Opinion ID: 490523
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Discriminatory Actions Under International Law

Text: 36 As a general principle of international law, a state is liable to a private person who is a national of another state if it takes the foreign national's property and the taking is discriminatory. A taking pursuant to a program that excludes from compensation all aliens or all aliens of a particular nationality is discriminatory. See Restatement (Revised) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Restatement (Revised)) Sec. 712(1) (Tent.Draft No. 7, 1986); id. comment f. Similarly, a state's repudiation or breach of its contract with a foreign national is redressable under international law if that repudiation or breach was discriminatory. Id. Sec. 712(2). 37 It is clear beyond peradventure that the actions of the Cuban Government toward United States nationals were intended to be discriminatory. The terms of Law No. 851 singled out nationals of the United States, stating that Cuba sought to expropriate their property or entities in which they had an interest or participation. Thus, a broad-scale intent to discriminate against United States nationals was explicit. See generally Banco Nacional de Cuba v. First National City Bank, 478 F.2d 191, 194 (2d Cir.1973); Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr, 383 F.2d 166, 183-85 (2d Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 956, 88 S.Ct. 1038, 19 L.Ed.2d 1151 (1968); Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 307 F.2d 845, 868 (2d Cir.1962), rev'd on other grounds, 376 U.S. 398, 84 S.Ct. 923, 11 L.Ed.2d 804 (1964); Restatement (Revised) Sec. 712 Reporters' Note 5. 38 Insofar as the nationalization of Cuban Electric was concerned, the discrimination against United States nationals was likewise explicit, as Resolution No. 1 stated that Cuba sought ownership of Cuban Electric and other entities belonging to juridical persons who are nationals of the United States or who operate entities in which the majority interest is in the hands of Americans. The declared goal in nationalizing Cuban Electric and the other listed companies was to take Cuban national wealth out of the hands of foreign interests. 39 Consistent with Cuba's declared intent, the actions of Cuba toward United States nationals have in fact been discriminatory. Thus, it is beyond dispute that Cuba has refused to pay anything to United States creditors, while paying or remaining obligated to pay Cuban creditors. Banco Nacional states in its brief to this Court that [t]here is a uniform pattern of the Republic of Cuba not having paid the debts owing to creditors located abroad of [Cuban Electric]. (Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant at 40.) 40 In all the circumstances one can only conclude that Cuba's actions were intended to and did discriminate against United States nationals within the meaning of international law. For the reasons below, this conclusion requires that we affirm the decision of the district court whether Cuba assumed, as the district court found, the obligation to pay United States creditors, or did not assume, as Banco Nacional contends, the obligation to pay United States creditors.