Synthesized answer
The "Alabama" Arbitration established that the "indirect claims" did not constitute a good foundation for an award or computation of damages between nations, based on the principles of international law applicable to such cases [2]. The discussion also centered on the measure of "due diligence," with the tribunal adopting the view that diligence should be commensurate with the emergency or the magnitude of the results of negligence [2, 3]. This meant Great Britain was found legally responsible for depredations committed by Confederate vessels like the "Alabama" and "Florida" [3].
While the "Alabama" Arbitration addressed the pecuniary claims and clarified the interpretation of "due diligence," the passages do not explicitly detail enduring principles or precedents for international law and the conduct of neutral nations beyond these aspects. It is mentioned that the stipulation for submitting the three rules to foreign nations was never carried out, and some publicists viewed the rules as not sufficiently precise to be generally accepted as a canon of neutral obligations [4]. However, the passages do not further elaborate on what these enduring principles or precedents might be.
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.
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…
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…
ibunal decided to award a sum in gross, and (Sir A. Cockburn again dissenting) fixed the damages at $15,500,000 in gold. On the 14th of September the award was formally published, and signed by all the arbitrators except Sir A. Cockburn, who filed a lengthy statement of his reasons. The stipulation that the three rules should be jointly submitted by the two powers to foreign nations has never been carried out. For this the British government has been blamed by some. But the general view of continental publicists is, that the language of the rules was not sufficiently precise to admit of their…
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…
More questions about this book
- Imagine you're explaining the "Alabama" Arbitration to a peer who knows nothing about it. How would you simplify the historical context and the central legal dispute, clarifying why it was a "conspicuous example of the value of arbitration"?
- The British government's proclamation of neutrality recognized the Confederates as "belligerents." How did this seemingly neutral act contribute to the international controversy surrounding the "Alabama," and what specific actions did it implicitly allow or disallow?
- What specific legal obligations or responsibilities of a neutral nation were allegedly violated by Britain in the "Alabama" case, and what evidence was presented by the United States to highlight this breach?
- Analyze the sequence of events regarding the "Alabama's" construction and the US consul's appeals. At what specific juncture did British authorities have the clearest opportunity, and perhaps the legal imperative, to intervene, and what were the potential consequences had they acted differently?