Synthesized answer
The "Alabama" arbitration clarified principles regarding the responsibilities of neutral states and the concept of "due diligence." The United States contended that a neutral government's diligence should be commensurate with the magnitude of potential negligence outcomes [2, 4]. Great Britain, conversely, argued for a measure of care that did not exceed what civilized states typically employed for their own security or their citizens' [2]. Ultimately, the tribunal adopted the United States' view [2].
Furthermore, three rules were agreed upon to govern the arbitration, establishing clear obligations for neutral governments. These rules stipulated that a neutral state must use due diligence to prevent the equipping and departure of vessels intended for warfare against a nation with which it is at peace [5]. It also bound neutral states not to allow their ports or waters to be used as bases for naval operations or for the renewal of military supplies [5]. The tribunal found Great Britain responsible for depredations committed by Confederate vessels built and equipped on British territory, based on breaches of neutrality [3, 2].
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
. 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.
ontended that it must be a diligence commensurate with the emergency or with the magnitude of the results of negligence. The British government maintained that while the measure of care which a government is bound to use in such cases must be dependent more or less upon circumstances, it would be unreasonable to require that it should exceed that which the governments of civilized states were accustomed to employ in matters concerning their own security or that of their citizens. The tribunal adopted the view suggested by the United States. It found that Great Britain was legally responsible…
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…
itrators that an extra-judicial declaration should be obtained from the arbitrators on the subject of the direct claims. On the 19th of June Count Sclopis intimated on behalf of all his colleagues that, without intending to express any opinion upon the interpretation of the treaty, they had arrived at the conclusion that “the indirect claims did not constitute upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases a good foundation for an award or computation of damages between nations.” In consequence of this intimation Mr Bancroft Davis informed the tribunal on the 25th of June…
rst agreed upon.” After some discussion the British commissioners consented that the three following rules should apply. A neutral government is bound—(1) to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming or equipping within its jurisdiction of any vessel, which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace, and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within…
More questions about this book
- Explain, as if to a peer, why the "Alabama" Arbitration is presented as both a "historical and a juridical" landmark, emphasizing how it "affords a conspicuous example of the value of arbitration as a means of averting war."
- How did the British government's early proclamation of neutrality, specifically recognizing the Confederates as belligerents, create complex legal and political challenges that directly led to the "Alabama" incident?
- Imagine you are Mr. C. F. Adams, the US consul at Liverpool. What specific arguments or evidence would you present to Earl Russell to convince him that the "Alabama" was not merely a merchant vessel but "obviously intended for a man-of-war," thus warranting detention?
- Describe the operational challenges faced by the Confederacy due to the Union blockade, and then explain how their strategy of establishing "agencies in England" and using transshipment via the Bahamas was designed to overcome these specific obstacles.