Synthesized answer
The "Alabama" Arbitration is highlighted as a significant example of how arbitration can prevent war [1]. The case involved pecuniary claims made by the United States on behalf of its subjects against Great Britain [1]. The core of the dispute stemmed from the construction and equipping of Confederate vessels, including the "Alabama," in British territory during the American Civil War [3]. The United States government alleged breaches of neutrality by Great Britain for allowing these vessels to be built and equipped, and also for recognizing the Southern States as belligerents [3].
Following years of correspondence, a commission was appointed in 1871 to discuss settlement of the issues [3]. The British commissioners proposed arbitration for the "Alabama" claims, a suggestion the American commissioners initially refused unless governing principles were agreed upon [2, 3]. Eventually, the Treaty of Washington was signed in May 1871, leading to the establishment of a tribunal of five arbitrators to decide the "Alabama" claims [4]. The arbitration proceeded after the United States withdrew its "indirect claims" upon an intimation from the arbitrators that these claims did not…
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…
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…
More questions about this book
- The British government's 1861 proclamation of neutrality recognized the Confederacy as belligerents. How might this seemingly neutral stance have been interpreted differently by the Union and the Confederacy, and what specific challenges did it create for Britain regarding the construction of vessels like the "Alabama"?
- Upon receiving intelligence about the "Alabama," British law officers advised its detention if the particulars were correct. What legal obligations or international precedents was the British government navigating at this moment, and what were the potential diplomatic or economic consequences of acting, or failing to act, on this advice?
- Describe the "active industry" of blockade-running by the Confederates. What logistical and economic factors made England and the Bahamas crucial to this strategy, and how did this larger context directly contribute to the controversy surrounding the "Alabama"?
- Considering the detailed account of the "Alabama" incident, from its construction to the legal advice for its detention, what overarching principles about state neutrality, international obligations, and the role of arbitration emerge that remain relevant in contemporary international law and conflict resolution?