Dec. 6, 2021
► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., participation à la table-ronde "Notre planète brûle ; quels leviers d'action pour les entreprises et les Etats ?", in Paris Legal Makers, 6 décembre 2021.
► Résumé de l'intervention : Le débat d'une heure a porté sur les enjeux climats et la façon dont ceux qui font le Droit peuvent contribuer aux réponses que les entreprises et les État y apportent.
A ce titre et interrogée précisément par la journaliste sur le mouvent, j'ai mentionné que la population du monde entier s'adresse directement aux tribunaux qui ne les accueillent et appliquent un Droit en formation dans des législations à portée globales. Pour ne prendre que l'année 2021, dans des décisions sensationnelles, le Tribunal constitutionnel allemand dans sa décision du 29 avril 2021 a déclaré une loi votée par le Parlement allemand contraire à la Constitution, alors même qu'elle avait pour objet la lutte contre le changement climatique car elle laisse ouvert la possibilité pour l'État de ne rien faire avant 2030, alors même que les études scientifiques ont établi que l'inaction totale était l'assurance de la catastrophe climatique. L'alliance de la science et du Droit, la reconnaissance des droits subjectifs présents des générations futures (puisque leur sort aurait donc pu être déjà scellé) a conduit à cette solution.
Le mois suivant, le Tribunal de La Haye a condamné le 26 mai 2021 l'entreprise Shell à réduire de 45% ses émissions émission de gaz à effet de serre d’ici 2030, puisqu'elle s'y était engagée dans ses documents publics. En s'appuyant sur les textes de responsabilité, c'est une responsabilisation de l'entreprise et non pas un dédommagement pécuniaire : c'est de l'action concrète future qui est requise.
Le mois suivante, le Conseil d'État français dans sa décision Grande Synthe s'est appuyé sur la reprise par la France dans sa législation (loi de programmation) des Accords de Paris pour lui enjoindre de respecter sa propre législation, en suivant sa "trajectoire", la notion de transition étant nécessaire dans les questions climatiques et le Droit de la Responsabilité Ex Ante qui est en train de se mettre en place.
La suite du débat a mis en lumière l'importance du nouveau "devoir de vigilance" qui pèse sur les entreprises, notamment dans les enjeux climatiques.
Interrogée sur ce point, j'ai relevé que le Ministre des Affaires étrangères avait lui-même en ouverture de la journée souligné l'importance de la loi dite "Vigilance" de 2017 et de la prochaine directive en la matière. Effectivement, c'est un devoir qui engage une responsabilité, dont le Conseil constitutionnel a souligné qu'elle était personnelle et non pas pour autrui.
C'est à court terme une mauvaise nouvelle pour les entreprises mais à moyen ou long terme c'est aussi un moyen pour elles de jouer un rôle au niveau global, d'assurer un rôle plus important, d'obtenir des informations de la part des entités dont elles répondent, de changer de niveau, de faire une alliance avec les Autorités publiques et politiques. C'est cette nouvelle Compliance, notamment environnementale, calquée sur la loi dite "Sapin 2", qui n'est qu'un exemple du Droit de la Compliance, lequel est le Droit du Futur, le Droit par lequel le Futur est appréhendé par l'action, l'obligation d'agir ou la volonté d'agir.
Il est vrai que cela change leur gouvernance, notamment dans l'organisation probatoire, puisque les personnes qui leur demande des comptes n'ont plus la charge que de la "vraisemblance" et non plus tant de la preuve, et c'est un nouveau système probatoire qui se met en place, où les legal makers ont toute leur place dans le quotidien des entreprises.
Les Juges interviennent à la demande directe de la population. On leur reproche de répondre mais on leur en voudrait sans doute de ne pas le faire, ils veillent à toujours se référer aux "engagements" soit des entreprises (Shell), soit des Etats (Grande Synthe) ; sans doute anticipent-ils les textes de demain, qui arrivent (comme la directive sur la vigilance).
Nov. 27, 2021
► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Chair for "The temporal dimension: Imminence and Intertemporally", in Climate Change Cases before National and International Courts Cross-fertilization and Convergence", November 27, 2021, Paris.
Summary of the panel presentation: The specific topic of our panel is the “temporal dimension” of the judicial cases of Climate change.
We shall listen to two great experts on this topic, which is Time.
Listening the other previous speakers, I understand how this topic is important, because Climate Change requires an immediate action and it create a political issue, because everyone comes before courts.
A basis and fundamental problem, because the times are not adjusted.
let's come back to basic notions, to have three times : “past, present, future”.
The issue of Climate Change is in the Future, the necessity of Action is in the Present and the basis temporal question is to know if Courts are the bodies adequate to responde ; maybe it is inevitable that Judge must be recreate their office because the time of the classical judicial office is the Past.
Immediately, this simple et huge problem appears : in a classical repartition, the judge is the legal character to intervenir for the Past, the present (maybe is for you and me), and the future is the time for the State, and more precisely for the Parliament.
But the climate change is a huge topic, not in the past, not in the present, but in the future.
Therefore a gap exists between the time of the topic and the time of the court before the case is explained for obtaining a solution : how to give a good answer ? Judge maybe must travel in time, from past to future …. Maybe, he must, but might he?
Classically, the judge can anticipate a very next future, but not the more distant and systemic future. Climate change belongs to the second one.
This is why the title of this panel is non only about the necessity to take in consideration the “imminence” but also the “intertemporally” : maybe court are the sole able to create this intertemporality between Past and Future, and by this way to obtain from States and companies to do something immediately !
By two legal ways.
Courts can stay in Past, supervising States, if they dispose of effective legal decisions taken by States in the past about Climate Change (essentially Paris Agreement, for instance transposed in the French legal system by a formal law). This is why an efficient judicial solution would be the possibility for the courts to oblige State to implement their more or less committment they had taken in the past for the future (as the Conseil d’Etat did in the Commune de Grande-Synthe Cas Law).
Even for that, the courts must adopt a creative notion of what is a commitment from a State through a Law... ; as they must do about private companies comitment (in their codes of conduct or soft law of corporate social responsability).
But what to do if States didn’t take such commitment ?
Some can allege Courts are not Parliaments and are not legitimate to rule for the future … It is a political issue, a very classical one but very accurate for Climate change (where States and companies are face to courts...) and maybe And as our colleague said, judicial system is quite technically weak to concretize human rights.
Therefore, the second way, more innovative, est the new use of Tort Law : no more a liability Ex Post, but a responsibility Ex Ante. In every legal system, even in Civil Law systems, Tort Law is conceived by courts (for instance in French Law).
If the new reasoning is conveived in Ex Ante, Tort Law must be a set of legal tools to reach the monumental tools to reach the "Monumental Goal" (being by nature future) which is the Climate Change stopping.
In this teleological reasoning, the admissibility and the choice remedies, must be adapted to obtain what is central : the effectivity and the efficiencicy.
In this sens, the judgement between two parties (which was an Ex Post act) may be conceived as an systemic efficient action (which was an Ex Ante act), because it must be.
April 21, 2021
Thesaurus : Doctrine
Full reference : Racine, J.-B., La prégnance géographique dans le choix et l'usage des outils de la compliance, in M.-A. (dir.), Les outils de la Compliance, série "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance and Dalloz, 2021, p. 157-164
Summary of the article (by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche)
The author correlates Compliance Law and "Global Law" and underlines the balance of power that the former expresses, in particular on the part of the United States and even if it therefore "tends to become universal" , the particularities remain, if only in the implementation.
Focusing more particularly on "Compliance Tools", a comparison is made between several contributions of the volume, to establish that, in a definitive and desirable way, the Compliance mechanisms include both a global dimension and a local dimension .
Nov. 27, 2020
Thesaurus : Doctrine
Full reference: Lagarde, P., Preface of Le tournant global en droit international privé, Muir-Watt, H., Biziková, L., Brandão de Oliveira, A., Fernández Arroyo, D. P., Ma, M. (ed.), Editions Pedone, 2020, pp. 9-14
April 24, 2020
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
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.
Jan. 16, 2020
Thesaurus : Doctrine
Updated: Oct. 25, 2017 (Initial publication: May 27, 2016)
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).
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).
In it French version, it serves as a basis for the article, written in French, to be published in the book La Mondialisation.
In this working paper, notes are included, including developments, references and links to work and reflections on the theme of globalization.
It uses the Bilingual Dictionary of the Law of Regulation and Compliance.
To access the French version of the working paper, click on the French flag.
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?
Let us begin the peripheries of Law in globalization.
Globalization is a confusing phenomenon for everyone. It is no doubt even more so for the jurist for whom words are normative acts and which stumbles on the definition of globalization
Perhaps this is why lawyers are as impressed by the argument of globalization, which is often cited to argue that the time of imperative legislations is over, or that Roman law may well turn into its grave, Globalization would pass over the corpse of the Civil Code. The more mysterious the notion is, the more names it has, the more it sets back the jurist of good tradition, global trade being as upgraded when it is designated as "globalization", the zest of English leading to the globalization that parses Of reports, even written in French or Spanish or Italian. . The global language being English, the Globalization is English also.
If we take up the movement of this wave, it is appropriate first of all to take stock of what is globalization (I). It is only relevant that the usefulness, if not necessity, is posed to think about this movement of globalization. There is a legal imperative to formulate an assessment if it is posited that the Law has the mission of protecting every human being, a concern that is supported by the Law. Then, because Law is also a technique, we can ask ourselves the question of Quid facere? But in practice it can not be said that under the pretext that the field of the world forces is very powerful and that the Law appears to be very weak in its claims to protect every human being in its dignity, it would for this reason disappear from the World stage (II).
On the contrary. It is at the foot of the wall of Globalization that today we can measure the claim of Law to defend humanity.
See for ex. Marie-Anne, Frison-Roche, Le droit des deux mondialisations, in Terré, F., (dir), La mondialisation entre illusion et utopie, Archives de Philosophie du Droit, Tome 47, Dalloz, pp. 17-23.
Oct. 26, 2001
Thesaurus : Doctrine
Référence complète : Viney G., Pour ou contre un "principe général" de responsabilité pour faute ? Une question posée à propos de l'harmonisation des droits civils européens, in Le droit privé français à la fin du XXe siècle, études offertes à Pierre Catala, Litec, 2001, pp.555-568.
Résumé de l'article : L'auteur commence par rappeler que la lecture de l'article 1382 du Code civil comme s'il constitue une évidence n'est pas exacte historiquement, car c'est ultérieurement qu'on y a vu une règle à ce point général, un principe de responsabilité pour faute. Geneviève Viney souligne au contraire qu'antérieurement à 1804, il y avait pluralité de types de dommages et gradation des fautes, situation que l'on retrouva rapidement, dès le XIXième siècle avec la loi sur les accidents du travail ou l'arrêt Teffaine. C'est donc bien plutôt la pluralité des régimes spéciaux qui est l'ordinaire et donc la primauté d'un principe général. Mais le plus souvent, les deux articulent, le principe général exprimant alors la protection minimale s'appliquant faute de régime spécial.
Mais cet énoncé en droit français d'un principe général de responsabilité pour faute entrave l'harmonisation européenne car le droit allemand ne connaît qu'une liste limitative d'intérêts particuliers légitimes protégés par la responsabilité et le droit anglais s'exprime par le casuistique Torts Law qui exclut un principe général englobant.
Cela dit, la première partie de l'article est consacrée aux aspects positifs de l'admission d'un principe général de responsabilité pour faute. Le principal est que sa généralité permet son adaptabilité aux situations nouvelles, du fait de sa rédaction en termes universaux.
C'est ainsi que l'article 1382 a permis l'adaptation des solutions à l'évolution des structure économiques, par exemple en matière de loterie ou dans les nouvelles techniques de l'information (protection de la vie privée des personnes, information financière, responsabilité des hébergeurs sur Internet).
En outre, la responsabilité civile peut faire naître des droits subjectifs nouveaux, comme on l'a vu en matière de droits de la personnalité, et d'une façon plus générale, ce que l'on désigne comme "les droits de la personne".
Mais la seconde partie de l'article montre les aspects négatifs de l'admission d'un tel principe général de responsabilité. Le principal est que, du fait du caractère englobant du principe, il méconnait totalement la hiérarchie des intérêts. Ainsi, le plus léger dommage vaudra le plus vaste, la plus légère faute aura le même effet déclencheur que la plus répréhensible.
L'uniformité de régime, voulue par les codificateurs, est la faiblesse du dispositif. Le droit allemand au contraire hiérarchise les intérêts et n'y attache pas la même protection.
En outre, par sa généralité, la responsabilité est ouverte à toute victime, ce qui protège mal contre les actions excessives, alors que le duty of care anglais et le droit allemand y parent.
Enfin, le droit français est devenu confus car on établit de plus en plus difficilement la frontière entre le régime général et les régimes spéciaux, ce qui est source de complexité et d'incertitude. On peut prendre l'exemple du régime spécial du droit de la presse, notamment de ses règles de prescription, dans sa frontière mal tracée avec le droit général de la responsabilité civile.