It is often said that foreigners should be better protected than nationals at least as regards a taking of property effected in the context of a social reform on the ground that the former are more vulnerable to domestic legislation as they will generally have played no part in the election or designation of its authors nor have been consulted on its adoption (e.g. James v. UK, ECHR (1986); or Tecmed v. Mexico, ICSID (2004)). Although this may not apply to big corporate actors who have a wide variety of ways to somehow influence domestic politics of the host State, it may be true for most of the foreigners. Would it follow that foreigners, who are not granted the right to vote or to otherwise participate in the political life of the State where they live, should better enjoy human rights than nationals, except for political rights that are denied to them? Would that mean that the more democratic rights one enjoys, the less economic and social rights s/he does?