Skip to main content

Barcelona Traction Case – 1970

By


 

Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited

(Belgium v. Spain)
ICJ Reports 1970, p. 3

Parties

  • Applicant: Belgium

  • Respondent: Spain

Background / Facts

  • Barcelona Traction was a company incorporated in Canada.

  • Most of its shareholders were Belgian nationals.

  • The company operated mainly in Spain.

  • Spain declared Barcelona Traction bankrupt and took measures that allegedly caused serious financial loss.

  • Belgium brought a claim against Spain on behalf of its nationals (shareholders), alleging denial of justice and unlawful acts.

Legal Issues

  1. Which State has the right to exercise diplomatic protection of a company?

  2. Can a State protect shareholders for injury to a foreign-incorporated company?

  3. Are there obligations in international law owed to the international community as a whole?

Arguments

Belgium:

  • The real economic interests were Belgian.

  • Spain’s actions harmed Belgian nationals (shareholders).

  • Belgium had standing to bring the claim.

Spain:

  • Only the State of incorporation (Canada) could exercise diplomatic protection.

  • Shareholders have no independent right unless directly injured.

Decision / Holding

The ICJ ruled in favor of Spain.

Key findings:

  • Belgium had no locus standi.

  • The right to exercise diplomatic protection belonged to Canada, not Belgium.

  • Injury was suffered by the company, not the shareholders directly.

Key Legal Principles Established

1. Diplomatic Protection of Corporations

  • The State of incorporation is generally the only State entitled to protect a company internationally.

  • Exceptions (not applicable here):

    • Company ceases to exist

    • State of incorporation is unable or unwilling to act

    • Direct rights of shareholders are violated

2. Separate Legal Personality

  • A company is legally distinct from its shareholders.

  • Injury to the company ≠ injury to shareholders.

3. Erga Omnes Obligations (Landmark Contribution)

The Court identified obligations owed to the international community as a whole, including:

  • Prohibition of aggression

  • Genocide

  • Slavery

  • Racial discrimination

  • Basic human rights

➡️ Any State has a legal interest in their protection.

Why This Case Is Famous

  • Leading authority on diplomatic protection

  • Introduced the concept of erga omnes obligations

  • Clarified corporate nationality in international law

  • Frequently cited in human rights and state responsibility cases

Outcome

  • Case dismissed due to lack of standing

  • No ruling on the merits of Spain’s conduct

Quick Exam Tip

“Barcelona Traction establishes that diplomatic protection of a company belongs to the State of incorporation and introduces the doctrine of erga omnes obligations.”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

🌍 Human Rights Cases Brown v. Board of Education (1954) – USA

By
  Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) 📍 Court Supreme Court of the United States 👥 Parties Plaintiff:   Oliver Brown  (on behalf of his daughter,  Linda Brown ) Defendant:   Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas 📜 Facts of the Case Linda Brown, an African-American child, was  denied admission  to a white public school close to her home. She was forced to attend a  segregated Black school  much farther away. The segregation was legal under the doctrine of  “separate but equal”  established in  Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) . ⚖️ Legal Issue Does racial segregation in public schools violate the  Equal Protection Clause  of the  14th Amendment  of the U.S. Constitution? 📖 Law Involved 14th Amendment  – Equal Protection Clause 🧠 Arguments Plaintiffs argued: Segregation creates a sense of  inferiority  among Black children. Separate educational facilities are  inherently unequal . Defe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

By
  Marbury v. Madison (1803) 📍 Court Supreme Court of the United States 👥 Parties Plaintiff: William Marbury Defendant: James Madison (Secretary of State) 📜 Facts of the Case In 1801, outgoing President John Adams appointed several judges (“ midnight judges ”). William Marbury was appointed Justice of the Peace . His commission was signed and sealed but not delivered before Adams left office. New President Thomas Jefferson ordered Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver the commission. Marbury filed a case directly in the Supreme Court, asking for a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to deliver it. ⚖️ Legal Issues Did Marbury have a right to the commission? If yes, was there a legal remedy? Could the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus under its original jurisdiction ? 📖 Laws Involved Article III of the U.S. Constitution Judiciary Act of 1789 , Section 13 🧠 Court’s Reasoning (Chief Justice John Marshall...
Post a Comment
Read more