Synthesized answer
Based solely on the provided passages, you could construct the following arguments to claim Great Britain violated international law in 1862 regarding the "Alabama":
First, you would argue that Great Britain failed in its duty as a neutral power. The "Alabama" (originally "No. 290") was being built by Messrs. Laird at Birkenhead and was "obviously intended for a man-of-war" [2]. Despite the U.S. consul forwarding particulars about her character on June 23, 1862, the British law officers only advised that she "ought to be detained" if the particulars were correct [2]. You would claim this inaction constituted a failure to "use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming or equipping within its jurisdiction of any vessel, which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace" [3].
Second, you would argue that Great Britain failed to prevent the "Alabama" from departing its jurisdiction. The vessel was built and equipped on British territory, and the rules later agreed upon for arbitration state a neutral is bound "to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended…
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
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…
tes on the 13th of April 1861. On the 19th of April President Abraham Lincoln declared a blockade of the southern ports. On the 14th of May the British government issued a proclamation of neutrality, by which the Confederates were recognized as belligerents. This example was followed shortly afterwards by France and other nations. The blockade of the southern ports was not at first effective, and blockade-running soon became an active industry. The Confederates established agencies in England for the purchase of arms, which they despatched in ordinary merchant vessels to the Bahamas, whence…
rst agreed upon.” After some discussion the British commissioners consented that the three following rules should apply. A neutral government is bound—(1) to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming or equipping within its jurisdiction of any vessel, which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace, and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within…
. 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…
More questions about this book
- Explain, as if to a peer, the fundamental historical and legal dispute that necessitated the "Alabama" Arbitration, going beyond simply stating the facts to illustrate *why* it became an international crisis.
- The text notes the case's importance in "averting war." How did the specific sequence of events, from British neutrality to the building of the "Alabama," create a situation where arbitration became a crucial alternative to continued conflict?
- Beyond the "Alabama," what does this excerpt imply about the challenges and responsibilities of a neutral nation during an international conflict, particularly regarding its private citizens or industries?
- What core principles about international relations and the role of international law can be extracted from the "Alabama" Arbitration case that remain relevant for preventing conflicts today?