Synthesized answer
The passages do not explicitly detail how the situation between the United States and Great Britain might have escalated if arbitration had not been pursued regarding the "Alabama" claims. However, they do indicate that the "Alabama" case is an important example of arbitration's value in averting war [2]. Following the destructive career of the "Alabama," the United States government alleged grievances against Great Britain, including breaches of neutrality for allowing Confederate vessels to be built and equipped on British territory [3]. Years of correspondence ensued, and eventually, a commission was appointed to attempt a settlement [3].
The significance of this case as an example of arbitration's value in averting war is highlighted by the fact that, after initial disagreements on governing principles, the British commissioners consented to rules that would guide arbitrators in considering the facts [1, 2]. The eventual outcome was the Treaty of Washington, which submitted the "Alabama" claims to a tribunal of arbitrators [4]. This process, culminating in a decision by a majority of arbitrators and the potential for an award of a sum in gross if Great Britain was found to 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.
← 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…
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…
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…
More questions about this book
- The British government declared neutrality yet recognized the Confederates as belligerents. Explain the crucial difference between these two declarations from an international law perspective and articulate how recognizing belligerency, in this context, could complicate true neutrality.
- The "Alabama" was "obviously intended for a man-of-war" and built in a neutral British port. Trace the sequence of events regarding the vessel's construction and subsequent British legal advice, and explain what specific international legal obligations or ethical considerations might have been violated by its continued construction or delayed detention.
- Consider the challenge faced by the British government upon receiving evidence about the "Alabama"'s true purpose. What specific duties did they have under international law at that moment, and what were the potential long-term diplomatic and legal consequences of failing to act decisively?
- How does the specific narrative of the "Alabama" vessel and the British response illuminate the broader complexities and tensions involved in maintaining neutrality and international law during a major global conflict like the American Civil War, as implied by the details of blockade-running and arms procurement?