Référence complète : Gauvain, R. et Marleix, O., Rapport d'information sur l'évaluation de l'impact de la loi n° 2016-1691 du 9 décembre 2016 relative à la transparence, à la lutte contre la corruption et à la modernisation de la vie économique, 2021.

____

Lire le rapport. 

________

► Full Reference: L. Benzoni, "International Trade, Competitivity and Sovereignty: Towards a Political Economy of Compliance", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, 2023, p. 447-458.

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Monumental Goals, in which this article is published.

____

► Summary of the article: 

________

► Full Reference: J.-M. Coulon, "Le droit de la compliance dans le secteur d'activité de la construction et les contradictions, impossibilités et impasses auxquelles les entreprises sont confrontées" ("Compliance Law in the construction sector and the contradictions, impossibilities and impasses facing companies"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, p. 133-140. 

____

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

____

► The summary below describes an article following the colloquium L'entreprise instituée Juge et Procureur d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance (The Entreprise instituted Judge and Prosecutor of itself by Compliance Law) , co-organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Faculté de Droit Lyon 3. This manifestation was designed under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Jean-Christophe Roda and took place in Lyon on June 23, 2021. During this colloquium, the intervention was shared with Christophe Lapp, who is also a contributor in the book (see the summary of the Jean-Marc Coulon's Article).

In the book, the article will be published in Title I, devoted to:  L'entreprise instituée Juge et Procureur d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance (The Entreprise instituted Judge and Prosecutor of itself by Compliance Law ).

____

► Summary of the article (done by the author): The construction industry is not a regulated sector. Its market is made up of a superposition of territorial strata which are all relevant markets, to which corresponds a specific microcosm of companies. Finally, the temporary association between companies for the purposes of carrying out a project or a work is consubstantial with this sector.

The penetration of Compliance in this sector is inevitably very heterogeneous and results from both exogenous factors (other partners within temporary associations, influence of economic operators from other sectors of activity, capital providers and lenders, incitations from professional organizations ) the endogenous (submission to a Financial Regulatory Authority because the company is listed ; application of the laws on duty of vigilance, and French Law called "Sapin 2"). For example, subject to all these factors combined, the Bouygues group is particularly sensitive to compliance.

Not only internal "legislator", the Bouygues group finds itself in turn "prosecutor and judge" both of itself and of others. Indeed, leading an investigation, filing a complaint, triggering an ethics alert, making use of the leniency program, this group is, however, no other than a sort of assistant for the Prosecutor. In addition, scrutinizing its stakeholders, sanctioning its employees, resorting to a Convention Judiciaire d'intérêt public (judicial agreement in the public interest) or negotiating its sanction within the framework of a procedure instituted by a multilateral bank, it fulfills the function of a judge. Legislator, prosecutor, judge, the Bouygues group is faced with a paradox, in a way encouraged to exercise “sovereignty”, yet it does not benefit from the attributes attached to it or from the unwavering support of the competent Public Authorities.

________

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le principe de proximité systémique active, corolaire du renouvellement du principe de souveraineté par le Droit de la Compliance" ("The principle of active systemic proximity: corollary of the renewal of the principle of sovereignty by Compliance Law"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2022, p. 501-520.

____

📝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 Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): 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).

________

► Full reference: André, Ch., Souveraineté étatique, souveraineté populaire : quel contrat social pour la compliance ? (" State sovereignty, popular sovereignty: what social contract for 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.

________

► Référence générale : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Droit de la Compliance et Cloud souverain, in Souveraineté numérique : quelles solutions pour quels problèmes ? ,   Association Master 2 Droit du Commerce Électronique et de l’Économie Numérique (M2 DCEEN), Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris I), 9 juin 2022, 18h-20h.

____

Voir le programme

____

Cette intervention s'insère dans un débat coordonné par la professeure Judith Rochfeld, auquel participent également Monsieur le Député Philippe Latombe et Céline Heller (société Google).

Pour ma part, interrogée en premier pendant un 1/4 d'heure, il s'agissait en premier lieu, avant de participer à la discussion générale, de répondre aux trois questions suivantes :

•  Quelles définitions doivent être retenues pour la souveraineté numérique ?
• Quel est le rapport entre souveraineté numérique et droit de la compliance ?
• Plus largement, quelle place le Droit doit-il occuper dans la souveraineté numérique selon vous ?
• En quoi la souveraineté numérique est-elle un but monumental ? 

____

Référence complète : Dupré, B., Souveraineté européenne, autonomie stratégique, Europe puissance : quelle réalité pour l’Union européenne et pour quel avenir ?, Fondation Robert Schuman, Question d'Europe, n°620, janv. 2022. 

____

Lire l'article. 

► 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 Compliance, dans la collection 📚 Régulations & Compliance

 📘dans sa version anglaise dans l'ouvrage Compliance Monumental Goals, dans  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⤵️

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Le droit de la Compliance : un outil stratégique pour une Europe souveraine (Compliance law: a strategic tool for a sovereign Europe), interview with Jean-Philippe Denis, recorded on July 3, 2021 and broadcast on September 17, 2021

_____

🎥 Watch the interview, as broadcast on Xerfi Canal channels. 

🎥Watch the interview enhanced with French subtitles

____

►Summary: Compliance Law powerfully and clearly helps to build a sovereign Europe. 
Compliance Law is not the annex of Competition Law; it is another branch of Law, which aims instead to rely on the de facto power of companies, when they are in a position to achieve the "Monumental Goals" that the Political Authorities have decided to achieve, which requires an alliance between them and those companies in a position to achieve these "Monumental Goals".

Companies can do this because they are in a position to do so, in that they are well located to act, have the information, the technology and the adequate financial means.)

Compliance is a construction tool, and not, as it is still sometimes presented, a means to limit the ability of those who are concretely able to build, i.e. the companies. The architect remains and must remain the Politics. But the company remains the master of the means to achieve these goals, and free to duplicate them in its own care, via CSR, "raison d'être" and ethics.

📘  read the general presentation of the book in which this article is published

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance Law, an adequate legal framework for GAIA-X", in Pan-European GAIA - X Summit, The World with GAIA-X, November18, 2020.

____

🧮See the general presentation of the Summit

____

📈​See the slides, basis of this intervention.

____

► Summary of the intervention: Europe may offer an adequate legal framework for the GAIA-X project through Compliance Law. Compliance Law is a new form for Regulatory Law, driven by "Monumental Goals", negative Monumental Goals, for instance prevention of systemic failures, and positive Monumental Goals, for instance innovation or stability. This very new branch of Law works on these Monumental Goals, which must be explicit and internalized in Crucial Enterprises. These Crucial Enterprises concretize these Goals, supervised by public Authorities. 

European Compliance Law already works, for instance about Personal Data protection (case law and GDPR) or prevention banking systemic failures (Banking Union), Compliance Tools being in balance with Competition principle. European Union Law is moving from the Ex-Post Competition Law to the Ex-Ante Compliance Law, internalizing Monumental Goals in Crucial Enterprises. 

There is a perfect adequacy between European Compliance Law and GAIA-X. This project built by Crucial Enterprises must be supervised by public authority, maybe a specific or the European Commission. The governance of GAIA-X must be transparent and accountable. This private organization must use it powers in respect of the proportionality principle, controlled by the public supervisory body. The legal framework is required but it is sufficient. 

___

📈see the slides, basis of this intervention.

____

🎥watch the video of this intervention. 

________

Référence complète : Gauvain, R., Rétablir la souveraineté de la France et de l'Europe et protéger nos entreprises des lois et mesures à portée extraterritoriale, Rapport à la demande du Premier Ministre Monsieur Edouard Philippe, Assemblée nationale, juin 2019, 102 p.

Lire le Rapport.

► 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⤵️

Référence complète : Gamet, L., Droits de l'homme, urbi et orbi, Droit social, 2016, p. 1046 et s.

Résumé de l'article (par l'auteur) : Une fois affirmée l'universalité des droits de l'homme au travail, se pose la question de leur effectivité. Aucun tribunal international n'ayant été institué pour condamner un État défaillant, comment faire pour que les droits de l'homme au travail soient respectés de par le monde, sans consacrer un droit d'ingérence dans les affaires nationales des États souverains ? L'initiative publique trouve aujourd'hui, de façon subtile, un puissant relais dans l'initiative privée.
 

Le droit prétend être un système autonome, produisant sa propre réalité, incontestable. Acte de langage, il est performatif, en cela souverain. La mondialisation le permet-elle encore ? Pourtant, le droit étant aussi une pratique sociale, soit il prend son objet comme limite (il ne peut dire qu’il fait jour la nuit), soit il prend son objet comme maître : le droit nazi établit la « loi du sang ». Aujourd’hui, l’économie est-elle la loi du droit ?

En outre, le droit n’est-il pas positif qu’une fois appliqué ? Dès lors, le droit recherche l’adhésion, par un discours qui séduit et balance les intérêts. Mais dans le même temps, le droit veut de plus en plus refléter la réalité. Sa première évolution l’éloigne de la vérité pour aller vers le consensus, la seconde prétend la rapprocher. Par exemple, qui décide de la filiation ? On en vient à douter que le Politique ou la morale aient encore une place dans le système juridique.

Avoir une première vue du programme.

Lire le programme général du colloque, Sous-détermination, incomplétude, incommensurabilité : la pensée des limites

Lire le Working Paper établissant les grandes lignes servant de base à la discussion

Prendre le thème de "l'effectivité de la régulation bancaire" est presque un pléonasme, dans la mesure où la régulation se définit comme un corps de principes, de règles et de décision formant un appareillage prenant son sens dans le but qu'il a pour fonction de concrétiser. Ainsi la régulation est entièrement dans son "effectivité".

Cela déplace d'autant la question, qui devient non pas en premier lieu la mesure de l'effectivité mais la détermination du but au regard duquel cette effectivité se mesure. Or, la régulation bancaire peut avoir plusieurs buts, la multiplicité des buts diminuant son effectivité, tandis que la contradiction entre les buts l'anéantit. Dans la nouvelle architecture européenne, le but a le mérite d'être clair, qualité majeure du système par rapport au modèle nord-américain : il s'agit d'assurer la solidité du système bancaire.

L'unicité et la clarté du but est déjà un gage d'effectivité. Mais c'est la prochaine crise qui montrera donc l'effectivité de la régulation, la prochaine crise évitée (mais alors comment la connaître ?) ou la prochaine crise qui se déroulera, puis sera maîtrisée, c'est-à-dire le bon déclenchement du mécanisme de résolution bancaire, là où réside la véritable innovation.

S'il y a "nouvelle donne", c'est dans le fait même que la régulation bancaire est désormais "européenne". Cela est tout autant étonnant que la matière touche aux souverainetés. C'est en cela que paradoxalement le "citoyen européen" qui continue de ne pas exister, faute d'Europe politique, pourrait exister à travers une régulation bancaire européenne, puisque celle-ci manie la "monnaie souveraine".