Synthesized answer
The provided passages do not offer details on historical events or evolving international norms that might have contributed to the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica's emphasis on the "Alabama" Arbitration as a "conspicuous example of the value of arbitration as a means of averting war" [1].
However, the passages do explain the context of the arbitration itself. It arose from pecuniary claims made by the United States against Great Britain concerning breaches of neutrality during the American Civil War, specifically regarding the construction and equipping of Confederate vessels like the "Alabama" on British territory [3]. The eventual agreement to submit these claims to arbitration, outlined in the treaty of Washington, aimed to settle questions at issue between the two nations [3, 4]. The arbitration established three rules to govern the arbitrators, which the parties agreed to observe in the future and bring to the attention of other maritime powers [5]. This focus on agreed-upon rules for resolving disputes, rather than further conflict, likely formed the basis for viewing it as a model for averting war.
The passages do not provide information that would allow for a comparison of…
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
← Alabama 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 "Alabama" Arbitration by Montague Hughes Crackanthorpe Alabama River → See also Alabama Claims on Wikipedia ; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer . 244259 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 — "Alabama" Arbitration Montague Hughes Crackanthorpe “ALABAMA” ARBITRATION. —This is one of those arbitrations on pecuniary claims, made by one state, on behalf of its subjects, against another state, which are referred to in the article Arbitration, International . The case is important, both from a historical and a juridical point of…
. With respect to the “Alabama” claims the British commissioners suggested that they should be submitted to arbitration. The American commissioners refused “unless the principles which should govern the arbitrators in the consideration of the facts could be first agreed upon.” After some discussion the British commissioners consented that the three following rules should apply.
rpool in two British ships. Captain Semmes there took command of her under a commission from the Confederate government. After a most destructive career she was sunk off Cherbourg by the “Kearsarge” on the 19th of June 1864. On these facts the United States government alleged against Great Britain two grievances, or sets of grievances. The first was the recognition of the Southern States as belligerents and a general manifestation of unfriendliness in other ways. The second was in respect of breaches of neutrality in allowing the “Alabama,” the “Florida” (originally the “Oreto”, the…
d waters, and as to all persons within its jurisdiction to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligation and duties. The arrangements made by the commission were embodied in the treaty of Washington, which was signed on the 8th of May 1871, and approved by the Senate on the 24th of May. Article 1, after expressing the regret felt by Her Majesty’s government for the escape, in whatever circumstances, of the “Alabama” and other vessels from British ports, and for the depredations committed by these vessels, provided that “the claims growing out of the acts of the said vessels, and…
decided by a majority of the arbitrators, and each of the contracting parties was to name one person to attend as agent. Article 6 provided that the arbitrators should be governed by the three rules quoted above, and by such principles of international law not inconsistent therewith as the arbitrators should determine to be applicable to the case. By the same article the parties agreed to observe these rules as between themselves in future, and to bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers. Article 7 provided that the decision should be made within three months from the close of the…
More questions about this book
- The text calls the "Alabama" Arbitration a "conspicuous example of the value of arbitration as a means of averting war." Explain, as if to someone unfamiliar with the concept, *how* the specific circumstances described in the text illustrate this value.
- What are the practical implications of a nation, like Britain, declaring neutrality while simultaneously recognizing a seceding group, like the Confederates, as "belligerents"? How might this stance contribute to, or complicate, international disputes like the "Alabama" Claims?
- Considering the detailed timeline regarding the "Alabama's" construction and the U.S. consul's communications, what specific legal and ethical dilemmas did the British government face in deciding whether to detain the vessel, particularly given their declared neutrality?
- How do the actions of the Confederates in purchasing arms in England, combined with the British government's initial handling of the "Alabama" situation, foreshadow the "pecuniary claims" that eventually led to this significant arbitration?