La Sélection humaine

Question

The text states the "Alabama" Arbitration is a "conspicuous example of the value of arbitration as a means of averting war." Explain, as if to someone unfamiliar with international diplomacy, the underlying reasons *why* arbitration was deemed necessary in this situation and precisely *how* it functioned to prevent further military conflict between the involved parties.

Synthesized answer

In the "Alabama" Arbitration, two parties, the United States and Great Britain, had disagreements stemming from the American Civil War [Passage 1]. The United States had grievances concerning Great Britain's recognition of the Southern States as belligerents and, importantly, breaches of neutrality. Specifically, Great Britain was accused of allowing Confederate vessels like the "Alabama" to be built and equipped on British territory, which were then used to commit depredations [Passage 4].

Arbitration was deemed necessary because diplomatic correspondence between the two nations had extended over several years without resolution [Passage 4]. To prevent further military conflict, both sides agreed to settle these "Alabama" claims through arbitration. This process involved a tribunal of five arbitrators appointed by each party and by neutral powers [Passage 3]. They were to be governed by agreed-upon rules and principles of international law to decide the questions at issue [Passage 3, Passage 5]. The establishment of this tribunal and the process it followed are presented as a way to avert war [Passage 1].

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…
Passage [2]
. 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.
Passage [6]
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…
Passage [8]
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…
Passage [5]
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…
Passage [9]

More questions about this book