Adams, C.F. Jr., Charles Francis Adams (1900, republished 1980).Google Scholar

Adams, Henry, The Education of Henry Adams (1907, republished 1918).Google Scholar

Balch, Thomas, International Courts of Arbitration (1874, reprinted 1896).Google Scholar

Balch, T.W. (son), The Alabama Arbitration (1900).Google Scholar

Baldelli, P.C., Power Politics, Diplomacy and Avoidance of Hostilities Between England and the United States in the Wake of the Civil War (1998, translated from “Arbitrati e politica di Potenza”).Google Scholar

Bingham, Tom, “The Alabama Claims Arbitration,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 54 (2005): 1.10.1093/iclq/54.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Busby, Siân Elizabeth, McNaughten (2009), in which the near-fictional Cockburn appears prominently, with much credit, as the mentally deranged assassin’s successful counsel.Google Scholar

Cheng, Tai Heng, When International Law Works (2012), pp. 187–192.Google Scholar

Cook, Adrian, The Alabama Claims: American Politics and Anglo-American Relations 1865–1872 (1975).Google Scholar

Cushing, A.C., The Treaty of Washington (1873).Google Scholar

Davis, J.B., Mr. Fish and the Alabama Claims: A Chapter in Diplomatic History (1893).Google Scholar

DeKay, J.T., The Rebel Raiders (2004).Google Scholar

Ford, Worthington Chauncey (ed.), Letters of Henry Adams: 1858–1891 (1930).Google Scholar

Foreman, Amanda, A World on Fire: Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War (2010).Google Scholar

Gaillard, Emmanuel (on the Loewen Award) in “Chronique des sentences arbitrales ORDÌ,” Journal du Droit International 213 (2004): 232ff.Google Scholar

Geneva Cantonal Archive Department, Archives “Alabama Files 1, 3–4, 16 & 20.” Google Scholar

Hackett, F.W., Reminiscences of the Geneva Tribunal (1911).Google Scholar

Jenkins, Roy, Gladstone (1995).Google Scholar

Legum, Barton, “Does the Loewen Award Endanger the Credibility of the NAFTA Dispute Settlement Mechanism?” World Investment & Trade 6 (2005): 89, 92.Google Scholar

“Loewen Award of 25 June 2003,” ICSID Reports 7 (2005): 442. (As regards the most often-expressed criticism regarding the jurisdictional decision on continuous nationality, the Loewen tribunal appears to have been vindicated with time. After the presentation of its claim under NAFTA but before the tribunal’s award, the corporate co-claimant effectively changed its Canadian nationality to U.S. nationality following its bankruptcy and reorganization. Accordingly, the Loewen tribunal decided that it had no jurisdiction to decide its claim for want of a continuous Canadian nationality: “[T]here must be continuous material identity from the date of the events giving rise to the claim … through to the date of the resolution of the claim” (para. 225). However, as regards the continuous nationality of a natural person with a claim against a respondent state, Article 5(1) of the 2006ILC Articles on Diplomatic Protection was later to provide: “A State is entitled to exercise diplomatic protection in respect of a person who was a national of that State continuously from the date of injury to the date of the official presentation of the claim….”; and Article 5(4) provides: “A State is no longer entitled to exercise diplomatic protection in respect of a person who acquires the nationality of the State against which the claim is brought after the date of the official presentation of the claim.” The ILC Commentary applied these provisions to the Loewen case without any material criticism of the award on the ground that the Loewen claimant’s new nationality was that of the respondent state and hence its claim could not require the United States to pay compensation to its own national (Report of the International Law Commission 2006 on Diplomatic Protection, Supp No 10 A/61/10, pp. 35 & 67).Google Scholar

Report of the International Law Commission 1958 on Model Rules of Arbitral Procedure, ILC Yearbook 1958, Vol II, p. 84.Google Scholar

London Gazette Supplement, September 14, 1872 (the Alabama Award).Google Scholar

London Gazette Supplement, September 24, 1872 (Cockburn’s, Alexander Sir dissenting opinion).Google Scholar

London Gazette Supplement, September 30, 1872 (other arbitrators’ opinions).Google Scholar

Middle Temple Archives (London), archival reference, “Ledgers relating to legal practice and MSS novel,” “Record Reference GD.4,” “Catalogue Reference NRA 32552 Middle Temple.”Google Scholar

Mysyrowicz, Ladislas, “L’affaire de l’Alabama,” Arbitrage de l’Alabama Genève 1872–1972, p. 5ff (PRO Kew FCO 26/1211 and Geneva Cantonal Archives).Google Scholar

Nevins, Alan, Hamilton Fish: The Inner History of the Grant Administration (1936, 1957) Vol. 2.Google Scholar

Pace Law School, Westchester, New York Symposium (December 6–8,2004) “The Judiciary and Environmental Law—Trade, the Environment and Provincial/State Courts,” verbatim transcript of Judge Mikva’s contribution (transcribed from the audio tape at 26:31–28:35, taken from 24:02–15:50): I was called by [the Department of] Justice and asked whether I’d be interested in this international arbitration which involved a dispute between a Canadian investor and the United States under NAFTA, and I said “Yes, that sounds interesting,” and I met with the Department of Justice lawyers. Under the arbitration procedures, you’re allowed to meet with the parties up until the time that the panel is constituted and at that point everyone is supposed to act as a neutral and avoid ex parte contacts. This was before the panel was constituted, and I met with the Justice Department lawyers and one of them said to me, “You know, judge, if we lose this case, we could lose NAFTA,” and I said “Well, if you want to put pressure on me that does it, but why is this so important?”, and he said “Well, they’re seeking 400 million dollars damages or 300 million dollars damages under a provision that I’ll bet you didn’t know was in NAFTA when you voted for it,” and I said, “You’re talking about an arbitration procedure,” and he said “Yes,” and I said, “You’re right. Not only didn’t I know about it but I would venture that most of the Members of Congress who voted for NAFTA had no idea that there was an arbitration procedure in it or how far that arbitration procedure extended.” The fights that were going on about NAFTA was [sic] whether we were maintaining a free and level playing field for our workers, whether we were preserving environmental conditions, whether the pact was going to lead to the exporting of jobs to Mexico and perhaps to Canada, and whether in fact this was an appropriate treaty for three countries that have different levels of economic activity. Those were the debates. No one ever talked about arbitrations, no one ever talked about investor disputes. I had heard of bilateral investment treaties before, but I never even conceived that NAFTA had provisions that paralleled some of those BITs’ specific provisions. Well, I agreed to do it, and the panel was duly constituted….Google Scholar

Parry, Clive, “Rétropective séculaire sur l’arbitrage de l’Alabama,” Arbitrage de l’Alabama Genève 1872–1972, p. 49ff (PRO Kew FCO 26/1211 and Geneva Cantonal Archives).Google Scholar

Paulsson, Jan, “Continuous Nationality in Loewen,” Arbitrator International 2 (2004): 213.Google Scholar

Paulsson, Jan, Denial of Justice in International Law (2005), p. 183ff.Google Scholar

Paulsson, Jan, “Moral Hazard in International Dispute Resolution,” ICSID Review 25 (2010): 339.10.1093/icsidreview/25.2.339Google Scholar

Redfern, Alan, “Dissenting Opinions International Commercial Arbitration: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,” Arbitrational International 3 (2004): 223.10.1093/arbitration/20.3.223Google Scholar

Roundell, Earl of Selbourne, Memorials: Family and Personal (1896).Google Scholar

Rubins, Noah, “Loewen v. United States: The Burial of an Investor-State Arbitration Claim,” Arbitration International 21 (2005): 1.10.1093/arbitration/21.1.1Google Scholar

Ruddy, F.S., “La portée de l’arbitrage de l’Alabama,” Arbitrage de l’Alabama Genève 1872–1972, p. 53ff (PRO ibid and Geneva Cantonal Archives).Google Scholar

Schneiderman, David “Judicial Politics and International Investment Arbitration: Seeking an Explanation for Conflicting Outcomes,” Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business 30 (2010): 383, 405. (The full context of Professor Schneiderman’s quotation appears from the symposium’s audiotape made available to the author: see below.)Google Scholar

Stahr, Walter, Seward (2012).Google Scholar

van den Berg, Albert Jan, “Dissenting Opinions by Party-Appointed Arbitrators in Investment Arbitration” in Arsanjani, Mahnoush et al. (eds.), Looking to the Future: Essays on International Law in Honor of W. Michael Reisman (2010), Chapter 42, p. 821.10.1163/ej.9789004173613.i-1100.226Google Scholar

Veeder, V.V., “Arbitral Lessons from the Private Correspondence of Queen Victoria and Lenin,” Proceedings of the 98th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law (2004): 33.Google Scholar

Veeder, Van Vechten, “A Century of English Judicature 1800–1900,” in Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History (1907 & 1968), Vol. 1, pp. 766–779, on Sir Alexander Cockburn (reproducing most, but not all, of this author’s earlier article in The Green Bag (pp. 354–360).Google Scholar

Veeder, Van Vechten, Legal Masterpieces (1903), Vol. 1, p. 587ff, on Sir Alexander Cock-burn’s “Argument in Defense of Daniel McNaughten.”Google Scholar

Veeder, Van Vechten, “Sir Alexander Cockburn,” Harvard Law Review 14 (1900): 11.10.2307/1323051Google Scholar

Wetter, J. Gillis, The International Arbitral Process (1979), Vol. 1, p. 13ff.Google Scholar