Synthesized answer
Based solely on the provided passages, the "Alabama" Arbitration set several enduring precedents for international law. First, it established that a neutral government can be held legally responsible for the actions of vessels built or equipped on its territory that then act against a belligerent power. The tribunal found Great Britain legally responsible for the depredations of the "Alabama," "Florida," and "Shenandoah" [2]. Second, the arbitration defined the standard of "due diligence" required of a neutral state, adopting the view that it must be "commensurate with the emergency or with the magnitude of the results of negligence," rather than merely the ordinary care used for its own security [2].
The passages also show that the arbitration set a precedent for resolving such disputes through a formal process. The dispute was submitted to arbitration after the parties first agreed upon the "three rules" that would govern the arbitrators' consideration of the facts [1]. The case is described as "important, both from a historical and a juridical point of view, and affords a conspicuous example of the value of arbitration as a means of averting war" [4]. However, the passages…
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…
← 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…
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…
More questions about this book
- Explain the "Alabama" Arbitration to a peer as if they know nothing about it, focusing on how it exemplified "the value of arbitration as a means of averting war."
- How did Britain's proclamation of neutrality, combined with the subsequent building of the "Alabama," create a complex international incident, and what were the potential motivations and repercussions of that neutrality?
- The text suggests the "Alabama" was "obviously intended for a man-of-war." Why was it legally or ethically problematic for a supposedly neutral nation to allow such a vessel to be built for a belligerent, and what implicit international norms were at play?
- Given this text is from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, how might its historical context and purpose influence its perspective on the "Alabama" Arbitration, and what limitations or potential biases should a reader consider?