38.2 (7) TEMPROSA.DOCX38.2 (7) TEMPROSA.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 2020] STATELESSNESS AS RHETORIC 1/16/2021 12:59 PM 297 Belgium sued Spain on behalf of the Belgian shareholders of Barcelona Traction—a Canadian company. 371 The court found that there was no reason to pierce the corporate veil, but declared that "fraud or malfeasance, to protect third persons such as a creditor or purchaser, or to prevent the evasion of legal requirements or of obligations" are grounds for piercing the veil. 372 In an exceptional circumstance allowing the piercing of the veil, the European Court of Human Rights, in Agrotexim v. Greece, where the shareholders complained that the expropriation by a municipality violated their rights, held that it is justified "where it is clearly established that it is impossible for the company to apply to the Convention institutions through the organs set up under its articles of incorporation." 373 In international investment law, the tribunal in Saluka Investments v. Czech Republic held that the corporate veil should be pierced in the presence of fraud. 374 To give an example, when State Y wants to determine A's citizenship status, it has to determine whether State X (assuming X is the only State with a connection to A) considers A a citizen or not upon the operation of its laws. In the course of the determination process, State Y examines the laws and state practice of State X on citizenship as applied to the life events and personal and family histories of A. State Y generates its own perception of State X's circle of citizenship and whether State X considers A as belonging inside or outside of it. Or, State Y could directly ask State X if it considers A a citizen or not. If State X replies in the positive (even if A believes they are not a citizen of State X), A should not be immediately constituted as not a stateless person. If there is a showing that State X does not allow A to vote in disregard of his right to political participation as a citizen of State X in violation of the ICCPR, then a badge of protection is absent. In such a case, the absence of a badge of protection should allow State Y to pierce the veil of the declaration of status of A. State Y could rule that A is stateless and provide them protection upon closer examination of their material condition. When analyzing "badges of protection," it is imperative that the analysis incorporates concepts in international law that are inherent in nationality rights protection. 375 These concepts include the principle of non-discrimination, and where applicable, State obligations to prevent and reduce statelessness. 376 In explaining the right to nationality, the Human Rights Committee declared that it is a protection "from being afforded less protection by society" because of citizenship 371. Barcelona Traction, Judgment, 1970 ICJ Rep. 3, ¶ 42 (Feb. 5). 372. Id. ¶ 56. 373. Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 330 Eur. Ct. H.R. 3 (ser. A) ¶ 66 (1995). 374. Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award (Mar. 17, 2006), http://www.pca-cpa.org/ENGLISH/RPC/. 375. See Caia Vlieks et al., Solving Statelessness: Interpreting the Right to Nationality, 35 NETH. Q. HUM. RTS. 158, 165 (2017). 376. Brad Blitz, Statelessness, Protection and Equality 22 (2009), REFUGEE STUD. CTR., https://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/files/files-1/pb3-statelessness-protection-equality-2009.pdf.