Food for thoughts

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., coordination and moderation of the conference L'office du juge et les causes systémiques (""The Office of the Judge and systemic causes"), in Cycle of Conferences, Penser l'office du juge ("Thinking the Office of the Judge"), Grand Chamber of the Cour de cassation, Paris, May 9, 2021, 17h-19h.

The conference is held in French.

____

► General presentation of the conference: the conference is based on the intervention of three judges, Christophe Soulard, Fabien Raynaud, and François Ancel, who think and debate among themselves on a hypothesis: the existence of "systemic causes". The hypothesis is that beyond and through the diversity of disputes and cases that are submitted to the most diverse judges, there is a category of cases that are systemic, which means containing in what is submitted to the judge for resolution a system.  If such a category exists, which also raises the question of the diversity of systems and the difficulty arising from their submission to rules that are not legal (for example economic, biological, financial "laws", etc.) , then the judge should take this into account, both in the procedure and in the judgment they make on the case and in the way they formulate et restitute this judgment.

____

📝read the presentation of this conference by the Cour de cassation (in French)

📝read the program of the cycle of conferences 2022 (in French)

____

 🎥see the conference video (in French) 

🎥 see the synthesis video of the conference, made in situ by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche (in French)  

____

​✏️read the notes taken during the conference to make the synthesis (in French)

📝read the article of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche restituting this conference, published in the Recueil Dalloz (in French)

____

►read the works, basis of the two interventions of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

🚧 L'hypothèse de la "cause systémique (made before the conference to prepare it), available en English

📝Synthese of the conference (made during the conference)

________

🌐 follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Conceiving Power, Working Paper, December 2021

____

📝 This Working Paper serves as the basis for an article to be published in the collective book drawn up in tribute to Professor Emmanuel Gaillard. 

____

► Working Paper summary: In 1985, Emmanuel Gaillard's central work came out under the title Le pouvoir en droit privé  (The Power in Private Law)📎!footnote-2418, but when it was defended in 1981, his thesis directed by Dean Cornu was entitled La notion de pouvoir en droit privé (The notion of Power in Private Law) 📎!footnote-2419.

Let's give full force to the original title of the thesis.  

The deletion of the term notion perhaps implies that by defining something the essential is done, that there would be something of a pleonasm in aiming at The notion of Power and The Power, as Law likes to economise on words.  

But it was indeed a renewed, simpler and more powerful conception of the notion of Power, containing the entire regime necessarily imputed, that this work imposed, henceforth illuminating positive Law. Emmanuel Gaillard's definition, on the other hand, goes beyond Private Law. We would gladly have argued in favour of retaining the heading for the term Notion, proposing instead to dispense with the reference to Private Law alone ....

Perhaps it was because the concept is so vast that in this seminal thesis its scope was restricted to Private Law, since the author already had to account for the sheer multiplicity of manifestations in this part of the legal system; Or perhaps it was because the concept of 'Power' is so familiar in Public Law that it would have needed less definition in Public Law (which, moreover, is so diversely proposed in this more political area, which is already careful on principle to distinguish between powers, which must always be plural in order to be separated), and that it was therefore reasonable to want to arrive at a single concept of Power in Private Law, where the notion of subjective rights is more familiar. 

However, Emmanuel Gaillard's definition of Power as a prerogative placed, by legal rule or contract, in the hands of the person invested with them for the benefit, at least in part, of others, covers both Public and Private Law. This even contributes to the solidity of this thesis and explains why it flourishes today in legal systems where the distinction between Private Law and Public Law is weakening.

The power of this definition lies in its simplicity. Simple and brave minds are often the most fruitful. As Dean Gérard Cornu points out in his preface, the author, in particular because he bases himself more on positive law, for example that relating to the powers of corporate officers, does not get bogged down in discussions between authors only to end up preferring one over the other. He arrives at a definition that is close to our everyday experience: the one we experience when we collect an envelope on behalf of someone else and the agent asks us in what capacity we claim to be doing this on his behalf. We then show him our 'power', the legal power to do so for the benefit of the person to whom the letter is addressed, and can thus exercise the power to withdraw the letter, even though it is personal. When legal and common sense come together, it is a good omen, not only in terms of form, because everyone can understand it and the Law must remain comprehensible, but also in terms of substance, because everyone must be able to control the exercise of a power that is exercised for and over others. For this letter addressed to someone else, the person who has been able to take it by virtue of the power conferred on him/her, could just as easily open it and read it, then destroy it or give it to the worst enemy of the person to whom it was addressed. In Power, there is always might to do, and the danger to others that Power contains therefore. 

This highly legal definition of Power not only distances the holder from his/her own interests, but also channels the Power thus granted to the person who benefits from it. In this respect, Emmanuel Gaillard not only distinguished between Power and subjective right, but also identified the right amount of power required for this power to effectively fulfill this 'Mission', through the notion of abuse of power, when the holder uses for other beneficiaries this power that was conferred on him/her for this sole purpose.

What is more, this concept makes it possible to distinguish Power from discretionary force, because the holder of Power thereby exercises factual , by acting for others, deciding for others, deciding on others. Because Power is inseparable from might, but might must remain the means of power and no more, the Law shall produce the antibodies that are not only the theory of abuse of power but also an Ex Ante responsibility that accounts must always be rendered, either to the other for whom everything is done or to a third party. For this third party is often there from the outset, the guardianship judge for example: because the Power was put in place because of the beneficiary's weakness, both in himself/herself and because of the situation, an impartial and disinterested third party is needed to ensure proper execution from the outset, without there even being a dispute. In this respect, how useful this thesis is for thinking about what Supervision is today!  

This thesis, so clear, so simple and so strong, goes beyond Private or Civil Law. It is both much more restrictive than the more factual and political definition of Oower, which would be the ability to do something, and much broader than the usual definitions, since it embraces and legitimises de jure all situations where a person acts legally for the benefit of another.  Dean Cornu shows, moreover, in two sentences that such a notion of power also captures the office of the judge, who has power over others only to serve them 📎!footnote-2420. The definition corresponds to the mission of one who has power only to fulfill his office. It suits so well the conception we have today of Administration, especially if it takes the form of independent authorities.

Moreover, Power thus contains its own limit in its very definition, since others are present in it: the holder has power only to serve others. From then on, it is only a power because it is a kind of Charge. Emmanuel Gaillard immediately uses the term: "Un individu se voit confier une charge qu'il exerce dans un intérêt au moins partiellement distinct du sien propre"  ("An individual is entrusted with an office which he exercises in an interest at least partially distinct from his own") 📎!footnote-2422. Dean Carbonnier, who reformed the legislation in this area 📎!footnote-2456,, emphasised that the guardian has a public duty because the State entrusts him/her with a child. In the same way parental authority is a charge on the parents for the benefit of the children. More generally, Power is a burden that the Law places on a person to satisfy the interests of another.

This definition offered by Emmanuel Gaillard in 1981, anchored in Private Law only insofar as it is the entire legal system, is premonitory of the Regulatory and Compliance Law as it unfolds today. It would be enough to continue the Gaillard's sentences, as if they had been half-written, to finish them 40 years later and find in them the mechanisms of Supervision of companies by public authorities which are now in place not to reduce their power but to ensure that they exercise it for the benefit of others 📎!footnote-2457. The whole evolution of Company Law and Financial Law is here. Between the lines of this thesis, which develops the notion of duty 📎!footnote-2421, we can also see what positive Law is developing today, in particular through the 'duty of Vigilance', this personal responsibility for the benefit of others (I).

The definition of Power thus conceived contains within itself its regime and enables us to anticipate it better today: because the holder exercises Power only for others, at least partially, he is consubstantially accountable for it, responsibility being only one form of this accountability; because this service must be effective and others must benefit fully from it, because unlike the subjective right which allows the holder freely not to use his might, Power has never been the 'most absolute' availability to use his/her might: it is even the opposite. It is the expression of a Power assigned to a purpose, compelling the holder to use his/her Power to that end.  But it is equally necessary for the holder to have all the might to do so, otherwise the very notion of 'Power' is meaningless. This is the definition that should be given to the principle of Proportionality: the person on whom the Power rests must have not more power than is necessary, but all the power necessary to achieve the Monumental Goals for which the Power has been entrusted to him/her, so that others may derive full benefit from it (II). 

In today's positive Law, the definition of Power as a Duty is found not only in Private Law but also in Public Law, not least because pure might, i.e. those that do not account for the use of their might, are in decline while concern for others is on the increase. The days of discretionary powers are over, and the increased independence of those who exercise Power over others requires them to be accountable. Beyond this Accountability, the personal Responsibility of those who have the Power to serve others is being established. But, no doubt because the Law is slow to evolve, the correlative idea that the holder of Power must have all the powers required to carry out his/her mission is less entrenched:  As Emmanuel Gaillard has shown, the Law has only gone part of the way in sanctioning excesses of power, when the holder uses his/her power for other goals, but it has not yet clearly established that the holder - sometimes forced - of a Power is legitimate in using all the means required to achieve the result for which this Power, i.e. a charge and a duty, has been conferred on him/her.  

No doubt we need to read Emmanuel Gaillard's thesis again in all its potential, to imagine the reading we could do today of what he could have written as if on blank pages that would write themselves, a magical thesis where everything is already there, a thesis so short (250 pages) and so beautiful, so dense that it already contains the Law of the Future. The Law of the Future 📎!footnote-2458  where there must be much more responsibility for the benefit of others📎!footnote-2423 and powers since this notion includes others who are the beneficiaries. Droit de l'Avenir where Emmanuel Gaillard will be present, in particular thanks to this work of doctrine offered in 1981.  So that, in practical terms, those who are entrusted with looking after others - for example, today all companies obliged by Compliance Law to look after others so that they are not destroyed by hatred in the digital space, by corruption in the economic system or by climate change in a projected future - do not find themselves challenged by the same Law for the means of exercising this power for the benefit of others, for example when this involves 'judging'. Dean Cornu himself emphasised the identity of the two offices.

____

Lire les développement ci-dessous⤵

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Instituer l'insécurité juridique comme principe, outil de prévention des crises systémiques catastrophiques totales, document de travail, mars et septembre 2021. 

____

► Ce document de travail fait suite à deux précédents documents de travail, réalisés pour le colloque qui s'est tenu à la Cour de cassation le 22 mars 2021.

Le premier avait été conçu et en partie réalisé  longtemps avant sa tenue pour traiter le sujet selon les canons habituels attendus ; 

Le second a été élaboré le veille de sa tenue sur 4 cas car la disparition de mes serveurs en raison d'un incendie, ayant également touché les copies de ceux-ci ne me permettait pas autre chose, les organisateurs m'ayant demandé de maintenir pourtant ma participation, ce dont je les remercie 📎!footnote-2299.

Le présent document de travail a été élaboré après la tenue du colloque afin que les organisateurs de ce colloque, au thème si aventureux, ne pensent pas qu'ils ne pouvaient pas compter sur moi.

Ce document de travail vise à dépasser ces avanies et à opérer la connexion du sujet pour lequel une contribution m'a été demandée (la crise économique) avec le sujet plus général qui me retient par ailleurs : la construction de la nouvelle branche qu'est le Droit de la Compliance, pourquoi le faire et comment le faire. 

____

Introduction : Comme à tous, ce sujet de "L'insécurité juridique" me pose difficulté. Parce que,  n'étant pas grand personnage solitaire affrontant l'inconnu, comme tous les autres je voudrais plutôt la sécurité que l'insécurité, et tous les mots qui ne commencent pas par une négation : je voudrais le connu plutôt l'inconnu, je voudrais être comprise qu'incomprise, et ce n'est plus par confort que par urgence morale je voudrais vivre dans un monde juste plutôt que dans un monde injuste. C'est d'ailleurs pour cette dernière raison que je vais affronter l'aventure de l'Insécurité juridique comme principe premier, et non pas comme exception au principe de la Sécurité juridique 📎!footnote-2300. 

Cet ajout du "in" signale paradoxalement un retranchement : le "in" montre ce qui manque, comme le monde blessé qu'est le monde injuste. Me voilà invitée à traiter un sujet par avance abîmé,  car l'insécurité juridique c'est déjà comme une agression : un monde amputé de sa sécurité, comme c'est désagréable. 

C'est encore plus vrai pour "l'insécurité juridique". En effet, la notion fait face à la "sécurité juridique", cette sorte d'apport spécifique que le Droit offre au monde.   La "sécurité juridique" est aujourd'hui comme un Totem, qui serait indissociable du Tabou de l'Insécurité. Dans le monde juridique épuisé dans lequel nous ne serions plus aptes qu'à proposer quelques notions procédurales, surtout pas de notions substantielles car immédiatement taxées d'être trop politiques 📎!footnote-2277, la "sécurité juridique" qui n'est qu'une notion procédurale en ce qu'elle permet simplement que tout soit prévisible, que demain soit comme aujourd'hui, lequel est d'ailleurs comme était hier, est promue au rang normatif le plus haut. Les travaux abondent, les hymnes  d'approbation sont unanimes.  On ne demanderait plus que cela au système juridique, mais cela on l'exige : le droit serait une procédure qui garantirait la prévisibilité de la réglementation 📎!footnote-2276 et accroîtrait ainsi la solidité des projets  particuliers que nous avons, les uns et des autres et, grâce au pouvoir du Droit de rendre réel ce qu'il assure, nous savons que nos projets pourront tenir demain dans les mêmes termes choisis hier, puisque le Droit nous l'a promis. 

La sécurité juridique, parce que les systèmes juridiques n'auraient plus que cela à offrir, revendiquant par ailleurs leur neutralité et se rejoignant donc sur cette constance, cette cohérence, et cette confiance produites par cette sécurité, est notre nouveau doudou.

A cela, l'on apporte nuances dans les modalités, en soulignant que les circonstances changeantes de la vie exigent un peu de flexibilité, que le pragmatisme et des situations concrètes et particulières  qui sans cesse varient impliquent de prévoir  dès aujourd'hui que demain le contexte aura changé : il faut organiser de la prévisibilité dans le changement. De cela, le Droit souple s'en charge, les lignes directrices étant les nouvelles voies romaines qui nous montreront le chemin. Sécurité et flexibilité, dans un pragmatisme qui voit dans tout principe substantiel un signe de rigidité, voilà notre nouveau mantra. 

L'insécurité juridique est ainsi notre Tabou, dont les admissions justifiées seraient autant d'hommages rendus au Totem de la sécurité juridique, Totem et Tabou se renforçant toujours. Il y aurait donc imperfection du système juridique si l'on haussait l'insécurité au rang de véritable principe. C'est pourquoi lorsqu'on fait l'effort de parler d'insécurité juridique, on semble ne le faire que sur le mode de l'exception : l'insécurité juridique, cela serait ce qu'il est admissible de supporter comme exception légitime au principe de la sécurité juridique 📎!footnote-2275. 

L'on aura donc tendance à traiter de l'insécurité juridique comme une sorte de principe supportable lorsque quelque chose justifie qu'on porte atteinte au véritable principe premier qu'est la Sécurité juridique. C'est ailleurs ainsi le plus souvent qu'on l'aborde . Ce n'est donc pas le traiter comme un véritable principe, juste comme une exception supportable. 

Voilà pourquoi l'on m'a demandé d'examiner si l'insécurité juridique était supportable, admissible, lorsqu'il y a crise économique. Sans doute parce que lorsqu'il y a crise économique, alors tant pis les principes doivent un peu baisser pavillon et l'on fait avec les moyens du bord en admettant des exceptions, bien qu'avec beaucoup de réticences et de regrets 📎!footnote-2304... Puisque c'est l'hypothèse évoquée, je la suivrai volontiers, et dans un premier temps resterai dans cet enclos-là, mais c'est aller dans l'idée que l'insécurité juridique ne pourrait être qu'une exception faite au principe de la sécurité juridique parce qu'il faut que tout ne change pas vraiment : la crise ne rebat les cartes qu'un temps, le temps de la crise, mais lorsque la crise est passée l'on en revient au normal et à ce qui est bien, à savoir le "vrai principe", celui de la constance et de l'inchangé. Car il n'est supportable de "bafouer" la sécurité juridique qu'un temps 📎!footnote-2303. L'insécurité juridique serait donc ce qui intervient lorsqu'une crise économique s'ouvre afin d'aider à l'efficacité de sa gestion et pour sortir de cette crise. Cela et pas davantage (I).

L'insécurité juridique n'aurait donc qu'un temps, parce que par nature la crise elle-même n'a qu'un temps. La fin de la crise, la fin des problèmes et d'une situation anormale feraient disparaître le principe d'insécurité juridique, lequel serait donc un principe pathologique. 

Mais ce n'est pas parce que cette description semble partagée par beaucoup que ses prémisses soient exacts. En effet, la "crise" est-elle si exceptionnelle que ce qui justifie que l'insécurité juridique, qui permet d'aider à sa résolution, le soit aussi ? Si l'on constate plutôt que la crise est non seulement notre "ordinaire", et qu'en plus notre "ordinaire catastrophique" est "prévisible", voire virtuellement déjà là, et qu'en plus dans le futur, ce qui risque d'arriver est une crise catastrophique totale qui pourrait bien être définitive dans ses effets (ce qui enlève à la crise sa nature temporaire et le retour au "vrai principe" également), alors le principe exceptionnel, cantonné dans la crise, doit sortir de l'hypothèse de celle-ci pour venir  pleinement dans le Droit présent afin d'empêcher que se réalise cet ordinaire catastrophique. 

 Oui, regardons vers le futur : ne sont-ce pas de monumentales crises qui sont devant nous ? Et l'enjeu n'est-il pas d'adopter des principes premiers pour qu'elles n'adviennent pas ? S'il en est ainsi, alors l'absence de changement, la constance et le prévisible, c'est-à-dire le principe même de la Sécurité juridique, si choyé, n'est-ce pas ce qui fait obstacle à la prévention de l'advenance des crises économiques qui nous menacent ? Certes c'est sans doute une crise sanitaire et une crise écologique et climatique qui nous sont devant nous, mais de la même façon la crise économique de 2020 n'est elle-même qu'un accessoire de la crise sanitaire mondiale, prémisses de ce qui pourrait arriver.

Si nous sommes dans cette situation mondiale alors, ce n'est pas une conception procédurale des principes qu'il faut retenir, mais une conception politique. De la même façon, dans cette perspective ce n'est pas en terme d'exception, de "principe exceptionnel" mais bien en terme de principe premier qu'il faut penser l'Insécurité juridique, c'est-à-dire en terme d'éveil et d'aventure, car demain pourrait n'être pas du tout comme aujourd'hui. Seul le principe inverse de l' "Insécurité juridique" pourrait alors exprimer la volonté d'y répondre (II). 

_____

► Lire ci-dessous les développements du document de travail ⤵

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Programme de mise en conformité (Compliance), Dictionnaire de droit de la concurrence, Concurrences, Art. N° 12345, 2021

Read the definition (in French)

►  Référence complète : MARAIS, Astrid, Droit des personnes, Coll. "Cours Dalloz-Série Droit privé", Dalloz, 4ième éd. 2021, 250 p.

📝 Lire la 4ième de couverture.

Depuis la première édition de son ouvrage, la professeure Astrid Marais débute la présentation de celui-ci ainsi : "Tout est chose ou personne".

À partir de ce principe essentiel, le manuel décrit comment le droit détermine les deux catégories de personnes : les personnes physiques et les personnes morales, comme il les individualise et comment il les protège. Le souci des personnes physiques est d'autant plus grand aujourd'hui que le droit prend en considération le corps des êtres humains.

C'est notamment pourquoi l'ouvrage expose le "Droit des personnes" à travers les diverses branches du Droit, désormais toutes concernées par celles-ci.

____

📚Consulter l'ensemble de la collection dans laquelle l'ouvrage a été publié.

► Référence complète : R. Cabrillac, Introduction générale au droit, 1ière éd. 1995 - 15ième éd., 2023, Dalloz, Coll. "Cours Dalloz-Série Droit privé", 293 p.

____

Le droit est réputé complexe, voire rébarbatif. Pour dépasser cette impression, qui ne correspond pas à sa nature, cet ouvrage, résolument pédagogique, s’adressent aux étudiants qui prennent contact pour la première fois avec la matière.

Il décrit tout d’abord les fondements du droit, ses origines et ses classifications puis il expose les sources du droit, les preuves et le procès.

Il est complété par des tests de connaissances.

____

Full reference: CJEU, 2nd of February 2021, DB v. Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob), case C‑481/19

Read the decision

Read the opinion of advocate general

Summary of the decision by CJEU: 

"Natural persons who are subject to an administrative investigation for insider dealing have the right to remain silent when their answers might establish their liability for an offence that is punishable by administrative sanctions of a criminal nature, or their criminal liability". 

To go further, read:

• Frison-Roche, M.-A., Resolve the contradiction between "incentive" and "sanction" under the fire of Compliance Law, 2021
• Frison-Roche, M.-A., Rights, primary and natural Compliance tools, 2021

Au sens juridique, la responsabilité désigne le fait de "répondre", mais au sens commun la responsabilité désigne le fait d'avoir du pouvoir et de l'exercer dans les marges que donne la liberté d'action. Les deux sens doivent converger dans un système libéral.

Puisqu'il a été montré que les Régulateurs sont les maîtres des secteurs, ils seraient donc logiques qu'ils sont responsables. Mais, c'est encore un point commun qu'ils ont avec les juges, parce qu'ils sont consubstantiellement indépendants, ils ne peuvent pas voir leur responsabilité engagées. Cependant le droit positif a posé le principe de la Responsabilité de l'Etat du fait de leur Autorités de Régulation, tandis que leur irresponsabilité politique comparée à l'ampleur de leurs pouvoirs a souvent était le ferment de leur contestation.

Par ailleurs, le mécanisme général de la responsabilité est utilisé, notamment parce que les mécanismes du Droit de la Régulation sont eux-mêmes défaillants. En effet, comme l'a montré Alain Supiot, l'on peut "prendre la responsabilité au sérieux" et, si l'on applique cette perspective plus particulièrement à l'espace numérique, cela permettra de pallier les défaillances de la Régulation publique elle-même. En effet, il existe des sortes de  "trous noirs régulatoires", dont relève encore notamment le numérique.

Mais cette violence de la responsabilité ainsi conçue ne doit pas s'appliquer à tous les opérateurs économiques. En effet, cette responsabilité "proactive" qui dépasse le mécanisme de l'Ex Post vers l'Ex Ante ne doit s'appliquer qu'aux opérateurs régulés, éventuellement aux "opérateurs cruciaux, pour qu'à travers leur personne, les buts de la régulation soient atteints (mécanisme de compliance). Les opérateurs ordinaires doivent demeurer dans un mécanisme Ex Post, la responsabilité ne devant pas engendrer des "devoirs généraux de prise en charge d'autrui", car l'entreprise ordinaire n'est pas de même nature que l'État.

D'une façon spécifique et au besoin :

• Consulter les slides servant de support à la leçon.
• Se reporter au plan de la leçon.

D'une façon plus générale et au besoin :

• Accéder au plan général du Cours de Droit Commun de la Régulation.
• Se reporter à la présentation générale du Cours de Droit Commun de la Régulation.

• Consulter le Dictionnaire bilingue de Droit de la Régulation et de la Compliance.
• Consulter la Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

​

Consulter ci-dessous la bibliographie spécifique à cette leçon portant sur la Responsabilité et la Régulation:

Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Rights, primary and natural Compliance Tools, Working Paper, July  2020.

This Working paper is the basis for an article published in the collective book  Compliance Tools .

____

There was a time when Regulatory techniques  were above all only calculations of the best tarifications, taken up by monopolistic companies, while Compliance techniques were only obedience to all rules governing us. All this could therefore only be business of abacus and badine, used by engineers and consisted only of mechanical reflexes of "conformity" to all kinds of rules with the corset ensuring that everyone is bent in front of them!footnote-1946. In the perspective of a Regulation and Compliance thus conceived, that is to say effective, it would not be necessary to insert prerogatives for people, since these could only be sources of inefficiency, of cost. and protest, where the order would come from figures set in advance and controlled processes.

Systems have since evolved to integrate these prerogatives of each person: rights. Is this evolution really acquired? Maybe more effectively in Regulation Law than in its extension which is Compliance Law. This may be surprising since Compliance Law, in that it extends Regulatory Law in enterprises should, on the contrary, promote rights by meeting the enterprise, which is a group of people ....!footnote-1986 . But the modern reluctance to define the enterprise (and the company) as a group of people and the preference given to a definition of the company (and the enterprise) as an "asset", a "good" of which investors would be the owners, maybe explains the sidelining of rights not only in Regulatory Law but also in Compliance Law even though it is being deployed in the space of the enterprise!footnote-1987.

In addition, if Regulation has long been the subject of a branch of Law in which rights have full place, the presentation of Compliance as "conformity", that is to say the proven assurance of obedience to all the applicable rules, leaves no space for the prerogatives of people, which appear rather as resistance to the obedience that would be expected of them. There again, the expectation of what would be a good ratio of conformity between behaviors and prescriptions would be obtained by a "design", data processing being the new form of calculation, improved by precision tools where the being human is not required!footnote-1989. His fallibility and the little confidence which one can place in him leads even to exclude the people and to conceive Compliance system between machines, not only to alert of the failures, but also to manufacture the "regulations" and to connect those. here, in a "regulatory fabric" without a jump stitch, entirely enveloping human beings!footnote-1990.

It would therefore be with regret, and probably because some constitutional jurisdictions still attach some value to fundamental rights that the systems of "conformity" of behavior to the rules make some room for the prerogatives of people, their more essential rights. It is sometimes said that this is part of the cost. It would therefore be as by "forcing" that rights would exist in Compliance systems, a kind of price that the effectiveness of Compliance must pay as a tribute to the Rule of Law principle!footnote-1991.

If in a poor definition Compliance is conceived in this only "conformity", leading to a landscape in which the behaviors of the people adjust to the rules governing the situations, Compliance being only the most "effective way" to ensure the application of the rules, in a mechanical perspective of Law, then it would effectively be necessary to reduce the prerogatives of people to a minimal part, because any "additional cost" is intended to disappear, even if it is produced here by constitutional requirements. In the looming battle between the effectiveness of the application of rules and the concern for the legal prerogatives of people who should above all obey and not claim their rights, especially their right not to obey , or their right to keep secret in Compliance techniques which is based on the centralization of information, the effectiveness of efficiency could only, by the very power of this tautology, prevail!footnote-1988... 

The defeat would not be total, however, collaboration would still be possible and active between people availing themselves of their rights and Compliance Law. Indeed, in many respects, if rights have been recognized in Compliance systems, it is not only because Compliance Law, like any branch of Law, can only be deployed with respect for fundamental rights. kept by fundamental legal texts, but also because of the effectiveness of rights as " Compliance Tools".

Indeed, 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 made to achieve these goals, the public authorities not only rely on the power of crucial operators, but also distribute prerogatives to people who, thus encouraged, activate the Compliance system and participate in the achievement of the "monumental goals". Rights can prove to be the most effective tools to effectively achieve the goals set, to such an extent that they can be considered as "primary tools"  (I).

But it is necessary to be more ambitious, even to reverse the perspective. Indeed because all the Monumental Goals by which Compliance Law is defined can be reduced to the protection of people, that is to say to the effectiveness of their prerogatives, by a mirror effect between rights. given by Law to persons and the rights which constitute the very purpose of all Compliance Law, in particular the protection of all human beings, even if they are in a situation of great weakness, rights become a "natural tool" of Compliance Law (II).

Rights are the Compliance Law future. 

Référence complète, Société Française de Psychologie Juridique, La psychologie, le droit et la régulation, revue Psycho-Droit, Revue internationale de psychologie juridique, Numéro 5, 2020.

____

V. notamment :

• Farinetti, A., Psychologie juridique et régulation des espèces. Une illustration des rapports entre la psychologie juridique et le droit de l’environnement 

____

Accéder à l'ensemble des numéros de la Revue. 

_______

► Full reference: M.-E. Boursier, "Qu'est-ce que la compliance ? Essai de définition", D. 2020, Chron., p. 1419-1424. 

____

► Summary of the article (done by the author, in French): Au-delà de la diversité de ses sources et de ses finalités, de la variabilité de sa valeur normative et des sanctions encourues, apparaît un élément commun à toutes les déclinaisons de la compliance : la méthode par laquelle elle se déploie.

La compliance se définit avant tout comme une méthode, inspirée des théories de la procéduralisation du droit. Elle consiste en une « internalisation », par l'entreprise et dans l'entreprise, de systèmes de conformité (cartographie des risques, procédures, vigilance, alerte) qui conduisent in fine les opérateurs économiques à assister les États dans la réalisation de leurs missions (lutte contre les grandes infractions du droit pénal des affaires internationales comme le blanchiment et la corruption, respect des droits humains, etc.).

________

♾️follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The dreamed Compliance Law, Working Paper, June 2020. 

____

This Working Paper, "The Dreamed Compliance Law", is the basis for an article, written in French, "La compliance" (Compliance), inserted in the collective work to be published under the direction of Jean-Baptiste Racine, Le Droit économique du XXIème siècle (The XXIe century Economic Law , in the Serie Droit & Economie,   LGDJ-Lextenso, 2020.

________

No one can know what the Law of the 21st century will be. Pretending to know it is just not to realize its ignorance. Why then writing about it, since the future is always surprising?

One can only write about the unknown part of the Law of tomorrow. If the future is then modeled on what was written, so much the better for the prophet, a tribute that can, for example, be paid to Pierre Godé!footnote-1813 who described in 1999 what was going to be 10 years later "Law of the future" constituted by Environmental Law!footnote-1804. If the future denies the author or if its contours in no way follow the lines of the written word, this is not serious since the writing of the Law, even if it has the specificity of being partly prescriptive in that it has the power to write the future, a normative pen that rounds up letters!footnote-1805, it participates in all writing: above all to be that of a dream.

Lévi-Strauss argued that teaching is defined as dreaming out loud. Teaching and describing the Law of a century that we will never know gives even more freedom to dream about it. This freedom increases when the object is a branch of Law in the process of being born, state of the stammering "Compliance Law" of which some still maintain, as it was made for Regulation Law, that there is not existing. The hand can then, as it pleases, trace its beautiful or hideous features: what face will Compliance Law have, as soon as we assume that it will exist?

It may as well be a nightmare (I) as a happy dream (II).

It is up to us to choose in which category this branch of Law will flourish. Because what we can be sure of is this fulfillment. It is certainly already taking sides to presuppose the very existence of Compliance Law. Not only to consider it possibility with hostility because to be an enemy of something or someone is already to recognize their existence. Before that, two objections radically block the very existence of Compliance Law and their shadow remains in the future of it!footnote-1809.

Firstly, it is said that Compliance does not come under Law, but for example only ethics since it would consist in keeping well in companies which care about the interest of others or the planet, for example by spontaneous care of the environment; Compliance being a crystallization of social responsibility, the one for which we have our conscience, we express our "raison d'être" and we are not accountable!footnote-1807. Or it would consist in technologically putting in place tools for capturing technical information using data storage and processing methods. Compliance is then a sub-category of "Data Regulation"!!footnote-1814, a mechanical concept in which Law is no more present. In these two perspectives, Compliance Law cannot exist, no more tomorrow than it would exist today. These two radical conceptions, completely entrusting Compliance mechanisms to everyone except lawyers, do not make sense because it suffices to note the development of judgments and laws to measure the legal phenomenon already present!footnote-1808.

Second, there would be many Compliance mechanisms but insufficient to constitute a branch of Law. Indeed we would find Compliance in Company Law, Labor Law, Financial Law, Banking Law, Criminal Law, Administrative Law, European Law, International Law, etc.

These classic branches, which have been formed for so long, depending on the point of view adopted, would gain in modernity or be threatened with decay by this kind of extension which will be Compliance. There would thus be as many "little legal sectoral rules" as there are branches of law. These new internal developments would be like a new bud, on which care should be taken - if the tree regains its strength - or a weed to be eradicated - if the French garden loses its perspective.

Thus the matter being scattered as many as specialist lawyers, often criminalists or specialists in banking and Financial Law, then tomorrow all specialists in all branches of Law, this could constitute the most radical obstacle to the constitution of Compliance Law. Indeed, we would come back to confuse Compliance and the "modernization" of Law itself as a whole, since it would only be a question of perfecting each of the classic branches of the legal system.

If we keep in this half-sleep that is any projection in the future the hope of a constituted branch of Law, we must discard these two perspectives of annihilation, either in the total absence of Law or in recovery by all Law. To dismiss the sorrowful spirits who see no future in Compliance and keep only its enemies in the space of this article, let us assume that Compliance Law will exist in the 21st century. In what form and by what means, in the palm of which institutions, in the shadow of which legal system? Since it is a question of projecting ourselves onto the black screen of our nights of dreamy lawyers, let us take the current state only as a trailer. Like the one developed by the genius who by the contempt not only brought down into the flames of hell the cinema which has become a consumer industry with which producers force-feed us but offered us the vision of its future. What is what we see today the trailer? We let our imagination run wild since the trailer films are autonomous works compared to the film which follows them.

We have no idea what will happen and what we are watching from the brief and violent current images of Compliance Law, the cinema of which rather makes a hero of the whistleblower!footnote-1811 and a character of the narrow and ridiculous importance of the compliance officer!footnote-1812, does little to help us. But if we force the features of the present lineaments, the alternative of this Law in childhood is therefore that of a nightmare (I) or an idyllic solution for difficulties that will increase (II).

Everything will depend on the concept that we will retain of Compliance Law. Because the script is not written, because Compliance Law is a Law with a political dimension, that it is defined by the ambitions that we can claim to have by setting monumental goals that we are going to achieve, a claim that will make it one major branch of the Law of tomorrow, or we can abandon any claim, lower our heads and arms, and reject any claim. It is then that the power of Compliance Law, which will be no less great, will turn against us, human beings, as in a nightmare.

Référence complète : Supiot, A., La Gouvernance par les nombres, col. "Poids et mesures du monde", Fayard, 2015, 418 p.

Lire la 4ième de couverture.

Lire la Table des matière.

Lire la conclusion de l'ouvrage.

Regarder les cours d'Alain Supiot reprenant les thèmes de l'ouvrage.

Regarder la présentation vidéo du contenu de l'ouvrage.

Lors de son édition en 2020 sous format de poche dans la collection Pluriel, Alain Supiot a rédigé une nouvelle préface : lire la nouvelle préface. 

L'ouvrage a été traduit en anglais par Saskia Brown. Il a été publié en novembre 2017 sous le titre : The governance by Numbers. The Making of a Legal Model of Allegiance.

Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Haine sur Internet : il faut responsabiliser les opérateurs numériques, entretien avec Olivia Dufour, Actu-juridique Lextenso, 15 janvier 2020. 

Les questions posées étaient : 

• Pour lutter efficacement contre la haine sur Internet, la proposition Avia demande aux plateformes d'intervenir sous le contrôle du CSA. Ce système, inspiré de l'économie, est-il transposable dans un domaine aussi sensible que la liberté d'expression ?

​

• Comprenez-vous la crainte du Syndicat de la magistrature que les plateformes ne se transforment en organe de censure ? N'est-ce pas un défaut de conception du texte ?

• Pensez-vous que l'on puisse se passer de la protection du juge judiciaire en matière de liberté d'expression ? Précisément dans cette loi, estimez-vous qu'il a sa juste place ou que celle-ci devrait être renforcée ?

Lire les trois réponses données dans l'interview.

______

► Référence complète : De Backer, N., « Le principe de proportionnalité à l’épreuve de la liberté d’expression numérique », J.E.D.H., 2019/4, p. 243-277.

____

Référence générale: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Le législateur, peintre de la vie, in Archives de philosophie du droit (APD), Tome 61, 2019, pp. 339-410.

Résumé : Peindre si bien que la toile est un objet vivant est un exploit technique qui fût atteint par peu. Francis Bacon obtînt de la toile qu'elle fasse son affaire de préserver en elle la vie, tandis que Carbonnier, avec une semblable modestie devant la toile et le métier, obtînt que la Loi ne soit qu'un cadre, mais qu'elle ne laisse pourtant cette place-là à personne et surtout pas à l'opinion publique, afin que chacun puisse à sa façon et dans ce cadre-là faire son propre droit, sur lequel le législateur dans sa délicatesse et pour reprendre les termes du Doyen n'appose qu'un "mince vernis". Ces deux maîtres de l’art construisaient des cadres avec des principes rudimentaires pour que sur cette toile le mouvement advienne par lui-même. Ainsi la Législateur créée par Carbonnier offrit à chaque famille la liberté de tisser chaque jour son droit. Mais c’est pourtant bien au Législateur seul que revint et doit revenir l’enfance de l’art consistant à tendre la toile sur le métier. Il est alors possible, comme le fit Bacon, d’obtenir un objet immobile permet que surgisse sans cesse les figures mobiles. Les gribouillis réglementaires sont à mille lieux de cet Art législatif-là. 

Lire l'article.

L'article ne comprend pas de reproductions, celles-ci figurent dans le document de travail.

Lire le document de travail ayant servi de base à l'article publié, document de travail bilingue comprenant des notes de bas de page, des références techniques et de liens hypertextes.

The Finance Bill has proposed to the Parliament to vote an article 57 whose title is: Possibilité pour les administrations fiscales et douanières de collecter et exploiter les données rendues publiques sur les sites internet des réseaux sociaux et des opérateurs de plateformes (translation: Possibility for the tax and customs administrations to collect and exploit the data made public on the websites of social networks and platform operators).

Its content is as is in the text voted on in the National Assembly as follows:

"(1) I. - On an experimental basis and for a period of three years, for the purposes of investigating the offenses mentioned in b and c of 1 of article 1728, in articles 1729, 1791, 1791 ter, in 3 °, 8 ° and 10 ° of article 1810 of the general tax code, as well as articles 411, 412, 414, 414-2 and 415 of the customs code, the tax administration and the customs administration and indirect rights may, each as far as it is concerned, collect and exploit by means of computerized and automated processing using no facial recognition system, freely accessible content published on the internet by the users of the online platform operators mentioned in 2 ° of I of article L. 111-7 of the consumer code.

(2) The processing operations mentioned in the first paragraph are carried out by agents specially authorized for this purpose by the tax and customs authorities.

(3) When they are likely to contribute to the detection of the offenses mentioned in the first paragraph, the data collected are kept for a maximum period of one year from their collection and are destroyed at the end of this period. However, when used within the framework of criminal, tax or customs proceedings, this data may be kept until the end of the proceedings.

(4) The other data are destroyed within a maximum period of thirty days from their collection.

(5) The right of access to the information collected is exercised with the assignment service of the agents authorized to carry out the processing mentioned in the second paragraph under the conditions provided for by article 42 of law n ° 78-17 of January 6, 1978 relating to data processing, the files and freedoms.

(6) The right to object, provided for in article 38 of the same law, does not apply to the processing operations mentioned in the second paragraph.

(7) The terms of application of this I are set by decree of the Council of State.

(8) II. - The experiment provided for in I is the subject of an evaluation, the results of which are forwarded to Parliament as well as to the National Commission for Data Protection at the latest six months before its end. "

This initiative provoked many comments, rather reserved, even after the explanations given by the Minister of Budget to the National Assembly.

What to think of it legally?

Because the situation is quite simple, that is why it is difficult: on the one hand, the State will collect personal information without the authorization of the persons concerned, which is contrary to the very object of the law of 1978 , which results in full disapproval; on the other hand, the administration obtains the information to prosecute tax and customs offenses, which materializes the general interest itself.

So what about it?

Read below.

Référence complète : Bonneau, Th., Pailler, P., Rouaud, A.-Cl., Tehrani, A., Vabres, R., Droit financier, coll. "Précis Domat - droit privé", 3e édition, 2021, 1200 p.

Lire la 4ième de couverture.

Lire la table des matières.

Summary : In August 2019, about the fire devastating the Amazon, the French Minister of Ecology says that this fact "is not just the business of a state" (n'est pas que l'affaire d'un Etat). This assertion denies the postulates of Public International Iaw (I). This supposes a new system, based on the idea that the power of the State on its territory is erased when the object that is there is no longer related to this "part" but to the All that is Universe (II). Let's accept the augur. First question: if it is not only the case of a State, whose business is it? (III). Second question: to anticipate the other cases that fall under this regime, what should be the criteria in the name of which the All will have to prevail over the part and who will then take care of the case of which the "local" State is divested? (IV). Because the perspective goes beyond the environment, beyond Brazil, beyond the States. It leads to Compliance Law animated by "monumental goals" that are the concern for the Universe and humans, in a humanist spirit. Let's go.

___

On August 27, 2019, on the French radio France Inter, Elisabeth Borne, French Minister of Ecology (Transition écologique) expresses it clearly:  "Quand on est sur un enjeu tel que l'Amazonie, ça n'est pas que l'affaire d'un État", that can be translated : "When we are on a stake such as the Amazon, it is not only the business of one State ".

Starting from one case, "the Amazon", the Minister, thus taking up the position of the French President, associates a general consequence: "it is not only the affair of one State".

This is not a trivial sentence.

This affirmation denies, and why not, the entire system of Public International Law (I). By a new reasoning based on the idea that the All prevails, as by an effect of nature, on the Part (II).

Admitting this, it leads to opening two sets of questions. The first is related to the following main question: if it is not only the case of one State, of which is this the concern (III)? The second set of questions revolves around the questioning of the criteria on behalf of which other cases must be seized in the name of "All " and how to do it (IV).

A. The postulate of Public (and Private) International Law: parties (States) which, because of common interests, are in contact

The notion of State includes in its very definition the notion of territory (a territory, a population, institutions).

Thus the State governs through its institutions what is happening on its territory. For example, if there is a fire, or a risk of fire, the State makes arrangements through all legal, financial, technical and human instruments available to it. It is accountable for what it does through its political and legal responsibility.

When what is happening on its territory exceeds this one, in fact (epidemic, catastrophe with the consequences exceeding the borders, migrations, etc.) either according to its own opinion or according to that of the other States, the States, being sovereign subjects of Law in  the international system, act together on a pre-built legal basis: bilateral or/and multilateral treaties!footnote-1675, having created legal integrated zones (like the European Union or the United States) or international institutions (like the IMF).

A particular technique has been developed for several millennia - but here again the seniority is not sufficient to keep the system: diplomacy, anchored in each state in a particular ministry: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which each national government has. If one State totally excludes one phenomenon in the territory of another, the progressive procedure of ceasing diplomatic ties begins.

This can result in wars.

In the "case of the Amazon" both the President of Brazil and the President of the United States stick to the classical construction of Law.

Indeed, the former asserted that the Amazon is in the territory of Brazil, thus falls under the jurisdiction of the power of the Brazilian State and the Brazilian Law, from which it follows that another State does not have to come to interfere. However, the French President takes the floor not as this forest extends also on a French territory but as it is the business of the World. On the contrary, the President of Brazil claims the closing effect, which excludes a third State from taking over directly something - even a difficulty - that takes place in the territory of another.

The President of the US federal State has said that these are joint decisions between the President of Brazil and other heads of State, sovereign subjects of Law, who must agree to organize a solution to solve a local problem . Because in the same way that States can declare war, they can help each other!footnote-1676.

The whole Public (and Private) International Law is therefore based on this assumption: "parts" of the world, on which sovereign parties (States) have taken contact, because circumstances make something that falls within one of them or several others.

This is precisely what is called into question. The notion of the "right of interference", whose evocation we hardly hear any more, had already done so. But on another basis.

B. The "right of interference": idea that somebody can directly interfere with what happens in a country , an idea that does not question the postulate of the International Maw, an idea that rests on something else: a " right for the other "

The "right of interference" is the idea that in certain territories, things happen that are inadmissible.

In memory of the jus cogens, a kind of "Natural Law" of Public International Law, Another, that could be another state, can come to meddle with what is happening in a territory that is closed, without declaring war. to the state that keeps its borders.

It is the need of others, for example those who die in mass on this territory, or the nature that is devastated in the indifference of the State on whose soil the disaster is happening, which founds this "right" of another state to come and take charge.

The foundation of this "right" is therefore a "duty".

C. The new idea: a territory is only part of the Globe, whose fate is everyone's concern

The idea is new because it is not based on altruism. And no more about self-interest. Yet, de facto and de jure , the Amazon is not on the sole territory of Brazil.

France is particularly well placed to say something about it since part of the Amazon is on French territory.

Thus the inaction of the main concerned Brazil directly affects the interest of France, a "forest" being a block that can not be divided. If we were in Property Law, we would say that we are in indivision with Brazil and that in this respect, with the other States on whose territories this forest extends, a solution must be found.

Because of the indivisibility of this particular object which is this particular fores!footnote-1644, it is necessary that the States whose territory is concerned have a say in the matter.

But this is not the argument put forward by France, particularly by the President of the Republic.

It is said that the whole world is concerned about the fate of the Amazon. It could be said that, in this respect, when what could be described as a "global forest" is well treated, its management does indeed fall within the power of Brazil, Brazilian companies and the Brazilian State, but when it is abused to the point of seeing its future compromised, when fires may make it disappear, then this forest appears not to be localized in Brazil but being located in the World, of which Brazil is only a part!footnote-1648.

This reasoning, which then gives voice to everyone, for in the world every state is included in it, is a new reasoning.

The economic-political theory of the "commons" does not account for it because it is not a very legal theory!footnote-1656. 

II. THE NEW REASONING THAT COVERS THE CLASSIC REASONING OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

The new reasoning adopted by the Minister consists in saying that the Amazon does not concern only Brazil. This forest should therefore be directly related to the World (A). This is a welcome change in the system but based on a paradox (B).

A. When the Amazon is in danger of death, then it should no longer be attached to this part of the World that is Brazil, but directly to the World

This forest is presented as the "lung" of the planet, it is the "future" of humanity. In this, it can concern only one State, not even the one on whose territory this "Humanity good" is located!footnote-1643. 

As such, without the need to declare war to Brazil, another State may speak, for example the French State through the one that represents it in the international order, that is to say its President, to say what to do, since according to him the President of Brazil does not say or do what it is absolutely necessary to do for the whole planet and for the future of Humanity.

This induces a complete renewal of international institutions.

Indeed a direct attachment to the World and no longer to Brazil gives the forest object a special status because of a goal that exceeds Brazil: save the Amazon would impose because it would save the world. Therefore, it can no longer be the subject of Brazil, which would be like "dispossessed" by a goal that is imposed on it: to save the Amazon rainforest, even though it is mainly on its territory, while other States become legitimate to dispose of this object, even if the forest would not be in part in their territory, even if they would not be affected in their own interests.

This contradicts all Public International Law!footnote-1645; because the agreement of the political representatives of Brazil is no longer required and no one yet evokes the need to declare war to Brazil, and fortunately!

Such an upheaval justifies that such an affirmation is accepted with difficulty. One understands better than first consequence, which is not so innocuous, one of the first rules of diplomacy which is the politeness, between the heads of state, with regard to the spouses of these , have be broken!footnote-1657, that the remarks have slipped on personal questions, etc.

B. A welcome but paradoxical change in the system

Why not change the system?

This is difficult to admit, not only because it is brutal, but because it is paradoxical.

The paradox is the following. It is recognized that the theme of the disappearance of borders by "globalization"!footnote-1647 no longer reproduces the reality of facts!footnote-1646, especially not the Chinese situation, the digitalization having on the contrary allowed the construction of even stronger boundaries. What we called "globalization" now belongs to the pastWhat we called "globalization" now belongs to the past!footnote-1660. So today we should recognize on one side the reality of borders - which had not disappeared or are reborn - but only to better step over them, since - based on the concern of the world - states, yet each in their borders, would be legitimate to go directly to intervene in the business of others. 

The paradox is therefore, on the one hand, the rejection of the allegation of a de facto disappearance of borders by an economic interdependence, technology having denied "globalization" as a fact !footnote-1649 and the linked resurgence of borders allowing States to affirm more than ever that they would be "sovereign masters at home", which should logically lead to let Brazil decide for the Amazon, while yet on the other side we witness the questioning of the postulate of Public International Law as recognition of sovereignty and construction from agreements between states, requiring the agreement of the state whose territory is concerned (except war), questioning which leads to allow all to meddle with the fate of the Amazon, as if there was no border.

This paradox leads to two questions.

The first question is: if "it's not juste one State affair", who's concerned?

The second question is: after the "case of the Amazon", what are the other cases? And how are we going to provide solutions, if we no longer have the solutions of Public International Law, that is to say, the agreement of the country whose territory is concerned and which we do not want not go to war?

If we have clear ideas on the answers to be given to these two sets of questions, then because indeed when the future of all is in progress it can not be the affair of a single State, it is necessary to question Public International Law. But do we have clear ideas on these two questions? And what are the possibilities for possible solutions?

See the text following below.

Lisant sur mon écran d'ordinateur un article en accès libre dans une revue en partie librement accessible numériquement, une mention attire mon attention.

Elle a de quoi laisser perplexe toute personne qui écrit des articles et ouvrage qui requiert des lectures, lectures dont on indique au lecteur la trace pour l'inviter à son tour à y procéder dans ses propres recherches. Dans des travaux de recherche, de découverte et d'interrogation, donc.

Voilà le texte de la mention. :

Des DOI (Digital Object Identifier) sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références par Bilbo, l'outil d'annotation bibliographique d'OpenEdition.
Les utilisateurs des institutions abonnées à l'un des programmes freemium d'OpenEdition peuvent télécharger les références bibliographiques pour lesquelles Bilbo a trouvé un DOI.

"sont automatiquement ajoutés" ?

Il s'agit littéralement d'un "outil d'annotation bibliographique" ?

Si l'on s'abonne (le prix n'est pas indiqué, mais quand on écrit "-ium", c'est pour dire que l'on sort du gratuit...; comme le fait l'entreprise américaine Academia qui propose rapidement de "upgrapder" par un service payant pour accéder ), automatiquement les références seront téléchargées dès l'instant que l'algorithme, répondant au nom de "Bilbo" (n'est-ce pas le nom d'un personnage dans Le seigneur des anneaux ?), mais qui dans le civil a un nom qui reproduit sa fonction (Digital Object Identifier) fonction exprimée en langue anglaise va "automatiquement ajouter" une référence aux autres références qui auront été tacquées par l'algorithme.

Est-ce raisonnable ? Est-ce efficace ? Est-ce sans danger ?

C'est mécaniquement efficace, dès l'instant que l'on conçoit la référence bibliographique comme un "entassement mécanique" (I). Mais la référence bibliographique est et doit être tout autre chose, ce que les machines ne peuvent en rien restituer : être le reflet du parcours intellectuel que l'être humain qui écrivit l'article ou l'ouvrage fit pour écrit ce texte-là, une invitation à la lecture (et les machines ne lisent pas, on en arrive aujourd'hui à devoir le rappeler). Cette définition qui fut partagée de la bibliographie, qui ne mesure pas l'ampleur de l'empilement mais dessine ce vers quoi l'auteur s'est tourné pour chercher, pour trouver des réponses aux questions qu'il s'est posées, cela seul une personne peut le faire. En rien "Bilbo" (II). Or, si l'on se repose sur celui-ci, contre un abonnement, pour faire cette tâche-là, qui n'est reflet de rien, non seulement la bibliographie ne sera plus rien, mais des effets pervers, comme ceux observés comme celui des "citations", vont s'accroître (III).

Ensuite, si Bilbo écrit les bibliographie, tandis que Sophia fait les conférences, pourquoi un autre algorithme, que l'on pourrait appeler Thesarus ne pourrait pas écrire thèse, livre, essai, article, en ayant compilé toutes les règles formelles à respecter. Pourquoi non ? On se souviendra alors que les machines et les suites de chiffres ne lisent pas, n'écrivent pas, ne conçoivent pas, n'apprennent pas (l'expression Learning machine est un oximore), ne mémorisent pas (la "mémoire" d'un ordinaire n'est qu'une image), ne traduisent pas, n'ont pas d'émotion, n'aiment pas. Seuls les êtres humains le peuvent. Le sait-on encore ? 

Lire ci-dessous une analyse plus détaillée.

Référence complète : Bergé, J.-S., Le concept juridique de monnaie, in Petites Affiches, n°178-179, septembre 2019