REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL
ARBITRAL AWARDS
RECUEIL DES SENTENCES
ARBITRALES
Alabama claims of the United States of America against Great Britain
Award rendered on 14 September 1872 by the tribunal of arbitration established by Article I of the
Treaty of Washington of 8 May 1871
Réclamations des États-Unis d’Amérique contre la Grande-Bretagne relatives à l’Alabama
Sentence rendue le 14 septembre 1872 par le tribunal d’arbitrage constitué en vertu de l’article I
du
Traité de Washington du 8 mai 1871
8 May 1871
VOLUME XXIX, pp.125-134
NATIONS UNIES - UNITED NATIONS
Copyright (c) 2012
ParT iX
Alabama claims of the United States of America
against Great Britain
Award rendered on 14 September 1872 by the tribunal
of arbitration established by Article I of the Treaty of
Washington of 8 May 1871
Réclamations des États-Unis d’Amérique contre
la Grande-Bretagne relatives à l’Alabama
Sentence rendue le 14 septembre 1872 par le tribunal
d’arbitrage constitué en vertu de l’article I du Traité de
Washington du
8 mai 1871
Alabama claims of the United States of America against
Great Britain
Réclamations des États-Unis d’Ámérique contre la
Grande-Bretagne relatives à l’Alabama
Award rendered on 14 September 1872 by the tribunal of
arbitration established by Article I of the Treaty of Washington
of 8 May 18711Sentence rendue le 14 septembre 1872 par le
tribunal d’arbitrage constitué en vertu de l’article I du Traité de
Washington du 8 mai 18712
Declaring neutrality involves rights and duties, requiring due diligence and
compensation for adverse effects. Violations include vessel construction, equipment,
and armament, and allowing vessels free entry into colonial ports. Privileges and
immunities, particularly extraterritoriality, are based on courtesy and not absolute
rights. Pursuit costs of enemy vessels are considered part of war costs, and double
claims should be avoided. Equitable compensation and reasonable interest rates are
considered just and reasonable.
The passage discusses the arbitration process between the US and Great
Britain over Alabama claims, involving arbitrators appointed by each party
and considering international law principles and due diligence from neutral
governments.
The tribunal found that Great Britain failed to fulfill duties on the vessel
Shenandoah before entering Melbourne port, but was held responsible for all
acts committed by the vessel after leaving Melbourne.
The passage also addresses the tenders or auxiliary vessels associated
with other Confederate cruisers and determines that they must follow the
decisions applied to their principal vessels. Additionally, the tribunal
considered the case of the vessel Retribution and unanimously found that
Great Britain did not fail in fulfilling its duties.
1 Reprinted from John Bassett Moore (ed.), History and Digest of the International
Arbitrations to Which the United States has been a Party, vol. I, Washington, 1898,
Government Printing Office, p. 653.
2 Reproduit de John Bassett Moore (éd.), History and Digest of the International
Arbitrations to Which the United States has been a Party, vol. I, Washington, 1898,
Government Printing Office, p. 653.
128 United States/great britain
The final part of the passage discusses the principles guiding the
tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the ultimate completion of an offense
cannot absolve the offender, and extraterritoriality for vessels of war is not an
absolute right but a matter of courtesy. The tribunal also ruled on the use of
neutral ports as a base for naval operations and set criteria for supplies of coal
to be considered inconsistent with neutrality rules.
The tribunal found that Great Britain failed to use due diligence during
the construction, equipment, and armament of the Confederate cruiser
Alabama, despite warnings and detention orders. The tribunal concluded that
the government could not justify its failure by citing legal means'
insufficiency. The "Florida" case was based on the construction of the
"Oreto" in Liverpool, which failed to prevent the violation of neutrality.;
The "Oreto" at Nassau, its departure, and involvement with the British
vessel "Prince Alfred" suggest negligence by British colonial authorities,
yet it was later admitted into British colonies.
The tribunal ruled that Great Britain failed to fulfill its duties under
Article VI of the Washington Treaty, as evidenced by the judicial acquittal of
the Oreto in Nassau and the Florida's four-month stay at Mobile.
The "Shenandoah" vessel, a confederate cruiser, was transformed from
the "Sea King" from London to Madeira Island, resulting in the government's
inability to be held responsible for any failure to fulfill neutrality duties.
But whereas it results from all the facts connected with the stay of the
Shenandoah at Melbourne, and especially with the augmentation which the
British government itself admits to have been clandestinely effected of her
force, by the enlistment of men within that port, that there was negligence on
the part of the authorities at that place:
For these reasons,
The tribunal found that Great Britain did not neglect duties in fulfilling
Article VI of the Treaty of Washington or international law principles
Alabama Claims 129
regarding the Shenandoah vessel. However, it was found that Great
Britain failed to fulfill duties after entering Hobson's Bay.
Regarding the vessels Tuscaloosa, Clarence, Tacony, and Archer
(tenders to the Alabama and Florida), the tribunal unanimously agrees
that these auxiliary vessels, being considered accessories, must follow
the fate of their principal vessels and be subjected to the same decisions.
In the case of the vessel Retribution, the tribunal, by a majority vote of
three to two, holds that Great Britain did not fail in fulfilling any duties
according to the rules of Article VI of the Treaty of Washington or
international law principles.
For the vessels Georgia, Sumter, Nashville, Tallahassee, and
Chickamauga, the tribunal unanimously concludes that Great Britain did
not fail, by any act or omission, to fulfill the duties outlined in the three
rules of Article VI in the Treaty of Washington or international law
principles Jefferson Davis,
The Music,
The Boston, and
The V. H. Joy, respectively,
The tribunal is unanimous of opinion—
The tribunal ruled that the United States cannot be awarded indemnity
for future earnings due to uncertain contingencies. To achieve equitable
compensation, double claims for losses and gross freights must be set
aside. With a majority of four votes, the tribunal awarded the United
States $15,500,000 in gold as indemnity from Great Britain, ensuring all
claims are fully settled and resolved according to the treaty's
[Link] Francis Adams
Frederick Sclopis
Stämpfli
Vicomte D’Itajubá
