Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. · ¶72

Second, the docks are not “property which was confscated by the Cuban Government” because they were not, in fact, confscated by the Cuban Government; rather, Cuba owned the docks all along. True enough that in 1960, the Cuban Government issued a decree expropriating Havana Docks' assets and sent armed officers to physically occupy the docks. That is how Cuba confscated Havana Docks' usufructuary concession. But in taking those measures, Cuba did not somehow confscate the docks, because the docks already belonged to Cuba. The majority emphasizes that the Act defines “confscat[ion]” to include seizing “control of property” and argues that Cuba's actions ft that description because Cuba seized “control” of the docks. See ante, at 252–253. But nothing in the Act's definition—more fully stated, “the nationalization, expropriation, or other seizure by the Cuban Government of ownership or…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.