Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:47:15.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nationality of Companies Analysed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

George A. van Hecke
Get access

Extract

Can a company have a nationality? It is quite clear that it can never have a nationality in the same sense as an individual. The characteristic rights and duties following from nationality, such as franchise or military service, are inapplicable in the field of corporations. Yet it is quite common to speak of an American or a Dutch company, and this common parlance is not entirely foolish.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 1961 , pp. 223 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Comp. Serick, R., Rechtsform und Realität juristischer Personen, pp. 121–123Google Scholar; Mann, F. A. in Festschrift für Martin Wolff, p. 272.Google Scholar

2. This has been well shown by Rabel, , The Conflict of Laws, II pp. 17–24.Google Scholar

3. A good list of restrictions is to be found in the European League for Economic Cooperation's publication nr.16, Les discriminations d'ordre économique envers les étrangers (78 p.), Brussels 1954.Google Scholar

3a. A survey of language in recent treaties is given by van Panhuys, H. F., in Varia juris gentium (1959) pp. 218–219.Google Scholar

4. The expression has been criticized by Abrahams, R., Les sociétés en droit international privé (1957)Google Scholar, passim. It has been used by such eminent authors as M. Wolff (Private International Law, p. 297Google Scholar), Rabel (II, ch. 19), W. Niederer (in Gutzwiller-Niederer, , Beiträge zum Haager Internationalprivatrecht 1951Google Scholar), Mann, F. A., loc. cit. p. 273Google Scholar, Batiffol, , Traité élémentaire de droit international privé, 3d ed. (1959) p. 450.Google Scholar

5. U.S.: Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws (1934) § 153Google Scholar; Brazil: art. 42 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code (1942).

6. Morocco (under the French Protectorate): art. 7 Dahir of 12 August 1913. This formula had been recommended by the Institut de Droit International in 1891, Annuaire XI, p. 171.Google Scholar

7. Belgium:art. 198 consolidated laws on commercial companies;Greece: art. 10 and 64 C.c. This formula is also found in the model bilateral treaty drafted by the International Chamber of Commerce.

8. Italy: art. 2505 C.c.; Egypt: art. 53–2 Preliminary Title C.c.

9. On the Suez Canal company see Travers, M., Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International 33 (1930–111) p. 50;Google Scholar

10. The main relevant documents have been reprinted in The Suez Canal (London 1956)Google Scholar, a publication of the Society of Comparative Legislation and International Law. The company's by-laws (statuts) state (art. 73): “La Société étant constituée, avec approbation du Gouvernement Egyptien, sous la forme anonyme, par analogie aux Sociétés anonymes autorisées par le Gouvernement Français, elle est régie par les principes de ces dernières Sociétés”. On the other hand the Concession agreement of February 22, 1866 states (art. 16): “La Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez étant Egyptienne, elle est régie par les lois et usages du pays; toutefois, en ce qui regarde sa constitution comme Société et les rapports des associés entre eux, elle est, par une convention spéciale, réglée par les lois qui, en France, régissent les Sociétés anonymes.” In view of those statements it seems to be the right view that the company was governed by Egyptian law, which had for the circumstance undertaken a reception of French company law. The French view was expressed in an Act of the French Parliament (Loi n° 57–658 du Ier juin 1957, the text of which is to be found in 46 Revue critique de droit international privé 1957, p. 344).Google Scholar

11. Art. 1 of the Draft Convention, in Actes de la septième Session tenue du 9 au 31 octobre 1951, p. 385.Google Scholar

12. Rabel, op. cit., pp. 40–44.Google Scholar

13. Examples mentionedby Rabel(p.64) are Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Monaco and Panama.

14. RG. 31.3.1904, Deutsche Juristenzeitung 1904 p. 555.Google Scholar

15. See Niederer, op. cit., p. 123, note 30.Google Scholar

16. RG. 3.6.1927, RGZ 117, 215.Google Scholar

17. Art. 2 of the Convention.

18. Op. cit., p. 66.

19. See references given by Niederer, op. cit., p. 116.Google Scholar

2O. See e.g. the statement by Nypels in Actes de la septième Session, p. 160.Google Scholar

21. Wet van 25 juli 1959, Staatsblad 1959, n°. 256.Google Scholar

22. Op. cit., p. 64.

23. Views held about a company's personal law are moreover not relevant in determining that company's domicile for taxation purposes. Cf. Bühler, , Internationales Steuerrecht und internationales Privatrecht (Amsterdam 1960), pp. 73–75.Google Scholar Social and economic legislation may have to consider yet another factor, such as the place of the principal manufacturing or trading establishment. This would dispose of the remark made by Henriquez at the Hamburg I.L.A. Conference (the proceedings of which have not been printed yet).

24. Examples of such provisions are given by Rabel, , op. cit., pp. 181–184.Google Scholar

25. Cf. Latty, 65 Tale Law Journal 1955, p. 137Google Scholar; see also Reese-Kaufman, 58 Columbia Law Review 1958, p. 1118.Google Scholar

26. Actes de la je session, pp. 26–27, 32–34, 36–39.Google Scholar

27. [1916] 2 AC- at p. 340.

28. Batiffol, H., Traité élémentaire de droit international privé, 3d ed., p. 235.Google Scholar

29. See Serick, R.op. cit., p. 140.Google Scholar

30. Rabel, op. cit., p. 57.Google Scholar

31. Serick, op. cit., p. 141Google Scholar; see also The Trading with the Enemy Act 40 Stat. I 411 § 2.

32. Dornke, . International Law Quarterly 1950, p. 52Google Scholar; Serick, op. cit., p. 142.Google Scholar

33. Serick, op. cit., p. 143–145.Google Scholar

34. Art. 78–40 of the Peace Treaty with Italy; Art. 22 of the Brussels Agreement of 5 December 1947 Relating to the Resolution of Conflicting Claims to German Enemy Assets.

35. See the awards cited by Rabel, op. cit., p. 59.Google Scholar

36. Niboyet, , Traité de droit international privé français II, no. 750Google Scholar; Savatier, , Revue critique de droit international 1939, p. 418.Google Scholar

37. Beitzke, , Juristische Personen im Internationalprivatrecht und Fremdenrecht (1938), p. 225–229.Google Scholar

38. Cf. Rabel, op. cit., p. 61.Google Scholar

39. Batiffol, op. cit., p. 238Google Scholar; Loussouarn, 96 Rec. Cours 1959–I p. 474.Google Scholar

40. This was recognized by the French courts: Cass. req. 20 jan. 1936, S. 1936 I 127.

41. E.g. in France: Cass. comm. 20 oct. 1953, Revue critique de droit international privé 1954, p. 354.Google Scholar

42. Comp. the rule formulated by Serick, op. cit., pp. 213–217Google Scholar, and by Batiffol, op. cit., p. 241.Google Scholar

43. Op. cit., pp. 35–36.

44. E.g. U.S.-Germany of 8 Dec. 1923; U.S.-Austria of 19 June 1928.

45. E.g. Germany-Italy of 31 Oct. 1925; Germany-Sweden of 14 May 1926.

46. Ch. X, art. 9.

47. Art. 58 and 59.

48. Art. 58. The E.E.C. Commission has however, by considering also other articles of the Treaty, arrived at a construction under which the Treaty benefits are reserved to companies that have an establishment in the Community.

49. E.g. U.S.-Greece of 21 nov. 1936.

49a. This was done in treaties of global compensation for nationalisation; cf. Bindschedler, 90 Rec. Cours 1956–II pp. 236–242.Google Scholar

50. Ch. X, art. 1 and 6. See also Vignes, pp. 214–215Google Scholar, and Focsaneanu, pp. 253–268Google Scholar in La personnalité morale et ses limites (1960).Google Scholar

51. Ch. De Visscher, , Revue de droit international et de législation comparée 1936, p. 481.Google Scholar

52. Cf. Hyde, , International Law, vol. II (1947), p. 903Google Scholar; Borchard, , Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International 36–1, pp. 298–299.Google Scholar

53. De Visscher, loc. cit., p. 482.Google Scholar

54. See the detailed analysis by Fitzmaurice, , British Year Book of International Law 1936, pp. 82–111.Google Scholar

55. Writers have reacted to the Court's opinion with mixed feelings. See Makarov, , Zeitschr.f. ausi. öff. R. u. Völkerr. 16 (1955–1956), pp. 407–426Google Scholar; Verzijl, , Ned. Tijdschr. 3 (1956), pp. 33–40Google Scholar; Seidl-Hohenveldern, , Recht der int.Wirtschaft 1 (1954–1955), PP. 147–149Google Scholar; de Visscher, P., Rev. gén. droit intern, public 60 (1956), pp. 238–266Google Scholar; Maury, , RobelsZ. 23 (1958), pp. 515–534.Google Scholar

56. Borchard, , Annuaire 36–1, p. 353–354.Google Scholar

57. Revue de droit international et de législation comparée 1934.Google Scholar

58. British Year Book of International Laxo 1949, pp. 225–258.Google Scholar

59. Moore, , Digest of International Law VI, p. 64.Google Scholar Cf. De Visscher, loc. cit., p. 629Google Scholar; Jones, Mervynloc. cit., pp. 229–231.Google Scholar

60. On the Alsop case (Moore III, p. 802) cf. De Visscher, loc. cit., p. 631Google Scholar; on the Tlahualilo case cf. Jones, Mervynloc. cit., pp. 237–239.Google Scholar

61. On the Orinoco case (Ralston, , Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, p. 72Google Scholar) cf. Jones, Mervynloc. cit., pp. 243–244Google Scholar; De Visscher, loc. cit., pp. 634–635.Google Scholar

62. Ralston, , op. cit., pp. 909–910Google Scholar; cf. Jones, Mervynloc. cit., pp. 244–246.Google Scholar

63. Ralston, op. cit., p. 63Google Scholar; cf. Jones, Mervynloc. cit., pp. 246–248.Google Scholar

64. Moore, VI, p. 649Google Scholar; cf. Jones, Mervynloc. cit., pp. 248–249.Google Scholar

65. Reports of Intern. Arbitr. Awards IIGoogle Scholar

66. Reports of Intern. Arbitr. Awards IIGoogle Scholar

67. Cf. Feller, , The Mexican Claims Commissions (1935), passim.Google Scholar

68. Article 78 of the Italian Treaty is the typical example; cf. Jones, Mervynloc. cit., p. 253.Google Scholar

69. Ch. X, art. 1 and 3.

70. A short but informative survey is given by van der Esch, B., Vergelijkend vennootschapsrecht, pp. 146–151.Google Scholar See also David, R. in La personnalité morale et ses limites p. 19.Google Scholar