pour nous un devoir de le faire car à travers ce cas qui paraît si particulier de la GPA c’est un choix de société qui s’opère et dont les citoyens ne peuvent être exclus, puisqu’il s’agit de déterminer quelle est la place de l’être humain dans l’organisation économique et sociale.

La réponse positive, qui conduit à admettre la pratique de la GPA, comme la réponse négative, qui conduit à exclure cette pratique, peuvent être formulées. Les deux réponses peuvent être étayés sur des arguments forts.  Il est essentiel de ne pas les craindre. Mais il est aujourd’hui crucial de faire ce choix collectif clairement car à travers cette question qui paraît particulière et circonscrite de la GPA, c’est un choix de société qui est fait aujourd’hui et maintenant.

Si nous ne le faisons pas explicitement, par le seul jeu de nos comportements qui se superposent sur nos silences, nos ambiguïtés, notre lâcheté aussi qui se dissimule sous le prétexte de ce qui serait le discours de la "complexité", le choix se fera de lui-même.

Il est déjà en train de se faire : parce que nous n’avons pas le courage de dire clairement ce que collectivement nous voulons comme modèle de société pour nous êtres humains, nous coulons doucement vers une acceptation jour après jour, cas après cas, émiettement de règles après émiettement, exception après exception, vers un Oui.

Et pourquoi pas ? Pourquoi ne pas dire Oui à la GPA ? Il y a des arguments pour l’admettre. Mais il faut le faire clairement. En l’assumant. Dire Oui. Aller vers cette société-là.

Ou bien, si l’on ne le veut pas, parce que la GPA implique nécessairement un statut de la femme, de l’enfant, de l’être humain, et de l’organisation sociale, que l’on ne veut pas, alors il faut dire Non. Et cela aussi, il faut l’assumer.

Il faut dire, savoir dire Oui comme il faut savoir dire Non. C’est cela être responsable. Dans une société libérale, nous devons exprimer notre volonté et dire clairement ce que nous voulons.

Pour une question si importante, cette situation apodictique de la GPA conduisant à déterminer ce qui constitue la valeur d’un être humain, il n’est pas admissible de répondre à la fois Oui et Non, comme il n’est pas admissible de répondre ni Oui ni Non.

Il faut répondre nettement si le Droit, qui exprime et garde les valeurs fondamentales d’une organisation sociale et y place les êtres humains qui la composent, admet ou n’admet pas cette pratique. Oui ou Non.

Pour l’instant, à cette question il n’est plus répondu. Alors qu’il est admissible de répondre Non, qu’il est admissible de répondre Oui, il n’est pas admissible de ne pas répondre.

L’enjeu actuel n’est donc pas d’être pour ou d’être contre. L’enjeu est d’exiger que chacun assume sa position et qu’à partir de là, en raison de l’ampleur de la question générale impliquée par la situation particulière de la GPA, le Droit, le corps social et le Politique décident de la réponse, qui donne la place de l’être humain dans le système économique et social.

Ainsi, la Californie a choisi de répondre Oui, renvoyant à un certain modèle d’organisation économique et sociale. Que va faire l’Europe ?

Lire la suite en dessous. 

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. 

This working document served as a basis for a lecture given in French at the Académie des Sciences morales et politiques  (French Academy of Moral and Political Sciences) on September 25, 2017, in the cycle of conferences conducted under the presidency of Michel Pébereau,  Quelles réformes ? (What reforms?)

Consult the presentation (in French) of the conference cycle (2017).

It served as the basis for the publication of an article published  in French in 2018 in the book directed by Michel Pébereau Réformes et transformations (Reforms and transformations).

Pour lire l'article en français, cliquer sur le drapeau français.

This working paper serves as a support for an article published in French in the Recueil Dalloz.

In Lisbon, in the Web Summit of November 2017, a machine covered with a skin-like material and a sound-producing device gave a speech in public at this conference on digital. For example, a French article tells the event by this title : Le premier robot citoyen donne sa propre conférence au web summit  (The first citizen robot gives his own conference to the web summit).

Some time later, reports show the same robot walking and taking more than 60 facial expressions, the text laudatif that accompanies the images designating the automaton by the article: she.!footnote-1262.

The machine, which falls legally within the category of "things", is thus presented as a person.

Let's look elsewhere.

Women, who are human beings, sign contracts by which they agree to give birth to children, with whom they claim they have no connection, that they are not mothers, that they will hand them over immediately at the exit of their belly to those who desired their coming, this desire for parenthood creating by hitself the true and only link between the child and his "parents of intent". The mother-carrier is often openly referred to as "oven".

The woman, who falls legally within the category of the "person", is thus presented as a thing.

The two sensational phenomena are of the same nature.

They call two questions:

1. Why? The answer is: money. Because both are the result of the new construction of two fabulous markets by supply.

2. How? The answer is: by the destruction of the distinction between the person and things.

The distinction between person and things is not natural, it is legal. It is the base of the western legal systems, their summa divisio.

If this distinction disappears, and for money to flow, it must actually disappear, then the weak human being will become the thing of the strong one.


Read below the developments.

Pour lire la version française de ce working paper, cliquer sur le drapeau français. 

This working paper serves as a support for the article to be published in the book written in French, Ingall-Montagnier, Ph., Marin, J.-Cl., Roda, J.-Ch. (dir.), Compliance : l'entreprise,le régulateur et le juges, in the Serie Regulations, co-edited by Éditions Dalloz and the Journal of Regulation and Compliance (JoRC).

This work uses by links the Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual Dictionnary.

____

Summary. We have to admit it. Because in front of so numerous and so disparate Compliance rules we pain so much to figure out, we are constraint to go in so changing directions, that we console ourselves with their weight, their cost and our misunderstanding by affirming that Compliance is "complex" and "transdisciplinary", as if complicated words could mask our disarray. But "Compliance" is not a cataclysm, a bomb sent by the Americans to annihilate Europe, the new form of a Cold War in legal dress, it is a way of seeing things that comes from afar, with its own coherence and which must first be understood.

If one understands where this new corpus comes from, which now obliges companies to prove that they effectively take on the fulfillment of certain goals that go beyond them, notably the fight against money laundering, tax evasion, but also the fight against the sale of human beings or the struggle for the preservation of nature and Earth, then we can continue the story.

Indeed, not all companies are targeted by such internalization of "monumental goals" within them." An ordinary firm is destined to develop itself in order to achieve a goal which is its own. The concern of these goals can only be for the "crucial firm. "If there is to be a change in the corporate project, then it can only depend on its" position "in a system, a financial, economic, social, global system, or because it has itself decided that it would be so. The company then bears the burden of proof that such a discourse of new responsibility corresponds to a behavior and an effective culture. The weight of the rules already exists today. And it is for the moment that now, in a negative and passive way, Compliance is perceived, by those who "undergo" it (companies), even by those who apply it (public authorities).

The transformation towards a "culture of trust" is the issue between today and tomorrow, because tomorrow, it is a relationship of trust that could be built between these companies and the public authorities, because they would share information (systemic issue), because they would agree on the less technical monumental goals (protection of human beings issue).

In this perspective, "Compliance" is above all a bet, that of the place of human beings in globalized markets.

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Globalization from the point of view of Law, working paper, May 2017.

____

🎤 This working paper initially served as a basis for a synthesis report made in French in the colloquium organized by the Association Henri Capitant in the International German Days on the subject of "Le Droit et la Mondialisation" (Law and Globalization).

📝 Il sert dans un second temps de base à l'article paru dans l'ouvrage La Mondialisation.

📝 it serves as a second basis for the article (written in English, with a Spanish Summary) to be published in the Brezilian journal Rarb - Revista de Arbitragem e Mediação  (Revue d`Arbitrage et Médiation).

It uses the Bilingual Dictionary of the Law of Regulation and Compliance.

____

► Summary of the Working: Globalization is a confusing phenomenon for the jurist. The first thing to do is to take its measure. Once it has been taken, it is essential that we allow ourselves to think of something about it, even if we have to think about it. For example, on whether the phenomenon is new or not, which allows a second assessment of what is taking place. If, in so far as the law can and must "pretend" to defend every being, a universal claim destined to face the global field of forces, the following question - but secondary - is formulated: quid facere? Nothing ? Next to nothing ? Or regulate? Or can we still claim that the Law fulfills its primary duty, which is to protect the weak, including the forces of globalization?

____

read the Working Paper below⤵️

This working paper is the support for the article to appear in the collective book  dedicated to our very dear friend and colleague Philippe Néau-Leduc.

It uses the Bilingual Dictionary of the Regulatory and Compliance Law.

Compliance Law has the same teleological functioning as the Economic Law to which it belongs, which consists in placing the normativity of rules, decisions and reasoning in the aims pursued. Once we know what the goals of compliance techniques are, then we know who should be responsible for them, who must be subject to them, who must activate the rules: compliance rules must be activated by those who are in the best position to achieve the outcome in order to achieve the goal sought by the authority which designed the compliance mechanism. The "circles" are thus plotted in a rational and pragmatic way. That, all of it ("useful effect"), but not beyond that. The notion of efficiency does not always imply balancing: on the contrary, it can involve drawing circles which designate those who are "placed" to carry the burden of the rules because they are capable of producing them the desired effects. Within these circles, the rules must apply without restriction and without compromise, but they must not apply beyond these circles.

Drawing such circles requires defining the Law of Compliance itself, since on the one hand the choice of those who must implement the Compliance depends on the aims of the Compliance and on the other hand the definition of the Law of Compliance is itself teleological in nature. This is why, contrary to the assertion that the exercise of definition would be useless in these matters, which would be above all on a case-by-case basis, this effort to define and determine the purposes is, on the contrary, necessary in practice to show which enterprise must bear the obligations of compliance and which must not.

But it is enough to have posed this to reveal the major difficulty of the Compliance, that explains resistances, and even gives the impression that one is confronted with an aporia. If, as a matter of principle, what is expected of the "users" of the Compliance mechanisms must be articulated to the aim that is affected by the authors of the compliance mechanisms to them, we must have a minimum correspondence between the aims of these authors (Legislators and Regulators) and the aims pursued by those who are responsible for implementing them: companies. However, this correspondence does not exist at first sight, because the compliance mechanisms are found to be uniquely based on "monumental goals" which the public authorities have a legitimate concern, whereas companies have for their own interest . The two circles do not match. The internationalization of concern for these aims in companies would therefore be only a mechanism of violence of which enterprises are the object, violence felt as such. (I).

To resolve this violence, it is better to stop confusing the State and enterprises, whose goals are not the same, and draw the circle of subjects of law "eligible" for Compliance. It is highly legitimate to target certain entities, in particular this category of companies, which are the "crucial operators", in a binding way, as it is legitimate to govern companies that have expressed a desire to surpass their own interests. These circles of a different nature can overlap on a concrete operator: for example, if a bank - alway a crucial operator that is structural because it is systemic - is also international - a crucial operator because of its activity - decides to worry about others by commitments verified by the authorities to overcome their own interest (social responsibility), but these different circles are not confused. In any case, companies may belong to only one circle, or even belong to none. In the latter case, they must therefore remain beyond the reach of the pressure and cost of Compliance Law, in particular because they are not objectively required to realize the "monumental goals" aimed at effectiveness and do not want it: in a liberal system, it is for the public authorities to aim at the general interest, the ordinary people indirectly participating in it by paying the tax. (II).

It is by making these "Compliance Circles" of eligible subjects of this specific Law to implement the heavy but justified and controlled burden of Compliance with regard to the monumental goals that this new system  aims, that then opens a royal way in order to find a uniqueness and to increase the "monumental function" of the Compliance Law by a relation of Trust towards the global general interest, rather than the mechanical application of rules whose meaning is not understood and whose perception is no longer perceived than violence.

This working paper is the basis for an article written in French to be published in the French publication RÉGULATION, SUPERVISION, COMPLIANCEE, to be published in the RÉGULATIONS series at Éditions Dalloz.

This work uses the Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual Dictionnary.

____

This Working Paper aims to show the movement that starts from Regulation Law to Compliance Law, now in the process of being born.

In order to explain this movement, in order to anticipate the near future, in what it should not be and in what it should be, it is necessary to reconstruct how the Compliance Law was born of the Regulation Law, which has thus found the sources of the Public Services Law of which it had at first cut the roots (I).

Indeed Regulation Law has in a happy way renewed the Law but also narrowed its perspective. Today, the phenomenon of globalization and the need for public authority that States can not satisfy according to traditional legal methods implies the establishment of a sort of "global public service". This is done by the Law of Compliance which revolutionizes all legal systems, both Common Law and Civil Law (II).

Indeed, Compliance Law internalizes in some companies, the "crucial operators", the duty to make effective the "monumental goals" that the regulatory authorities have formulated and of which these companies must render globally effective. In this respect, the Law of Compliance is the extension of the Law of Regulation, which makes a new scope and in its aims and in its space. It is the whole of Law that is transformed.

The near future will tell if it is reflected in clashes, between companies and regulators, between Europe and the United States, or on the contrary by a pact of trust between the crucial operators and the Regulators. If this is achieved, the Law of Compliance, expressing the political dimension of the Law of Regulation, expressing the share of companies that ceases to be neutralized by the mechanics of the markets, will be an advancement of the Law. It is in this perspective that we must build the European Compliance Law.

Compliance. Trust. Two words that come more and more often than before at our readers' eyes or listeners' ears. And yet they do not seem to match well. They even seem to repel each other.

Indeed, Compliance is the way in which Public Authorities trust certain private operators, not in themselves, but with their structural capacities to mechanically capture the information that these authorities need (I).

This presupposes a vision of the world in which Companies are powerful and powerful alone but are not virtuous, while Public Authorities, such as the Public Prosecutor's Office or Regulators, are weak but virtuous alone. Such a conception of Compliance transforms companies into automata. Such a vision of the world has no future: only human beings can be trusted, whose fallibility must be accepted, as Compliance is then the expression of a relationship built on trust that is to be seen between non-mechanical operators, namely public Institutions and private Operators, who can both have in common concern for an interest which goes beyond them and which was formerly called the general interest (II).

From this reality, no new doubt for private companies, but which explains the strange intimacy between the violent Compliance Law and the new spontaneous order of Corporate Social Responsibility, it is up to them to demonstrate this concern Cf others that it shares with the Public Authorities, except to fall in Compliance reduced to costly procedures, empty endless staked out of sanctions without control.

It is thus for Companies to make this branch of Compliance Law emerging become what can be the best, when it is possible that it becomes what would be the worst.

 Bank and Competition do not mix. It is not so much that the banks would act as repeat offenders on which the competition authorities should raise the tone by increasingly heavy penalties so that the competitive lesson is finally heard. It is rather two orders confronting each other, two incomprehensions face to face. Indeed, the banks find it appropriate to agree in order for the banking system to function. Moreover, governments demand them political behavior by financing the economy when the economy does not rely on financial markets. Hence, how would they themselves behave in a market consisting of selfish behavior and aggression towards their counterparts?

If we plunge into this melting pot of incomprehension that engenders the violent clash between the banks, which evoke their mission, even their duty, and the competition authorities which avail themselves of theirs, we run into the pitfall of the definition even of what a bank is. It can be estimated that a bank is a provider of various services, operating in competing markets. In this perspective, the law ensures the proper functioning, the authorities that keep the efficiency of the markets seizing the banks that carry out their activities. But if we choose to insist that banks are what make the economy work and strengthen the social bond, then they are an integral part of their own system: the banking system. Moreover, the latter is an essential element of society, a perspective in which competition is merely contiguous.

The more Europe manages to build banking Europe, the more it elaborates a mechanism for resolving difficulties, the more the bank is above all a matter of State and not of financial markets. In what is the political course of the history of peoples, competition ceases to be its first measure.

It is therefore necessary to start from the undisputed existence of banking markets and the competitive mechanism which the law correlates with (I)). But the scale of the resistance reveals that it seems to have intentionally or not to have passed on the elementary and the essential: the very definition of what is a bank II. If it is accepted that the bank is the operator of the banking system, which fuels the economy as a whole, then competition law has only an adjacent role and can not constitute its backbone (III). The European Banking Union is demonstrating this.

Ce working paper a servi de base à un article publié dans le journal Le Monde du 16 décembre 2016.

Par un décret du 5 décembre 2016, il est mis fin à un usage qui préservait la Cour de cassation du contrôle exercé par les services de l'Inspection judiciaire. C'est une atteinte, d'apparence anodine mais profonde, à la séparation des pouvoirs, socle constitutionnel de notre État de droit et de notre démocratie.

Lire ci-dessous.

Ce qui est courant d'appeler l'affaire Kerviel, aspect feuilletonnesque entretenu par l'auteur des infractions pour mieux se glisser dans le costume de la victime, met cependant en lumière de véritables questions de droit.

Jérôme Kerviel, employé d'une banque, la Société Générale, a manipulé les données afin de procéder à des opé

Ce working paper sert de support à un article publié dans l'ouvrage La réalité de la non patrimonialité du corps humain. Approche internationale, paru en janvier 2017 aux Éditions Bruylant.

Le système juridique a posé sur le principe premier de la dignité de la personne humaine le principe secondaire de l'indisponibilité du corps de celle-ci, puisque disposer du corps humain permet d'une façon transitive de disposer de la personne comme l'on ferait d'une chose. Dans la mesure où le Droit a posé la summa divisio entre la "personne" et les choses comme première protection des personnes, il s'oppose ainsi à la cession des personnes à travers ce qui serait la disponibilité de fait ou de droit de leur corps.

L'engendrement par des femmes fertiles d'un enfant à seule fin de le délivrer à des personnes qui ont conçu le projet de devenir les parents de celui-ci (Gestation pour autrui -GPA) bute sur les deux principes articulés de la dignité des deux personnes que sont la mère et l'enfant et de l'indisponibilité des corps de la femme et de l'enfant!footnote-653. C'est pourquoi les entreprises qui organisent cette industrie qui alimente ce commerce mondial développent un discours juridique visant à désincarner cette pratique non pas tant pour justifier cette mise à disposition des corps des femmes afin de livrer les bébés à ceux qui versent les honoraires aux intermédiaires afin de devenir parents mais plus radicalement pour que la question même de la disponibilité ou de l'indisponibilité des corps impliqués par la pratique de la GPA soit une question qui ne se pose pas.

Il est pourtant nécessaire de rappeler qu'il n'y a GPA qu'appuyée sur une réalité corporelle, celle de la grossesse (I). Pour passer sous silence cet usage du corps de la femme, la GPA est présentée par ceux à qui cela rapporte comme un "don", cette qualification non-patrimoniale de ce qui est cédé, don pur de bonheur, permettant de rendre juridiquement licite l'usage du corps et la cession de l'enfant (II).  La filiation est alors promue comme issue de la seule volonté et de la seule affection, qui fait naître l'enfant!footnote-654, l'effacement des corps permettant de mieux en disposer dans un marché mondial hautement profitable. Un Droit qui se scinde ainsi de la réalité corporelle devient proprement délirant.