Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Ltd. (Belgium v.

Spain) case brief

Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Ltd. (Belgium v. Spain)

Procedural History:
Action for damages for the expropriation of a corporation.

Overview:
-Belgium (P) brought an action for damages against Spain (D) on the ground that its nationals as
shareholders of the Barcelona Traction Co., incorporated and registered in Canada, had been seriously
harmed by actions of Spain (D) resulting in expropriation.
-The Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Co. was incorporated and registered in Canada for the
purpose of developing and operating electrical power in Spain (D).
-After the Spanish Civil War, the company was declared bankrupt by a Spanish court and its assets were
seized.
-After the Canadian interposition ceased, Belgium (P) brought an action for damages against Spain (D)
for what it termed expropriation of the assets of the Traction Co. on the ground that a large majority
of the stock of the company was owned by Belgian (P) nationals.
-Spain (D) raised the preliminary objection that Belgium (P) lacked standing to bring suit for damages
to a Canadian company.

Issue:
Does the state of the shareholders of a company have a right of diplomatic protection if the state
whose responsibility is invoked is not the national state of the company?

Outcome:
No. In order for a state to bring a claim in respect of the breach of an obligation owed to it, it must
first establish its right to do so. This right is predicated on a showing that the defendant state has
broken an obligation toward the national state in respect of its nationals. In the present case it is
therefore essential to establish whether the losses allegedly suffered by Belgian (P) shareholders in
Barcelona Traction were the consequence of the violation of obligations of which they are
beneficiaries.
-In the present state of the law, the protection of shareholders requires that recourse be had to treaty
stipulations or special agreements directly concluded between the private investor and the state in
which the investment is placed. Barring such agreements, the obligation owed is to the corporation,
and only the state of incorporation has standing to bring an action for violations of such an obligation.
Nonetheless, for reasons of equity a theory has been developed to the effect that the state of the
shareholders has a right of diplomatic protection when the state whose responsibility is invoked is the
national state of the company. This theory, however, is not applicable to the present case, since Spain
(D) is not the national state of Barcelona Traction. Barcelona Traction could have approached its
national state, Canada, to ask for its diplomatic protection.
-For the above reasons, the Court is of the opinion that Belgium (P) lacks standing to bring this action.

Rule:
the state of a shareholders corporation has a right of diplomatic protection only when the state whose
responsibility is invoked is the national state of the company.

Analysis:
The Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. 185, states that failure of a state
to pay just compensation for the taking of the property of an alien is wrongful under international law,
regardless of whether the taking itself is conceived as wrongful. Such a wrongful taking is
characterized either as tortious conduct or as unjust enrichment.
Brief Fact Summary. An actions for damages against Spain (D) on the premise that its nationals as
shareholders of the Barcelona Traction Co., incorporated and registered in Canada had been seriously
harmed by Spains (D) actions resulting in expropriation, was brought by Belgium (P).

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The state of the shareholders of a corporation has a right of diplomatic
protection only when the state whose responsibility is invoked is the national state of the company.

Facts: The Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Co, was incorporated and registered in Canada for the
purpose of developing and operating electrical power in Spain (D). The company was declared bankrupt
by a Spanish court after the Spanish Civil War and its assets were seized. After the end of the Canadian
interposition, an action for damages against Spain (D) was brought by Belgium (P) for what it termed
expropriation of the assets of the traction Co. on the ground that a large majority of the stock of the
company was owned by Belgian (P) nationals. Preliminary objections was raised by Spain (D) that the
plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit for damages to a Canadian company.

Issue: Does the state of the shareholders of a company have a right of diplomatic protection if the
state whose responsibility is invoked is not the national state of the company?

Held. Yes. A state assumes an obligation concerning the treatment of foreign investments based on
general international law, once the state admits foreign investments or foreign nationals into its
territory. It is highly imperative to draw a distinction between those obligations of a state toward the
international community as a whole and those arising from the field of diplomatic protection. It is only
the party to whom an international obligation is due can bring a claim if a breach of an obligation that
is the subject of diplomatic protection occurs.

Discussion: As stated in the Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States S 185,
failure of a state to pay just compensation for the taking of the property of an alien is wrongful under
international law, regardless of whether the taking itself is conceived as wrongful. This wrongful taking
is characterized either as tortious conduct or as unjust enrichment. The basic right of all human
persons was mentioned by the Court to be protected against slavery and racial discrimination as
deriving from basic general international law. Such rights may derive from international instruments of
a universal or quasi-universal character. Such obligations are obligations erga omnes, that is, all states
have a legal interest in their protection.