Synthesized answer
The statement that the arbitration "affords a conspicuous example of the value of arbitration as a means of averting war" is supported by specific elements of the case that illustrate *how* arbitration averted conflict.
One key element was the agreement on governing principles. Initially, the American commissioners refused arbitration unless guiding principles were first established [1]. After discussion, the British commissioners consented to specific rules that would govern the arbitrators' consideration of the facts [1]. This foundational agreement on how to approach the case was crucial. Furthermore, a significant development in averting further dispute occurred when the arbitrators issued an extra-judicial declaration regarding the "indirect claims." Count Sclopis, on behalf of his colleagues, intimated that these 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" [2]. This clarification led Mr. Bancroft Davis to inform the tribunal that he was instructed not to press those claims [2], allowing the arbitration to proceed and removing a potential point of…
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…
← 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…
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…
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…
More questions about this book
- How would you explain, in your own words, the precise connection between Britain's proclamation of neutrality and the subsequent "Alabama" incident, clarifying why neutrality itself became a point of contention?
- Imagine you are advocating for the United States based solely on this text. What specific actions or inactions by Britain would form the core of your argument regarding their responsibility for the "Alabama," and why?
- Considering the historical context of the US Civil War and British industrial capabilities, how might the Confederates' strategy of building ships like the "Alabama" in England exploit the ambiguities or limitations of international law at the time?
- The text ends with the "law officers" receiving information about the "Alabama." If you were one of these officers, what specific, potentially conflicting, obligations and concerns would you weigh when formulating your advice, given the facts presented and the goal of maintaining true neutrality?