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
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
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
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
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"
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
Indeed, this branch of the new Law which is Compliance Law is not reducible to Competition Law
Read the developments below.
Ce par quoi l'on commence presque toujours, le Droit de la Compliance étant "étrange" notamment parce qu'il vient des Etats-Unis, v. Frison-Roche, M.-A., Le Droit de la Compliance, 2016.
V. par ex. Monéger, cas BNPP, ...., in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir)., ...
V. par ex. Bismuth, R. Pour une appréhension nuancée de l'extraterritorialité du droit américain - quelques réflexions autour des procédures et sanctions visant Alstom et BNP Paris, 2015.
Sur la définition de la souveraineté comme l'aptitude à comprendre ses limites et à demeurer dans ses limites, voire à les instituer soi-même, la souveraineté étant intime de l'idée d'Etat de Droit, v. Supiot, A., Mondialisation et Globalisation, ....
Pour le rappel de ces éléments de base et leur mise en perspective par rapport au Droit de la Compliance, v. Frison-Roche, M.-A. Le cas de l'Amazonie, ....
Rapport Berger-Lellouche, ....
Rapport Gauvain, ....
Critère dégagé en 2016 : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Le Droit de la Compliance.
Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance : hier, aujourd'hui, demain, 2017.
Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance Europe humaniste, 2019.
Frison-Roche, M.-A., Droit de la concurrence et Droit de la compliance, 2018
Sur les liens entre le Droit de la Compliance et la technologie de la blockchain, v. ....
Updated: July 31, 2013 (Initial publication: Nov. 8, 2011)
Teachings : Les Grandes Questions du Droit, semestre d'automne 2011
April 10, 2002
Thesaurus : Doctrine
Référence générale : Anders, G., L'Obsolescence de l'homme. Sur l'âme à l'époque de la deuxième révolution industrielle, Traduction de l'allemand par Christophe David 1956, éd. l'Encyclopédie des Nuisances, coll." Editions IVREA", Paris, 2002, 360 p.