The dispute tree under the microscope. The making of the first court ruling on the Duty of Vigilance of multinational companies

Beyond the symbolic stakes involved in the adoption of a new law, the implementation of a new legal obligation can only be judged on the basis of the initial court rulings. But how is the very first legal decision made? To what extent is the judicial translation of the law a de facto extension of the legislative work, given that the judges are forced to interpret what is hidden beneath the silence and imprecision of the text ? The article addresses these questions through the particularly emblematic case of the implementation of the 2017 law on the Duty of Vigilance of parent companies. Extending the botanical metaphor of the “dispute tree”, we here propose a narrative designed to observe and analyze the processes that have played a part in the development and outcome of the first Duty of Vigilance litigation. In the context of what is perhaps a “regulatory moment” in the legal order, we highlight the extent to which the determination of militant organizations to obtain a ruling from the judicial judge effectively came up against a plurality of forces pushing towards any alternative form of dispute resolution.