Page 191 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

could be heard, the Government of Lebanon and volved in the case before it, the Court rejected Belgium's
"Electricite de Beyrouth Company" negotiated a settle- claim. Likewise, the Court refused to adopt a special
ment; the case was discontinued and removed from the equity rule that would permit a State "to take up the pro-
list of the Court in 1954. In 1959 the Government of tection of its nationals, shareholders in a company, which
France again instituted proceedings before the Court had been the victim of a violation law. . . . [, as such a
against Lebanon with regard to the "Compagnie du Port proposition] would create an atmosphere of insecurity in
des Quais et des Entre pots de Beyrouth and the Societe international economic relations." 148
Radio - Orient," but within a year and a half it was also b. Advisory Opinions
removed from the list of the Court by request of the par- The Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in
ties.
the United Nations (Article 4 of Charter) Opinion
The Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, (1947-1949). 149 Article 4(1) of the United Nations
Limited Case (Belgium v. Spain) (1958-1961). 144 Charter contains three criteria for membership in the
United Nations. The applicant states (1) must be peace-
The Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company,
Limited (New Application) Case (Belgium v. Spain) loving, (2) must accept the obligations contained in the
(1962-1970). 145 In 1958 Belgium instituted proceedings Charter, and (3) in the judgment of the United Nations
before the Court against Spain with regard to the Bar- must be able and willing to carry out the Charter obliga-
celona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited. In tions.
1961 the Belgian government with a view toward negotia- Since the creation of the United Nations some 12 states
tion requested that the matter be discontinued and then had unsuccessfully applied for admission. Their applica-
removed from the list of the Court. This was done, but in tions were vetoed in the Security Council. A proposal was
1962 Belgium filed a new application concerning Bar- then made for the admission of all candidates at once.
celona Traction with the Court when negotiations failed. Such a proposal certainly implied that some states would
Barcelona Traction was incorporated in 191 1 in Canada only be admitted on the condition that others would be
and, primarily through subsidiaries, supplied electricity in admitted also.The General Assembly questioned the im-
Spain. Between WWI and WWII it was alleged that position by the Security Council of conditions for admis-
Belgian citizens acquired a large percentage of Barcelona sion not contained in the Charter. The General Assembly
Traction stocks/bonds. With the start of the Spanish Civil asked the Court for an advisory opinion. The Court
War, the company suffered fmancial dficulties and in declared that conditions laid down in Article 4 for the ad-
1948 was declared bankrupt by a Spanish Court. The mission of states were exhaustive and that if these condi-
claim submitted to the Court was presented on behalf of tions were fulfied by a state which was a candidate, the
natural and juristic persons, alleged to be Belgian nationals Security Council ought to recommend to the General As-
and shareholders in Barcelona Traction, a company incor- sembly that such a state be admitted. The Court added,
porated in Canada and having its head office there. The however, that it was up to the subjective judgment of each
object of the Application was to obtain reparation for member whether or not the conditions for admission had
damage allegedly caused to those persons by conduct, said been met.
to be contrary to international law, of various organs of The Competence of the General Assembly for the Admis-
the Spanish State towards that company. 146 Spain object- sion of a State to the United Nations Opinion
ed to the application, inter alia, because Belgium lacked (1949- 1950). 150 The immediately preceding casedecided
capacity to seek redress from injuries done to a Canadian by the Court did not lead to a settlement of the problem of
company, even if the shareholders were Belgian. The admissions in the Security Council. The General Assem-
Court found that where "it was a question of an unlawful bly then sought an advisory opinion from the Court as to
act committed against a company representing foreign whether it could on its own, admit a candidate in cases
capital, the general ruleof international law authorized the where the Security Council failed to recommend the can-
national state of the company alone to exercise diplomatic didate to it.
protection for the purpose of seeking redress. No rule of The Court refused to permit the Charter to be con-
general international law expressly conferred such a right strued to permit such authority in the General Assembly.
in the shareholder's national state." 147 After considering It held that Article 4(2) was clear in its requirements.
several situations (e.g., nonexistence of the company or Art. 4(2). The admission of any such state to membership in the
protecting State lacks capacity to take action) that might be United Nations will be effected by [I] a decision of the General As-
considered "special circumstances" demanding a sembly 12) upon recommendation of the Security Council.
different result and fmding no such circumstances in- The only recommendation contemplated by the

-
144. [I9611 I.C.J. Rep. 9. '48. Id. at 11 1.
145. [I9701 I.C.J. Rep. 3.
149. [I9481 I.C.J. Rep. 9, 57; reported in 42 Am. J. Int7 L. 927
'46. [1969-19701 I.C.J.Y.B. 107, 109.
(1948).
147. Id. at 110. 150. (19501 I.C.J. Rep. 4;digested in 44 Am. J. Int'/L.582 (1950).