The recent news

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Résoudre la contradiction entre "sanction" et "incitation" sous le feu du Droit de la Compliance" ("Resolving the contradiction between "sanction" and "incentive" under the fire of Compliance Law"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Les outils de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2021, p. 89-98

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with more developments, technical references and hyperlinks 

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, Les outils de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation and Compliance): Compliance and Incentives appear at first glance to be totally opposite. For two major reasons. Firstly, because sanctions have a central place in Compliance Law and that the incentives suppose an absence of constraint on the operators. Secondly, because the incentives are linked to self-regulation and that Compliance Law assumes 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 other. Resign oneself to the waste that such a necessary choice would imply. But to put the terms in this way amounts to thinking poorly about the situations and reducing the fields of the solutions they call for. If we take a rich definition of Compliance Law, we can on the contrary articulate Compliance and Incentives. From this perspective, sanctions can no longer become what blocks the use of incentives but, on the contrary, what constitutes them. Even more, the coupling between the Incentives and the requirements of Compliance Law must be strongly encouraged, as soon as the public authorities supervise in Ex Ante all the initiatives taken by the "crucial operators".

This article deals with the first issue. Indeed, the so-called incentive theory targets mechanisms which do not directly resort to constraint. They would therefore have little place in Compliance Law. But it seems saturated with sanction procedures. We can even say that it seems to put them at the center, the public authorities presenting the number of sanctions as a sign of success, while the companies seem obsessed with their prospects, the two concerns ending in such a strange convergence that are the Convention Judiciaire d'Intérêt Public (non-prosecution agreement).

The honest observer cannot help but be immediately uneasy. Indeed, it can only raise the definition of the sanction as a "constraint" triggered Ex Post, at the very heart of a Compliance Law which is presented as a set of Ex Ante mechanisms. Based on this contradiction in terms, should we give up the association and think that it would be wrong against the spirit to think of the sanction as an incentive?

It is undoubtedly in this connection that one perceives most clearly the clash of two cultures, which do not communicate, while technically they apply to the same situations. Indeed, because Compliance was designed by Finance, everything is a tool for it. Therefore, the tendency to think of the sanction only as an incentive is very strong in Compliance Law, manifests itself continuously and will not stop (I). But whatever the reasons for conceiving it this way, the principles of the rule of law cannot disappear and if we do not want them to be erased, then they must be articulated (II). This is an essential game (II).

This is why we can literally say that Compliance has set Criminal Law on fire by its conception, logical but closed in on itself, of sanctions as simple incentives. In order for Law to remain, however, we must hold a very firm definition of Compliance Law centered on its Monumental Goal, which is the protection of the person.

________

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Décrire, concevoir et corréler les outils de la Compliance, pour en faire un usage adéquat" ("Describing, conceiving and correlating Compliance Tools, in order to use them adequately"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Les outils de la Compliance, coll. Régulations & Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2021, p. 3-24.

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, Les outils de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

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

________

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

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, Les outils de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

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

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

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

________

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Approche juridique des outils de la Compliance. Construire juridiquement  l'unité des outils de la Compliance à partir de la définition du Droit de la Compliance par ses "buts monumentaux"" ("Legal approach to Compliance Tools. Building by Law the Unicity of Compliance Tools from the definition of Compliance Law by its "Monumental Goals""), in  M.-A. Frison-Roche, (ed.), Les outils de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2021, p. 27-38.

____

📝read the article (in French) 

____

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

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, Les outils de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

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

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

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

________

Référence complète : J.-S. Bergé, Les situations en mouvement et le droit, Dalloz, coll. « Méthodes du droit », 2021, 327 p.

____

Lire le compte rendu par Jacques Commaille , à la revue Droit et Société. 

Référence complète: Frison-Roche, M.-A.,Compliance et Arbitrage : un adossement,  rapport de synthèse in Frison-Roche, M.-A. & Racine, J.-B. (dir.) Compliance et Arbitrage, Colloque coorganisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et le Centre de recherches sur la Justice et le Règlement des Conflits (CRJ) de l'Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II), avec le soutien de la Cour Internationale d'Arbitrage, Paris, 31 mars 2021.

____

🗓️ Lire le programme de ce colloque

____

✏️Le rapport de synthèse a été réalisé au fur et à mesure que se déroulait le colloque : se reporter aux notes prises durant le colloque. 

____

Voir le rapport de synthèse en vidéo

Voir l'intégralité du colloque en vidéo. 

___

📅 Ce colloque s'insère dans le cycle de colloques 2021 organisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et ses partenaires autour de la Juridictionnalisation de la Compliance.

📕 Les interventions ont servi de première base à la réalisation d'un titre  dans l'ouvrage dirigé par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, dont la version française,  La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, est co-édité par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz.

📘 Elles ont été de la même façon la première base pour la version anglaise de l'ouvrage, Compliance Juridictionalisation, co-édité par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant. 

_________

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.A., Ex Ante Compliance, in Gaia-X, Towards Automated Compliance in the Data Economy, en ligne, 31 mars 2021

____

► Présentation générale de l'intervention : Cette courte intervention vise à expliquer l'apport essentiel du Droit de la Compliance pour la construction et la durabilité d'une structure comme GAIA-X.

____

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

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

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

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

The manifestation will be live broadcasted on Zoom.

To register: https://u-paris2-fr.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_sPSB4aUUQTWDWDnNcYt3sA

Presentation of the theme: 

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

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

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

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

How, with what specificities and what controls?

Notably will speak:

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

• Dominique Bourrinet, General Counsel of Société générale group 

​

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

• Claire Debourg, professeure à l'Université Paris X- Nanterre (Full professor at Paris X - Nanterre) 

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

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

• Elie Kleiman, partner, Jones Day Law Firm

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

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

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

• Eduardo Silva-Romero, Dechert Law Firm 

Read a detailed presentation of the colloquium below: