[FREE PDF sample] Detention in non-international armed conflict 1st edition hill-cawthorne ebooks
Detention in non-international armed conflict 1st Edition Hill-Cawthorne
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/detention-in-non-international-armed-conflict-1st-editi on-hill-cawthorne/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Practitioners' guide to human rights law in armed conflict 1st Edition Daragh Murray
Financing Armed Conflict, Volume 2: Resourcing US Military Interventions from the Spanish-American War to Vietnam 1st Edition Thomas M. Meagher (Auth.)
OXFORD MONOGRAPHS IN INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN AND CRIMINAL LAW
General Editors
PAOLA GAETA
Director of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights
SALVATORE ZAPPALÀ
Professor of International Law, University of Catania
Detention in Non-International Armed Conflict
OXFORD MONOGRAPHS IN INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN AND CRIMINAL LAW
The aim of this series is to publish original and innovative books on fundamental, topical, or cutting- edge issues in international humanitarian law and international criminal justice. The primary purpose of the series is to publish books which, in addition to critically surveying existing law, also suggest new avenues for improving the law.
Special attention will be given to works by young scholars.
Detention in Non-International Armed Conflict
LAWRENCE HILL- CAWTHORNE
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class Licence Number C01P0000148 with the permission of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2015956634
ISBN 978– 0–19– 874992–9
Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
Series Editors’ Preface
This book, Detention in Non-International Armed Conflict by Lawrence HillCawthorne, is the second step in 2016 of the ‘cultural project’ that is the establishment of the Series of Oxford Monographs in International Humanitarian and Criminal Law. The main goal of the series is to broaden and deepen the analysis in these two areas of law through the publication of thought provoking publications. Even in an area of law as well researched and studied as international humanitarian law (IHL), it is nevertheless necessary to continually confront new challenges linked to the changing realities of armed conflicts, with a particular focus on the renewed relevance of this body of law in a world increasingly torn apart by armed violence (with issues revolving around asymmetric warfare, drone wars, detentions, and so forth). On the other hand, as far as international criminal law is concerned, there is a need for further studies in an area of law which has boomed after the establishment of the UN ad hoc tribunals in the 1990s and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998; this has become a “new” area of law which has now entered a stage of maturity that requires scholars today, more than ever, to follow the operation of international institutions with a critical eye.
The main idea underlying this series has always been to support publications from younger scholars that address topical issues in a critical and original manner.
Detention in Non-International Armed Conflict is paradigmatic in this respect. It is an excellent book that tackles a topical issue. We agreed with enthusiasm to publish it in this series because it is a solid and in-depth analysis of a topic of great relevance in current international affairs, which poses unresolved challenges; and it is the result of the research work of a promising scholar, which makes it even more coherent with the overall project of the series.
The author offers his approach in a constructive manner based on solid legal work. We are sure it will contribute to the debate in this area. The book emphasizes the status of traditional international law in assessing detention in the course of armed conflict, pointing out the traditional differences between the law of international and non-international armed conflict. It tackles the gaps in regulation and analyzes the problems in the light of recent practice, including notably the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as those in Colombia, Sri Lanka, and Nepal.
The book examines the procedural guarantees for detainees in armed conflicts, examining both IHL and international human rights law, in search of a constructive way to analyze the relationship between the two bodies of law. It is confirmed that certain (minimal) guarantees must be applied in any case, confirming that
detention in non-international armed conflict is not unregulated by international law. The book is additionally to be praised for offering concrete ideas on how to develop the law in this area, an aspect that we found particularly in the spirit of the initiator of this series.
The editors Paola Gaeta and Salvatore Zappala
Acknowledgements
As is so often the case, this book began life as a doctoral thesis, which was submitted to the Law Faculty at the University of Oxford in February 2014. The process of writing a doctorate is a journey marked with hugely diverging emotions, ranging from great satisfaction and enjoyment to extraordinary stress and anxiety. The final thesis is, in a way, just a small part of this process, a roadmap of one’s personal and academic development. Support is essential if one is to get through this process. I was extremely fortunate during my DPhil to have as my supervisor and mentor Professor Dapo Akande, who provided excellent support and advice, reading not only lengthy, and no doubt often rambling, early drafts of chapters of the thesis, but also drafts of articles and conference abstracts. It was Dapo who first introduced me to the topic of this book, and it is through discussing these issues with him that the ideas found here developed. It is only really now, when I appreciate the great pressures on an academic’s time, that I realize just how generous Dapo was in giving his, and for that I am truly grateful.
I was also very fortunate to have Professors Guy Goodwin- Gill and Sandesh Sivakumaran as my DPhil examiners. The viva, though tough and challenging, was a considerably rewarding experience as a result of their deep engagement with the thesis. Their questions and comments forced me to build upon the thesis for the book and have, as a result, strengthened it.
The journey of writing a doctoral thesis can, if one is not careful, quite easily become an isolating and lonely experience. I have a lot of people to thank, for ensuring that this was not the case for me. First are my closest friends from home, David, Matthew, and Ric, who throughout my life have provided the kind of nourishment of the soul that only close friends can. Next are the friends I made in Oxford. Particular mention should be made of Eirik Bjorge, Seth Estrin, Monic Gupta, Kubo Mačák, Greg Messenger, Martins Paparinskis, and Ruvi Ziegler. Moreover, the Oxford public international law community provided a wonderful setting for research students. Weekly research seminars led by Professors Vaughan Lowe and Guy Goodwin- Gill offered a great place not just for intellectual development but also for meeting other research students who would quickly become close friends. Vaughan and Sally Lowe added to this with their great BBQs for students and staff in public international law. It is these things that made this journey so fulfilling and enjoyable. Finally, at Merton College, Professor Jennifer Payne and Mindy Chen-Wishart offered extraordinary support and guidance throughout my postgraduate studies, and I am extremely grateful to them.
I had the enormous privilege of funding throughout the DPhil from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). Needless to say, it simply would not have been possible to work on this project for four years without this generous support. The AHRC also kindly granted me further funding to take up a four-month
Acknowledgements
fellowship at the Kluge Center in the Library of Congress, Washington, DC, where I was able to build upon my research and discuss the project with policymakers. It was in Washington that I met a number of fellow researchers that have become close friends of mine, in particular Patrick Andelic, Kevin Crosby, Pete Mills, Iain Rowley, and Peter West- Oram.
Of course, the final product of the research that is captured in these pages is a result of the brilliant support I have had from OUP, and I must especially thank Emma Endean and Merel Alstein for their help and guidance along the way. The reviewers of my original manuscript must also be thanked for their thoughtful and constructive comments.
The final words of thanks must, of course, go to my family, for it is they that have throughout my life offered me comfort and unwavering support. My parents, Tina and Tony, and my step-parents, Peter and Sue, have always encouraged me to find my own path in life and pursue it without fear, whilst always remembering to value the truly important things. I must not fail to mention my grandparents, June, David, Bill, Daphne, and James, and my two brothers, Josh and Grant, for each has helped and influenced me in significant ways. Teresa, for proof-reading the entirety of my doctoral thesis, and Averil, for being such a welcoming and kind host when I was in India writing part of the thesis, have also helped me more than they could imagine in completing this research. Finally, I must thank my wife and best friend, Anne-Marie. If completing a doctoral thesis is challenging, being the person on whom you rely when doing so is far more challenging. Writing a doctoral thesis is about as far from a 9 to 5 job as one can get, and the book then extended this for a further nine months. Yet at every point along the way, Anne-Marie has supported me without reservation and, just as importantly, kept me grounded and reminded me that there is far more to life than work alone. It is to her, and my whole family, that this book is dedicated.
PART I. CONTEXT
II.
III. INTERNATIONAL
PART IV. DEVELOPING THE LAW
PART I. CONTEXT
2.5
PART II. INTERNATIONAL
3. Internment in Non-International Armed Conflict under IHL
3.1 The Legal Basis to Intern in Non-International Armed Conflicts
3.2 Procedural Rules under Conventional IHL
3.2.1 Common Article 3
3.2.2 Additional Protocol II
3.3 Procedural Rules under Customary IHL
3.3.1 Prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty
3.3.2 The end-point of internment
3.3.3 Conclusions on customary IHL
3.4 The Binding Nature of IHL for Non-State Armed Groups
3.4.1 Do common Article 3 and APII bind non-state groups?
3.4.2 On what basis do common Article 3 and APII bind non-state groups?
3.4.3 On what basis does customary IHL bind non-state groups?
3.4.4 Conclusion on the binding nature of IHL
3.5 Conclusions
PART III. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
4. Detention under IHRL
4.1 Applicability of IHRL in Armed Conflict
4.2 The Procedural Rules Applicable to Detention under Human Rights Treaties
4.2.1 Standard for detention
4.2.2
4.2.1.1 The conformity of internment with the IHRL standard
4.2.3 Initial review (habeas corpus)
4.2.3.1 ‘Without delay’
4.2.3.2 The nature and procedures of the review body
4.2.3.3 Scope of review and the meaning of ‘lawfulness’
4.2.3.4 Comparing habeas corpus and the IHL review procedures
4.2.4 Periodic review
4.2.5 Release from detention
4.2.6 Conclusions on the rules under IHRL
4.3 The Procedural Rules Applicable to Detention under Customary International Law
4.3.1 The prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty
4.3.2 Release where the justifications cease
4.3.3 Reasons for detention and habeas corpus
4.4 Conclusions
5. Detention and the Relationship between IHL and IHRL
5.1 The Relationship between IHL and IHRL
5.1.1 The ICJ’s case law
5.1.2 Detention in international armed conflict
5.1.3 Detention in non-international armed conflict
5.2 State Practice in Specific Non-International Armed Conflicts
5.2.1 Traditional non-international armed conflicts
5.2.1.1 Colombia
5.2.1.2 Sri Lanka
5.2.1.3 Nepal
5.2.1.4 Democratic Republic of the Congo
5.2.1.5 Conclusions on traditional non-international armed conflicts
5.2.2.3 Conclusions on extraterritorial non-international armed conflicts
5.2.3 Transnational armed conflicts
5.2.3.1 US conflict with al- Qaeda
5.3 Conclusions on State Practice
6. The Practical Application of IHRL to Detention in Non-International Armed Conflict
6.1 The Practice of Human Rights Treaty Bodies
6.1.1 Human Rights Committee (HRC)
6.1.2 European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
6.1.3 Inter-American institutions
6.1.4 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACiHPR)
6.1.5 Conclusions on treaty body practice: a proposal for reconciling their approaches
6.2 Extraterritorial Application of IHRL
6.2.1 Extraterritorial derogation from human rights treaties
6.3 Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Armed Groups
6.3.1 Concluding remarks: the inadequacy of IHRL
PART IV. DEVELOPING THE LAW
7. Conclusion: Developing an Internment Regime for Non-International Armed Conflicts
7.1 Building on the Current Law
7.1.1 Eliminate the distinction between categories of armed conflict?
7.1.2 Developing an internment regime for non-international armed conflicts
7.2 Analogizing to GCIII
7.3 Analogizing to GCIV
7.3.1 Standard for internment
7.3.2 Reasons for internment
7.3.3 Review of internment
7.3.4 Release
7.4 Concluding Remarks
Tables of Cases
INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS
Permanent Court of International Justice ( PCIJ )
Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig (1928) PCIJ Series B, No 15 26, 103
‘Lotus’ Judgment No 9 (1927) PCIJ Series A, No 10 67, 70, 77
The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, PCIJ Ser A, No 2 (1924) 150
The Oscar Chinn Case, PCIJ Series A/B, No 63, 1934 164
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment [1996]
Case Concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of Congo), Merits Judgment [2010] ICJ Rep 639 ....................................... 7, 193
Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v Uganda) [2005] ICJ Rep 116 ..................... 28, 69, 113, 147, 148, 149, 190, 205, 214–215
Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States) [1986] ICJ Rep 14 6, 8, 41–42, 55, 76, 91, 104, 135, 137
Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America), Preliminary Objections [1996] ICJ Rep 803 79, 83
Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), Judgment [2002] ICJ Rep 3 8
Case Concerning The Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v Spain), Second Phase, Judgment [1970] ICJ Rep 3 163
Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) [1982] ICJ Rep 38 ..... 150
Case Concerning the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), Judgment [1997] ICJ Rep 7 ............................................................ 83, 150
Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v Iran) [1980] ICJ Rep 3 ............................................. 137
Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) (Judgment) [2009] ICJ Rep 213 79
Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia) (Judgment) [1999] ICJ Rep 1045 150
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion [2004] ICJ Rep 136 8, 113, 148, 149, 152, 153, 162, 190, 213
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion [1996] ICJ Rep 226 8, 28, 79, 113, 135, 146, 148–150, 153–154, 155, 156, 194, 201
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands) [1969] ICJ Rep 3 ..................................... 8, 73
Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal), Judgment [2012] ICJ Rep 422 ....................................................... 163
Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (Reparations), Advisory Opinion, [1949] ICJ Rep 174 .................................... 104, 219
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion [1951] ICJ Rep 15 14, 150
UN Human Rights Committee
A v Australia, CCPR/C/59/D/560/93, 3 April 1997 .................. 119, 126, 127, 130, 235
Baban et al v Australia, CCPR/C/78/D/1014/2001, 18 September 2003 ....... 127, 131, 139, 241
Berry v Jamaica, CCPR/C/50/D/330/1988, 26 April 1994 ............................. 127
C v Australia, CCPR/C/76/D/900/1999, 28 October 2002 127, 128, 130, 131, 241
Celiberti de Casariego v Uruguay, CCPR/C/OP/1, 29 July 1981 214, 215
Drescher Caldas v Uruguay, CCPR/C/OP/2, 21 July 1983 123
Lopez Burgos v Uruguay, CCPR/C/13/D/52/1979, 29 July 1981 213, 214, 215
Macado de Cámpora v Uruguay, CCPR/C/OP/2, 12 October 1982 121
Maharjan v Nepal, CCPR/C/105/D/1863/2009, 2 August 2012 195
Mansour Ahani v Canada, CCPR/C/80/D/1051/2002, 15 June 2004 122, 125
Sarma v Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/78/D/950/2000, 31 July 2003 115, 195
Suarez de Guerrero v Colombia, UN Doc Supp No 40 (A/37/40), 9 April 1981 ............... 29
Torres v Finland, CCPR/C/38/D/291/1988, 5 April 1990 .......................... 124, 125
Traoré v Côte d’Ivoire, CCPR/C/103/D/1759/2008, 17 January 2011 ..................... 195
Van Alphen v The Netherlands, CCPR/C/39/D/305/1988, 15 August 1990 ............. 119, 120
Vuolanne v Finland, CCPR/C/35/D/265/1987, 2 May 1989 ............................ 125
UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Obaidullah v United States, A/HRC/WGAD/2013/10, 12 June 2013 131, 140, 195, 242
World Trade Organization ( WTO) Dispute Settlement Body
EC—Computer Equipment, Appellate Body Report, WT/DS62/AB/R, WT/DS67/AB/R, WT/DS68/AB/R, 5 June 1998 150
Arbitrations
Arbitral Award Rendered pursuant to the Compromis signed at London, March 4, 1930, between France and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, In the Matter of the Claim of Madame Chevreau Against the United Kingdom (1933) 27 AJIL 153 ... 68
Civilians Claims, Ethiopia’s Claim 15, 16, 23 and 27-32 (Ethiopia/Eritrea), Partial Award, 17 December 2004, 135 ILR 374 46
CMS Gas Transmission Co v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/08, Award, 12 May 2005 83
Interpretation of the Air Transport Services Agreement between the United States of America and France (1963) 16 RIAA 5 150
Southern Bluefin Tuna case (Australia and New Zealand/Japan) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) UNRIAA vol XXIII (2004) ...................................... 157
REGIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS
European Commission on Human Rights
Greek case (1969) 12 YB 1 193
European Court of Human Rights (ECt HR)
A and others v United Kingdom, App No 3455/05, Judgment (Grand Chamber), 19 February 2009 ...... 118, 119, 121, 126, 127, 141, 199, 200, 201, 207, 208, 210, 229, 238
Aksoy v Turkey, App No 21987/93, Judgment (Merits), 18 December 1996 ............. 127, 141
Al-Jedda v United Kingdom, App No 27021/08, Judgment (Grand Chamber), 7 July 2011 71, 115, 121, 145, 177, 178, 179, 198–199, 215, 217
Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom, App No 61498/08, Admissibility Decision, 30 June 2009 214, 215
Al-Skeini v United Kingdom, App No 55721/07, Judgment (Grand Chamber), 7 July 2011. . .
114, 214–215
Assenov and others v Bulgaria, App No 24760/94, Judgment, 28 October 1998 .............. 130
Bankovic v United Kingdom, App No 52207/99, Admissibility Decision, 12 December 2001 .................................................... 214, 215
Behrami and Behrami v France, Saramati v France, Germany and Norway, App Nos 71412/0 and 78166/01, Admissibility Decision (Grand Chamber), 2 May 2007 6
Bezicheri v Italy, App No 11400/85, Judgment, 25 October 1989 130
Brannigan and McBride v United Kingdom, App Nos 14553/89 and 14554/89, Judgment, 25 May 1993 126, 141
Brogan and others v United Kingdom, App Nos 11209/84, 11234/84, 11266/84 and 11386/85, Judgment, 29 November 1988 127
Case of Ilascu and others v Moldova and Russia, App No 48787/99, Judgment (Grand Chamber), 8 July 2004 .............................................. 220
Çetinkaya and Çağlayan v Turkey, App Nos 3921/02, 35003/02, and 17261/03, Judgment, 23 January 2007 .......................................................... 124
Chahal v United Kingdom, App No 22414/93, Judgment (Grand Chamber), 15 November 1996 ........................................... 126, 127, 200, 208
Ergi v Turkey, App No 23818/94, Judgment (Merits), 28 July 1998 ....................... 197
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v United Kingdom, App Nos 12244/86 and 12245/86, Judgment, 30 August 1990 123, 124
Hassan v United Kingdom, App No 29750/09, Judgment (Grand Chamber), 16 September 2014 114, 149, 155, 156, 158–159, 196, 199, 201
Ireland v United Kingdom, App No 5310/71, Judgment, 18 January 1978 121, 199–201, 207, 208, 210, 211, 229, 239
Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v Russia, App Nos 57947/00, 57948/00, and 57949/00, Judgment (Merits), 24 February 2005 ......................................... 197
Isayeva v Russia, App No 57950/00, Judgment (Merits), 24 February 2005 ................. 197
Issa v Turkey, App No 31821/96, Judgment, 16 November 2004 ......................... 214
Kadem v Malta, App No 55263/00, Judgment, 9 January 2003 .......................... 125
Kerr v United Kingdom, App No 40451/98, Admissibility Decision, 7 December 1999 .... 123, 210
Khudyakova v Russia, App No 13476/04, Judgment, 8 January 2009 .......... 124, 125, 126, 211
Lawless v Ireland (No 3), App No 332/57, Judgment (Plenary), 1 July 1961 121, 141
Lebedev v Russia, App No 4493/04, Judgment, 25 October 2007 130
Loizidou v Turkey, App No 15318/89, Judgment (Grand Chamber), 18 December 1996 114, 215
Luberti v Italy, App No 9019/80, Judgment, 23 February 1984 130
Mamedova v Russia, App No 7064/05, Judgment, 1 June 2006 125
McCann and others v United Kingdom, App No 18984/91, 27 September 1995 29, 197
Medvedyev and others v France, App No 3394/03, Judgment (Grand Chamber), 29 March 2010 .......................................... 119, 121, 169, 215, 235
Nada v Switzerland, App No 10593/08, Judgment (Grand Chamber), 12 September 2012 ..... 157
Neumeister v Austria, App No 1936/63, Judgment, 27 June 1968 ......................... 126
Öcalan v Turkey, App No 46221/99, Judgment, 12 May 2005 ................... 127, 214, 215
Othman v United Kingdom, App No 8139/09, Judgment, 17 January 2012 ................... 6
Saadi v United Kingdom, App No 13229/03, Judgment, 29 January 2008 ......... 119–120, 123, 132, 235, 242
Sakik and others v Turkey, App Nos 23878/94, 23879/94, 23880/94, 23881/94, 23882/94, 23883/94, Judgment, 26 November 1997 193
Sanchez-Reisse v Switzerland, App No 9862/82, Judgment, 21 October 1986 125, 127
Singh v United Kingdom, App No 23389/94, Judgment, 21 February 1996 126
Smith & Grady v United Kingdom, App Nos 33985/96 and 33986/96, Judgment, 27 September 1999 45
Steel and others v United Kingdom, App No 24838/94, Judgment, 23 September 1998 ............................................... 119, 122, 236
Stephens v Malta (No 1), App No 11956/07, Judgment, 21 April 2009. . .
. 126
Storck v Germany, App No 62603/00, Judgment, 16 June 2005 .......................... 118
Toth v Austria, App No 11894/85, Judgment, 12 December 1991 ........................ 127
Van der Leer v Netherlands, App No 11509/85, Judgment, 21 February 1990.... 123, 124, 210, 238
Weeks v United Kingdom, App No 9787/82, Judgment, 2 March 1987 ..................... 126
Włoch v Poland, App No 27785/95, Judgment, 19 October 2000 127
X v United Kingdom, App No 7215/75, Judgment, 5 November 1981 127
European Court of Justice (ECJ)
Commission v Spain [1999] ECR I-5585 45
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACiHR)
Abella v Argentina, Report No 55/97, 18 November 1997 .......................... 115, 201
Alejandre v Cuba, Report No 86/99, 29 September 1999 ........................... 114, 214
Ameziane v United States, Report No 17/12, Admissibility Decision, 20 March 2012 .......... 202
Caizales Dogenesama (Luis and Leonardo) v Colombia, Report No 152/11, 2 November 2011 ... 203
Coard et al v United States, Report No 109/99, 22 September 1999 ....... 53, 114, 121, 156, 202, 203, 208, 214, 215, 239
Extrajudicial Executions and Forced Disappearances of Persons (Peru), Report No 101/01, 11 October 2001 203
Ferrer-Mazorra v United States, Report No 51/01, 4 April 2001 127
Franklin Guillermo Aisalla Molina (Ecuador v Colombia), Inter-State Petition IP-02 (Admissibility), Report No 112/10, 21 October 2010 202, 214
Levoyer Jiménez v Ecuador, Report No 66/01, 14 June 2001 119, 235
Nativi & Martinez v Honduras, Report No 4/87, 28 March 1987 125
Request for Precautionary Measures Concerning the Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Decision of 12 March 2002 ............................................. 114, 202
Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)
Alvarez and Iniguez v Ecuador, Judgment, IACtHR (Series C) No 170 (2007) ... 118, 120, 125, 235
Case of Ituango Massacres v Colombia, Judgment, IACtHR (Series C) No 148 (2006) .......... 203
Case of Osorio Rivera and Family Members v Peru, Judgment, IACtHR (Series C) No 274 (2013) 205
Case of Rodríguez Vera et al (The Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v Colombia, Judgment (Series C) No 287 (2014) 202, 203
Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v Colombia, Judgment, IACtHR (Series C) No 259 (2012) 202
Durand and Ugarte v Peru, Judgment, IACtHR (Series C) No 68 (2000) 204
Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2) and 7(6) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, IACtHR (Series A) No 8 (1987) ... 125, 126, 127, 204, 205, 208
Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, IACtHR (Series A) No 9 (1987) ........ 205 Las Palmeras v Colombia, Judgment (Preliminary Objections), IACtHR (Ser C) No 67 (2000) .... 202
Sanchez v Honduras, Judgment, IACtHR (Series C) No 99 (2003) 124, 238
Serrano-Cruz Sisters v El Salvador, Judgment (Preliminary Objections), IACtHR (Series C) No 118 (2004) 202
Tibi v Ecuador, Judgment, IACtHR (Series C) No 114, (2004) 119, 126, 127, 208, 211 Velasquez v Guatemala, Judgment, IACtHR (Series C) No 70 (2000) 114, 115, 203
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACiHPR)
Amnesty International and others v Sudan, Communication Nos 48/90, 50/91, 52/91, and 89/93 (2003) ......................... 115, 119, 125, 205, 206, 208, 209, 235–236
Commission nationale des droits de l’Homme et des libertés v Chad, Communication No 74/92 (1995) ..................................................... 205, 206
Constitutional Rights Project, Civil Liberties Organisation and Media Rights Agenda v Nigeria, Communication Nos 140/94, 141/94, and 145/95 (1999) ................. 205, 206, 211
DRC v Burundi, Uganda and Rwanda, Communication No 227/99 (2003) ............ 162, 190, 205, 206, 214
Huri-Laws v Nigeria, Communication No 225/98 (2000) 205, 206, 208
Kazeem Aminu v Nigeria, Communication No 205/97 (2000) 205
Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v Sudan, Communication Nos 279/03 and 296/05 (2009) 205
INTERNATIONAL AND HYBRID CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
Prosecutor v Aleksovski (Trial Judgment) ICTY-95-14/1 (25 June 1999) 78
Prosecutor v Delalić et al (Trial Judgment) ICTY-96-21 (16 November 1998) 41, 42, 44, 46, 52, 64, 98, 129, 130, 208, 236, 237
Prosecutor v Delalić et al (Appeals Judgment) ICTY-96-21-A (20 February 2001) 41, 44, 46, 53, 54–55, 98, 168, 177, 182, 204, 236, 240
Prosecutor v Furundzija (Trial Judgment) IT-95-17/1-T (10 December 1998) ............... 163
Prosecutor v Galić (Appeals Judgment) IT-98-29-A (30 November 2006) ................... 103
Prosecutor v Kordić and Čerkez (Trial Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-T (26 February 2001) ........................... 41, 42, 44, 46, 52, 63, 64, 81, 236, 237
Prosecutor v Kordić and Čerkez (Appeals Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2 (17 December 2004) .... 39, 103
Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Trial Judgment) ICTY-97-25 (15 March 2002) ........ 42, 59, 92, 138, 237
Prosecutor v Kunarac et al (Appeals Judgment) IT-96-23&23/1 (12 June 2002) 47
Prosecutor v Kunarac et al (Trial Judgment) IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T (22 February 2001) 217
Prosecutor v Kupreškić et al (Trial Judgment) ICTY-95-16 (14 January 2000) 7
Prosecutor v Limaj et al (Prosecution’s Final Brief (Redacted Public Version)) ICTY-03-66 (26 July 2005) 77–78
Prosecutor v Simić, Tadić and Zarić (Trial Judgment) ICTY-95-9-T (17 October 2003) 59
Prosecutor v Tadić (Decision on the Defence Motion Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction) ICTY-94-1 (2 October 1995) ......... 5, 17, 18, 20, 22, 27, 37, 91, 96, 228
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
Prosecutor v Akayesu (Trial Judgment) ICTR-96-4 (2 September 1998) ................. 91, 106
Prosecutor v Ntagerura et al (Trial Judgment) ICTR-99-46T (25 February 2004) .......... 67, 138
Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
KAING Guek Eav alias Duch, Case File 001/18-07-2007/ECCC/TC (Trial Judgment) (26 July 2010) 67, 94, 138
Special Court for Sierra Leone
Prosecutor v Kallon and Kamara (Decision on Challenge to Jurisdiction, Lomé Accord Amnesty) SCSL-2004-15-AR72(E) (13 March 2004) ................ 91, 104, 106
NATIONAL COURTS
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Lučić case, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Judgment, 19 September 2007, 67–8, cited in ICRC, Customary IHL Database 84, 94
Al-Ahmar case, Israel High Court of Justice, Judgment, 26 February 2004, cited in ICRC, Customary IHL Database 56
Anonymous v Minister of Defence, ADA 10/94, 53(1) PD 97 46
Anonymous v Minister of Defence, CFH 7048/97, 54(1) PD 721 46, 56, 242
Issawi case, Jerusalem District Court, Judgment, 21 April 2010, cited in ICRC, Customary IHL Database 56
Jamal Mustafa Yusef ‘Abdullah (Hussin) v Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank, HCJ 7607/05, (2005) 8 YIHL 443 (Israel Supreme Court) ......................... 140
Mar’ab et al v IDF Commander of Judea and Samaria et al, HCJ 3239/02, 57(2) PD 349 (Israel Supreme Court) ............................................ 42, 53, 94, 154
Public Committee Against Torture in Israel et al v The Government of Israel et al, HCJ 769/02, 57(6) PD 285 (Israel Supreme Court) .......................................... 38
Salame et al v IDF Commander of Judea and Samaria et al,HCJ 5784/03, 57(6) PD 721 122
Malaysia
Malek case, Judgment, High Court (Kuala Lumpur)18 October 2007, cited in ICRC, Customary IHL Database 135, 140
Nepal
Bajracharya case, Supreme Court, Division Bench, Order, 31 August 2007, cited in ICRC, Customary IHL Database.................................................... 92
Rabindra Prasad Dhakal on Behalf of Rajendra Prasad Dhakal v Government of Nepal, Ministry of Home Affairs and others (Divisional Bench of the Supreme Court of Nepal), 1 June 2002 (2008) 14 Asian YBIL ........................................... 170
Russia
Re Khodorkovskiy, Case No KAS06-129, Russian Supreme Court (Cassation Chamber), 133 ILR 365 140
Sweden
Public Prosecutor (On Behalf of Behrem (Hussein) and ors) v Arklöf (Jackie), Judgment, Case No B 4084–04, ILDC 633 (SE 2006), 18 December 2006 (Stockholm District Court). . . . . 89
United Kingdom
A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1502 ............ 136
Abbasi v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs et al [2002] EWCA Civ 1598 .......................................................... 188
Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence [2005] EWHC 1809 (Admin) ............... 52, 53, 174
GS (Existence of Internal Armed Conflict) Afghanistan v Secretary of State for the Home Department, CG [2009] UKAIT 00010 179
HM, RM, HF v the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKUT 409 (IAC) 174
Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206 40
Netz v Chuter Ede [1946] 1 All ER 628 40
R (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs & Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1598 140
R (Al-Jedda) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 58 175, 216
R (Al-Skeini and others) v Secretary of State for Defence (The Redress Trust and others intervening) [2005] EWCA Civ 1609 ................................................... 214
R (Al-Skeini and others) v Secretary of State for Defence (The Redress Trust and others intervening) [2007] UKHL 26 ......................................................... 214
R (Evans) v Secretary of State for Defence [2010] EWHC 1445 (Admin) ..................... 74
R (Smith and others) v The Ministry of Defence [2013] UKSC 41 .......................... 216
R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence [2010] UKSC 29 216
R v Bottrill, ex p Kuechenmeister [1946] 2 All ER 434 40, 155
R v Gul [2012] EWCA Crim 280 174, 179
R v Halliday ex p Zadig [1917] AC 260 40
R v Superintendent of Vine Street Police Station, ex p Liebmann [1916] 1 KB 268 155
Rahmatullah and the Iraqi Civilian Claimants v Ministry of Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2015] EWCA Civ 843 71, 160
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and another (Appellants) v Rahmatullah [2012] UKSC 48 ........................................... 155, 157
Serdar Mohammed v Ministry of Defence [2014] EWHC 1369 (QB) ............. 71, 74, 75, 145, 179, 180, 182, 216
Serdar Mohammed et al v Secretary of State for Defence [2015] EWCA Civ 843 ......... 71, 74, 75, 87, 89, 160, 177, 179, 180, 182
United States
Al-Bihani v Obama and others, 590 F.3d 866 (2010) (DC Cir Ct) 189, 233
Aldana v Del Monte Fresh Produce NA Inc (2005) 416 F.3d 1242 93
Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri and Mark A Berman v Commander John Pucciarelli, 534 F.3d 213 (2008) 74
Awad v Obama, 608 F 3d 1 (DC Cir 2010) 233
Basardh v Obama, 612 F Supp 2d 30 (DDC 2009) ................................... 233
Boumediene et al v Bush et al, 553 US 723 (2008)............................. 189, 212, 243
Fadi Al Maqaleh et al v Robert Gates et al (21 May 2010) (DC Cir Ct) ..................... 182
Gherebi v Obama, 609 F Supp 2d 43 (DDC 2009) 57 ........................ 2, 70, 185, 232
In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation, Misc No 08-442 (TFH) (DDC 13 March 2009) ................................................ 159, 232
In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F Supp 2d 443 (DDC 2005) 122, 233
Hamdan v Rumsfeld et al, 548 US 557 (2006), 521 (US Supreme Court) 55, 189
Hamdi et al v Rumsfeld et al, 542 US 507 (2004), 521 (US Supreme Court) 46, 97, 186
Hamlily v Obama, 616 F Supp 2d 63 (DDC 2009) 73 2, 70, 185, 232, 233
Medellin v Texas, 552 US 491 (2008) (US Supreme Court) 128, 133
Tables of Cases
Mehinovic et al v Vuckovic (2002) 198 F Supp 2d 1322 (US District Ct for the Northern District of Georgia) ............................................ 93, 136
Minotto v Bradley (1918) 252 Fed 600 .............................................. 40
Padilla v CT Hanft, 423 F.3d 386 (2005) ........................................... 122
Rasul v Bush, 542 US 466 (2004) ......................................... 186, 189, 237
Sexual Minorities Uganda v Lively (2013) 960 F.Supp.2d 304 93
Sosa v Alvarez-Machain, 542 US 692 (2004) 2769 93, 137
Tables of Legislation
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
Charter of the United Nations (26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945)
Art 1(3) .......................... 14
Art 51 ....................... 75, 180
Art 103 ......................... 179
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (9 December 1948, entered into force 12 January 1951, 78 UNTS 277) 14
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (13 January 1993, entered into force 29 April 1997 [1997] ATS 3) .
17
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (10 April 1972, entered into force 26 March 1975 1015 UNTS 163) 17
Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (18 September 1997, entered into force 1 March 1999 [1999] ATS 3) .
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
17
Art XXI ....................... 41–42
Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950, 75 UNTS 31) 11
Arts 1-3 see Geneva Conventions:
Common Articles
Art 28 ........................... 34
Arts 1-3 see Geneva Conventions: Common Articles
Art 37 ........................... 11
Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950, 75 UNTS 135) 11, 228, 230–234
Arts 1-3 see Geneva Conventions: Common Articles
Art 4 35, 48, 50, 58
Art 4A(1) 35, 41, 49
Art 4A(2) 35, 36, 49
Art 4A(3) 35, 49
Art 4A(4) ................... 35, 49–50
Art 4A(5) ................... 35, 50, 51
Art 4A(6) ...................... 35, 49
Art 4B(1) ................... 35, 50–51
Art 4B(2) ................... 35, 50–51
Art 5 57, 58, 176, 188
Art 5(2) 56–57
Art 21 67, 117, 230
Art 21(1) 48, 49
Art 109 60
Art 109(1) 61
Art 118 61- 62, 230
Art 118(1) 60
Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950, 75 UNTS 287). . . . . . . 11, 228, 234, 242
Arts 1-3 see Geneva Conventions: Common Articles
Art 4 37, 38, 84
Art 4(1) 37
Art 4(2) 37, 84
Art 4(2)(b) 84
Art 5 38, 62, 84
Art 5(1) 62
Art 5(2) .......................... 62
Art 5(3) .......................... 62
Art 6 ......................... 84–85
Art 27 ........................ 80–81
Art 27(1) ...................... 80–81
Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea (12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950, 75 UNTS 85) 11
Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950, 75 UNTS 287) (cont.):
Hague Convention II with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land with Annex: Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land (29 July 1899, entered into force September 1900, 187 CTS)
Art 2 12
Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (18 October 1907, entered into force 26 January 2010) 205 CTS
Art 13 50
Hague Convention V respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, 18 October 1907
Art 11 .......................... 50
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, 99 UNTS 171) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (12 December 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978, 1125 UNTS 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16–17, 113
Art 1(2) ......................... 85
Art 1(4) ......................... 17
Art 43 .................... 48, 49, 58
Art 43(1) ........................ 35
Art 43(2) ..................... 18, 36
Art 44 36–37, 58
Art 44(1) 35
Art 44(3) 36
Art 44(4) 36
Art 44(7) 36
Art 45(1) 57–58
Art 50(1) 49
Art 51 ......................... 149
Art 51(3) .................. 46–47, 74
Art 72 ......................... 113
Art 75 .......................... 55
Art 75(1) ........................ 55
Art 75(3) ....................... 238
Part III 34
Part IV 34
Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (12 December 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978, 1125 UNTS 609) . . . . . . . . . 1, 16–17, 22, 23–24, 69, 83–85, 100–105, 113
Tables of Legislation
Preamble .................... 85, 113
Art 1(1) ...................... 17, 85
Art 2(2) ......................... 97
Art 3 ........................... 25
Art 3(1) ...................... 23–24
Art 3(2) ......................... 24
Art 3(4) 25, 26
Art 5 70, 77, 97
Art 5(1) 69, 111
Art 6 70, 97
Art 6(1) 84
Art 6(5) 27
Art 13(3) 46–47
‘Martens Clause’ ................... 85
St Petersburg Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles under 400 Grammes in Weight (11 December 1868, 138 CTS) .
Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, 1946 UNTS 3 (23 August 1978, entered into force 6 November 1996)
12
Principle 17 ..................... 241
Principle 32(1) 239 Hague Regulations 1899
Art 20 60
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002, 2187 UNTS 3)
Art 8(2) 18
Art 12(2) ....................... 103
Statute of the International Court of Justice (26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945)
Art 1(3) 14
Art 38(1) ........................ 68
Art 38(1)(c) 140
UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2004/39, 19 April 2004 .
Art 11 219
Art 12 219
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (23 May 1969, entered into force 28 January 1980, 1155 UNTS 331) .
7, 102
Art 3 .......................... 107
Art 26 .......................... 99
Art 31(1) ................. 7, 149, 208
Art 31(3)(b) 7, 82, 158, 158, 162
Art 31(3)(c) 149, 152, 158
Art 31(4) 149
Art 32 7
Art 34 102
Art 35 102
Art 41(1)(b)(i) 164
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations (21 March 1986), UN Doc A/CONF.129/15 . .
OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
107
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, UNGA Res 43/173, 9 December 1988 140
Principle 10 238
140
UN General Assembly Resolution 804 (VIII) (1953) (Korea) 113
UN General Assembly Resolution 1312 (XIII) (1958) (Hungary) 113
UN General Assembly Resolution 2444 (XXIII) (1968) .
113
UN General Assembly Resolution 2546 (XXIV) (1969) 113
UN General Assembly Resolution 2675 (XXV) (1970)
UN General Assembly Resolution 3525 A (XXX) (1975) (territories occupied by Israel) . .
113
113
UN General Assembly Resolution 40/161 A (1985) (Israel) 136, 137
UN General Assembly Resolution 46/135 (1991) (Kuwait under Iraqi occupation) .
113
UN General Assembly Resolution 48/153 (1993) (former Yugoslavia) 218
UN General Assembly Resolution 50/193 (1995) (the former Yugoslavia) 113
UN General Assembly Resolution 52/145 (1997) (Afghanistan) .
113
UN General Assembly Resolution 53/160 (1998) 218
UN General Assembly Resolution 54/182 (1999) (Sudan) 218
UN General Assembly Resolution 55/112 (2000) (Myanmar) . . . . . . . . . 136
UN General Assembly Resolution 55/116 (2000) (Sudan) 77
Friendship, Commerce and Navigation Treaty between the United States and Nicaragua
Art XXI 42
Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the United States and Prussia 1785 12
NATIONAL LEGISLATION
Angola Peace Accords between the Government of Angola and UNITA 1991 95
Armenia
Penal Code 2003
Art 390.2(4)
Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols as amended (1993) Art 1(1)(6) ....................... 91 Art 1(2)(5) ....................... 91
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Criminal Code 1998 Art 154(1) 92
China
Constitution 1982 (amended 2004) Art 37 ......................... 135
Ethiopia
Penal Code 1957 Art 282(c) 92
Georgia
Criminal Code 1999 Art 411(2) 91
Moldova Penal Code 2002 91
Myanmar
Defence Services Act 1959 s 49(a) 135, 140
Nepal
Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist, Public Legal Code 2060 (2003/04) 237
Public Security (2nd Amendment) Act 1991 89, 169
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Control and Punishment) Act 2002
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Control and Punishment) Ordinance 2004
70, 169
89, 169
Tables of Legislation
Nicaragua
Draft Penal Code 1999
Art 461 ......................... 91
Portugal
Penal Code 1996
Art 241(1)(g) 91, 92
Sierra Leone
Abidjan Peace Agreement between the Government of Sierra Leone and the Revolutionary United Front, 30 November 1996
Art 2 .......................... 106
Sri Lanka
Prevention of Terrorism Act 1979. . . . .
71, 167
s 9(1) 167
s 13(2) 167
s 13(3) 167
Tamil Eelam Child Protection Act (Act No 3 of 2006) 237
Slovenia
Penal Code 1994
Art 374(1) ....................... 92
Sudan
Darfur Peace Agreement between the Government of the Sudan, the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army and the Justice and Equality Movement 2006 95–96
Executive Order 13,567 (7 March 2011), ‘Periodic Review of Individuals Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station Pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force’
s 3(c) 240
Military Commissions Act 2006 189
National Defense Authorization Act 2012
s 1023(b)(1) 187
s 1023(b)(2) 187 s 1024 182
Uruguay
Law on Cooperation with the ICC 2006
Art 26.2 ......................... 92
Art 26.3.7 ....................... 92
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of Penal Code 1994
Art 142(1) 92
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
Her rig was as unique as her hull. She had six masts, of which only the second carried square sails, all the others being fore and aft rigged, and her one funnel was placed between the second and third masts. Five of her masts were stepped on turntables on deck so that they could be lowered and offer less resistance when going against a head wind. The lines of the ship were very fine, especially about the entrance from the forefoot. There was little of the “cod’s head and mackerel tail” style of build about her. She was admitted to be rather full amidships, for the accommodation of the engine, but was thought to approach as near the figure of least resistance as possible. The hull had a slight sheer and the vessel realised the expectation that she would be what sailors call “a dry ship.”
After getting out of the dock at last she left for London, where she arrived in January 1845 after a stormy voyage which tested her thoroughly. She remained five months at Blackwall, being visited by the Queen and Prince Albert, and left in June of that year with about eighty passengers for Liverpool, calling at a number of ports en route. She left the Mersey for New York on July 26 with from fortyfive to sixty passengers (accounts differ) and about 600 tons of cargo. The voyage lasted 14 days 21 hours, and her average speed was nine and a half knots, but the engines were only worked at about 600 horse-power. New York was disappointed with her, as her six low masts contrasted unfavourably with the tall graceful masts of the American ships. She made the return journey in a day less.
On a subsequent voyage she broke one of the blades of her propeller, but as she made between ten and eleven knots, using both propeller and sail, it was decided when she was docked for repairs that her new propeller should have four blades only. In September 1846 she ran on the rocks in Dundrum Bay on the coast of Ireland, and was not refloated until August 1847. Thanks to her strong construction she was able to withstand a winter’s storms and a stranding of eleven months.
After being brought to Liverpool, she lay for some time at the North Docks and, as the Great Western Steamship Company thought the repairs would be too costly, she was purchased by Messrs. Gibbs, Bright and Co., formerly agents for the company, and they decided to refit her. The rolling plates attached to the sides of the hull were
removed. An oak keel was bolted through upon the iron plates which had done duty for a keel when she was first built, to prevent rolling. Her bottom for about 150 feet had to be entirely renewed. The bows and stern were strengthened by double angle-iron framing secured by three tiers of iron stringers 2 feet 3 inches wide and five-eighths of an inch thick. Ten new keelsons were placed in the ship running her entire length, half as deep again as those formerly used. The various alterations resulted in the cargo capacity being increased by about 1000 tons, partly through the space saved by new boilers and partly through the construction of a deck-house 300 feet long and 7 feet 6 inches high. New bulwarks were erected higher than the previous ones. The number of masts was now reduced to four.[86] Two of the lower masts were iron cylinders and the two centre masts were shiprigged, carrying royals. The fore and jigger were fore and aft rigged, but whereas the topsail of the foremast was shaped like a lugsail that of the jigger was carried on a gaff, according to a contemporary picture. The old engines were of 1000 nominal horse-power, but it is a question if they ever worked over 600 horse-power; the new engines were nominally 500 horse-power. Her new pair of oscillating engines were by John Penn and Son, engineers, Greenwich, and had cylinders 82¹⁄₂ inches diameter and 6 feet stroke. By the use of cog-wheels the screw shaft made three revolutions to one of the engine.
[86] According to a description and picture in the Illustrated London News she had five masts, the first, fourth, and fifth masts being fore and aft rigged, but the fifth mast is probably an incorrect addition to the picture If she had five masts the number must soon have been reduced
The screw was three-bladed, 15 feet 6 inches diameter, and 19 feet pitch. There were six boilers, and her bunkers held 700 tons, and other accommodation enabled her to stow 510 tons more. To lessen the vibration experienced from the screw and machinery, eight new wrought-iron beams were placed transversely through the vessel, locking her sides together. The bases on which the machinery rested were made stronger, and she was further strengthened by massive iron entablature beams to the engines,
buttressed by a framing of teak wood, each piece being 20 inches wide and 3 feet deep, running on either side of the engines transversely and diagonally to the sides of the ship. This solid timber extended 17 feet 6 inches on each side of the engine. The whole of this framing was bolted together and to the sides of the ship by wrought-iron bolts. The new arrangement of the boilers gave her a lessened coal consumption.
Little more need be said about this steamer. She made one voyage afterwards to New York and back, and being then acquired by Messrs. Antony Gibbs and Sons was placed in the Australian trade at the time of the gold fever, and continued a regular voyage between England and Australia for many years. She was afterwards patched up afresh and had her engines removed, but was then such a failure that though she got as far as the Falkland Islands, leaking badly, she was abandoned to the underwriters, and is now ingloriously ending her days as a coal hulk.
CHAPTER IX
DEVELOPMENT OF IRON SHIPBUILDING
fter the launching of the Great Britain in 1845, steamship building was carried on with great activity, though the change from wood to iron and from paddles to the screw was gradual. Many wooden vessels, both steamers and sailers, continued to be built, as the prejudice against iron for ship construction died slowly. The screw propellers were at first simply auxiliary to sail. This was due to three causes: mistrust of the propeller, the cost of continually running it, and the difficulty of carrying sufficient coal.
Describing the gradual evolution of the steam-ship in its early days, Mr. John Ward, a director in Messrs. Denny’s famous firm, in his Presidential Address to the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, in 1907, said:
“The necessities of the screw propeller after its general adoption demanded a much greater increase of engine revolution than constructors in the early days, or for some years after, deemed it prudent to adopt. Thus a great variety of design, including beam, steeple, oscillating, and other forms of machines were used, all with gearing between the engine and the propeller. But a few direct-acting engines appeared very early, and gradually, as engineers gained confidence, the latter type became universal, and assumed the form of the inverted cylinder in the so-called steam-hammer engine which was the universal type for mercantile purposes until the end of the century.
“John Elder we may look upon as the father of multiple-expansion engines. He, together with his partner Charles Randolph, was trained in the marine school of Mr. Robert Napier, Vulcan Foundry, Glasgow. In 1852 they commenced business, and by 1856 had constructed several four-cylinder compound engines. Randolph,
Elder and Co. entered into a contract for a set of engines, the coal for which, on trial, would not exceed 3 lb. per indicated horse-power per hour. The trial ... worked out at 2¹⁹⁄₂₀ lb.” In regard to coal consumption, the Pacific Steam Navigation Company’s boats Callao, Lima, and Bogota, after being brought home from the Pacific coast to be re-engined, all showed a consumption of from 2 to 2¹⁄₂ lb. (per indicated horse-power) of best Welsh coal. The Bogota’s speed with the old engines was 9·75 knots and the coal consumption not less than 38 cwts. per hour. On her outward voyage with new engines she “gave a mean speed of 10·47 knots with 19 cwts. of coal per hour.” The steam-pressure was 22 lb. and the horse-power was about 950 indicated.
“These early fathers seemed to see into the future. Walter N. Neilson, in his Presidential Address (1859), refers to the ‘three grand requirements (of marine engines) as—a safe and suitable boiler for 100 lb. and upwards; a good arrangement of engine to receive the initial force of the steam without shock or liability to derangement, and carry out expansion to the greatest practical limits; and, lastly, an efficient surface condenser.
“John Elder was among the first to adopt the surface condenser and the cylindrical boiler, and he thus in the ’fifties brought to a successful issue these three grand requirements. We must go back to these early days to realise what it meant to make a boiler which would be safe for 100 lb.; steel plates of the present day weighing tons were then represented by puddled iron plates weighing hundredweights. This led John Elder to try a water-tube boiler, practically the modern Yarrow boiler, also a spiral tube boiler, but probably none of these was successful owing to the salt-water difficulty, evaporators not being introduced till many years afterwards.”
As the adaptability of iron for constructional purposes became more generally recognised, it led to the proposal that steamers should be built on the longitudinal principle instead of with an ordinary keel and a series of transverse ribs. The use of iron also enabled shipbuilders to increase the safety of their vessels considerably by means of transverse bulkheads, the number of
these being increased until, even as early as 1838, the iron steamers then being built for the Glasgow and Liverpool line were each divided into five sections, any three of which were estimated to be sufficient to keep the steamer afloat if the other two should become waterlogged through collision. Several vessels were constructed on modifications of the longitudinal system, the chief among them being the Great Eastern. In 1853 James Hodgson of Liverpool issued a circular on the advantages of iron sailing ships, in which he pointed out not only the greater strength obtained by using iron but the comparative cheapness of construction. The circular stated that a wooden ship of 1000 tons would cost £16 10s. per ton, and an iron ship £13 10s. per ton, both fitted for trade to the East. The wooden ship would not carry more than 1500 tons, whereas an iron ship built from the same external lines would carry 1800 tons, and this difference at £5 per ton out and home, added to allowances for insurance, depreciation, and interest, would make a difference in favour of the iron ship of £2295.
T “S S ,” 1846.
What was true of sailing ships was equally true of steamers, and Hodgson had shown this some years before the publication of his circular, when he built the Sarah Sands.
The Sarah Sands afforded an excellent example of the strength of iron ships if well and substantially built. She grounded on the Woodside Bank in the Mersey when carrying 1000 tons dead weight, and remained high and dry until the tide flowed again, during which time she did not sustain the slightest damage. She experienced several mishaps at one time and another, which demonstrated not only the superior manner in which she was put together, but also the superiority of iron ships over wooden ones, for it is difficult to suppose that a wooden vessel would have withstood all these casualties without sustaining serious damage. The Sarah Sands was built in 1846 at Liverpool; she was 182 feet between perpendiculars, 33 feet beam, 32 feet deep, and of 1400 gross tonnage. Her engines were of 300 indicated horse-power and were built by Messrs. Bury, Curtice, and Kennedy of Liverpool. She had two oscillating cylinders of 50 inches diameter and a stroke of 3 feet, working upwards to the crank shaft, and a still greater novelty was the application of a direct coupling between the crank shaft and the screw shaft. Her boilers were of the wet-bottomed type, and had six furnaces besides return tubes, the steam pressure being 9 lb. She was four-masted and heavily canvassed, carrying courses, topsails, and topgallant sails on the main and mizzen masts, while she was fore and aft rigged, including topsails, on the fore and jigger masts; her head sails included a large fore staysail and two immense jibs.
She made her first voyage from Liverpool to New York in January 1847, in connection with the Red Cross Line, and remained in this service until the end of 1849, when she was transferred to the American coastal route between Panama and San Francisco, being probably the first iron screw vessel to go round South America. The discovery of gold in Australia caused her to be sent to Sydney with a crowded passenger list of gold-seekers, and she was thus the first iron screw steamer to cross the Pacific to Australia; she afterwards came back to Liverpool and was again placed on the New York trade, and in 1854 was sent to Canada and was the first iron screw steamer in that trade also. On her return passage she struck the
rocks in the St. Lawrence, near Belle Isle, and remained fast four days and nights. When she returned to Liverpool it was found that she had not started so much as a rivet, which says a good deal for the strength of her construction. This was destined to have another unnecessary proof, for as she left the graving dock she capsized owing to her ballast having been removed and not replaced, but again she was none the worse. Next she was employed as a transport for troops to India in 1857, and caught fire in her saloon, but as the hull was of iron the fire was subdued and she put into Mauritius with the whole after-part burnt out. This ended her career as a steamer, for she returned to England under sail and was converted into a sailing ship, and in the following year met with a disaster which even her tough frame could not withstand; she struck on the rocks near Bombay and went to pieces.
In 1850 several boats were designed for mail service in any weather for a run not exceeding sixty miles and on which sleeping accommodation was not required. One of the best of the type was Her Majesty, built and engined by Robinson and Russell in 1850 for the Portsmouth and Ryde station. She was an iron paddle-steamer. The engines had two oscillating cylinders 27 inches in diameter with 30 inches stroke, and made 58 revolutions per minute. Her tubular boiler, 9·75 feet long, 11·25 feet wide, and 6 feet high, developed steam at 20 lb. pressure. The heating surface was 1234 square feet. Engines, boilers, and water weighed 30·5 tons. The paddles were 11·16 feet in diameter and each had nine fixed floats. There were three masts and the sail area was 64 square yards. Her speed was 12·8 knots; displacement, 93 tons; length, 127 feet; extreme beam, 26 feet.
The steamer Crœsus, for the Australian trade, launched at Mare’s yard, Blackwall, in June 1853, for the General Screw Shipping Company, was the largest vessel yet built for the firm. She was of 2500 tons, with engines by Messrs. G. and J. Rennie, of 400 horsepower
Messrs. Maudslay, like Messrs. Penn and other eminent engineers, had been in the habit of having the ships for which they contracted built by other firms, while they themselves supplied the engines. They decided to do their own shipbuilding, and accordingly
opened a yard at East Greenwich. The first vessel launched there was the Lady Derby, of 530 tons gross, built for the General Iron Screw-Collier Company.
Those were the days when Thames shipbuilding was at its zenith. While trade was good, freights high, and shipowning was profitable, shipowners did not mind paying high prices for their vessels; but as the north-east coast, the Mersey, and the east and west coasts of Scotland developed their iron shipbuilding facilities, and by reason of their proximity to the coal and iron fields were able to obtain these commodities at lower prices than the Thames shipbuilders could secure them, they were able to underbid the Thames shipbuilders and secure the industry, with the result that there is now but one shipbuilding establishment of importance in the Thames equipped to turn out a large warship or liner. Its competitors and neighbours of half a century ago vanished one after another. Some have passed out of existence, others have become merely repairing yards, and two or three have gone elsewhere and prospered. The one survivor is the Thames Iron Works and Shipbuilding Company, which, on the site made historic by Mr. Penn’s enterprise, proudly endeavours to hold its own and maintain the traditions of the river.
Mare’s shipbuilding yards on the shores of Bow Creek, near its entrance to the Thames, started in a very small way, but within seventeen years it extended until it was employing nearly 400 hands. In 1845, a large portion of the Essex side of the yard was a marsh, covered with water at high tide. By 1854 it was one of the principal shipbuilding yards in the world. The wages of the workmen at Blackwall averaged for eighteen months £5000 per week, and some weeks it was £1600 more. The yards of Messrs. Green, Messrs. Scott Russell, Messrs. Dudgeon, Messrs. Maudslay, Messrs. Samuda, Messrs. Yarrow, and Messrs. Thorneycroft, to mention only a few, besides a host of smaller builders, employed their thousands of hands; but never a keel is laid there now. The banks of the river which rang to the stroke of the shipwrights’ hammers are silent; the slips are unoccupied or devoted to other uses, the furnaces are cold; the machinery is sold or dismantled, and fragments of it may yet be seen rusting ingloriously on the scrap-heap. Dawn now brings no activity to the shipbuilding yards of the Thames, and dusk adds
nothing to their stagnation. Steam-ship repairing work is nearly all that London river sees now. If, as sailors say, ships have spirits that return to the yards where the vessels were built, when those ships are lost or broken up, there must be many homeless phantoms haunting the banks of the historic stream, seeking rest and finding none, and perchance, as did certain of the ships they represent, going down the river with the tide never to return: a ghostly fleet bearing many mysteries which shall not be solved till the day when the insatiable sea is called upon to surrender all it has taken captive.
The general superiority of iron screw steamers over those of wood led to the introduction of a number of types designed to meet the requirements of special trades.
James Hodgson, who, in addition to the Sarah Sands, built the Antelope, the first iron screw steamer to leave Liverpool for the Brazils, introduced the tubular type of iron vessels. The Carbon, a vessel of this type, was built by him for the Eastern Archipelago Company in 1855. In the construction of this boat he proposed to dispense with the ordinary side frames altogether.
He stated in his synopsis that calculations of the strength of thirty frames, in a ship that had answered exceedingly well, showed that a partial bulkhead or frame projected from the side of the vessel to the extent of only 20 inches was more than equal in strength to the thirty frames, if it were supported on two bearings at a given distance and weighted on the upper side in the middle. This frame, of 20 inches deep, would carry more than the whole of the thirty frames, and when the bulkhead was extended across to the other side of the ship there would be a great preponderance of strength in favour of the bulkhead. But, in dispensing with frames, it might, in some cases, be necessary to increase the plating for the sides, to give some additional strength. Since the strength of the materials increased as the square of the thickness, the addition of one-eighth to five-eighths of an inch plate increased the strength to resist a blow sideways, or in a lateral direction, by nearly 50 per cent. The strength of the vessel was further increased by placing the bulkhead in the widest part of the ship, amidships, and by other bulkheads placed midway between the midship bulkhead and the bow and stern, should it be deemed advisable; and also by the interposition of stiffening plates.
Other strengthening means were also recommended. The vessel would be, he contended, “capable of sustaining a considerable pressure, either externally or internally, having round, swelling, or convex sides, with a ridge or rib on the lower side which answers the purpose of a keel.”
Vessels of this type were expected to be much more economical to build, and no more expensive to run than those built on the ordinary lines. It was disputed whether a tubular vessel being without frames, floors, &c., would be strong enough for all purposes. An accident to Mr Hodgson’s tubular cargo vessel, The Carbon, however, seemed to justify his contentions, for she stranded badly when being launched, so that her stern was submerged at high water. She was towed up the slip again, and refloated, and it was found that only two plates required repairs. The Carbon was running until quite recent years in the east coast coal trade to London.
Another important development in construction was due to Mr. J. Scott Russell, who has been described, like Sir I. K. Brunel, as a man before his time. Mr. Russell’s services to steam navigation in his exposition of the wave-line theory of ship construction were of incalculable benefit to the science. His object was to diminish the resistance offered by the water to the passage of the ship, and the modifications he made in the lines of the hull not only effected this to a very remarkable degree, but also increased the seaworthiness and speed of the vessels. He designed a number of small vessels suitable for special trades or to meet particular requirements.
One introduced about 1855, for North Sea work, was an iron screw steamer with a long parallel middle body which made a capacious ship, the fore and after parts being designed in accordance with his wave-line theory. Another of his cargo vessels, having a greater length of parallel middle body and wave-line ends, had the screw propeller abaft the rudder, which was entirely below the propeller shaft, there being a loop in the rudder stock through which the propeller shaft passed. A second vessel of this type, but rather longer in proportion to its beam, was designed for the Baltic trade, and had the peculiarity that its forecastle extended as far as the midship deck-house.
T “C G ” (I L , 1850).
The period from 1845 to 1880 is remarkable for the progress made in steam-ship building prior to the general adoption of steel for the construction of ocean vessels.
The early history of the Cunard Line has already been related. Before the last wooden Cunarders were built, the Inman Line appeared on the scene with a service of iron steamers with screw propellers, the first being the City of Glasgow, launched in 1850 by Tod and McGregor on the Clyde, for a transatlantic service they themselves intended to establish with Glasgow as its headquarters. The side-lever engine of the ordinary type was modified for this vessel, as it was fitted with two beams working across the ship. The cylinders were on one side of the ship, and on the other was a large wheel which geared three to one with ordinary teeth into the propeller-shaft pinion. Her machinery was placed low down in the hold so as to leave her decks as free of encumbrances as possible.
She was a three-decked vessel of 1069 tons gross, 227 feet long by 33 feet beam and 25 feet depth; and her engines of 350 horsepower drove a two-bladed screw of 13 feet in diameter and 18 feet
pitch. She was designed to carry 52 passengers in the first class; 85 in the second class, and 400 in the steerage, and a crew of about 70. The hull was divided by five water-tight bulkheads into six compartments, and as a further provision for the safety of her passengers and crew she carried six lifeboats. Her fresh-water tanks contained no less than 13,000 gallons. She was barque-rigged, of almost yacht-like lines, and had a graceful clipper bow. The City of Glasgow made a few voyages between Glasgow and New York in the spring and summer of 1850.
Mr William Inman of Liverpool had meanwhile been preparing for the establishment of a line of steamers between Liverpool and America. His idea was that modern iron vessels, equipped with screw propellers, were bound to supersede paddle-wheel vessels, and also that there was money to be made in the emigrant trade. His decision to place fast steamers in this trade, however, was as much philanthropic as commercial, for he was profoundly moved by the reports of the sufferings and inconveniences experienced by emigrants in sailing ships, no less than by the accounts of the fearful mortality among them. The carrying of emigrants was, at that time, confined to sailing ships, many of which were wholly unsuited to the purpose. The steamer companies catered chiefly for those who could afford to pay well. Mr. Inman determined to cater for the emigrant traffic also, and for forty-two years the line bearing his name was pre-eminent in this branch of the work of the Atlantic ferry.
Practically the only steamer which met the requirements he had in mind was the City of Glasgow, and in the autumn of 1850 she was acquired by the founders of the Inman Line.
“It was on December 10, 1850, that the Liverpool and Philadelphia Steamship Company was established. Their agents were Messrs. Richardson Bros. and Co., who had already a number of packet ships of their own. They were the chief owners of the City of Glasgow, and their junior partner was Mr. William Inman, who managed the shipping department of the business.” This extract from the “Official Guide” of the Inman and International Steamship Company Ltd., published about 1888, is of interest in view of the various accounts of the inception of the company which have been made public. The first sailing of the City of Glasgow for her new
owners took place on December 17, 1850, from Liverpool for Philadelphia. She was under the command of Captain Matthews, who formerly had charge of the Great Western.
In June 1851, the City of Manchester, by the same builders and also of iron, was purchased by the Inman organisation. She was of 2125 tons and carried “overhead” or “steeple” geared engines of 350 horse-power. Her cylinders and proportion of gearing, however, were identical with those of the City of Glasgow.
In October 1851 the City of Pittsburg was built at Philadelphia and was the first American-built screw-propelled steamer in the North Atlantic service. The City of Philadelphia was delivered by Messrs. Tod and McGregor in 1853, being of slightly greater tonnage than her predecessor from the yard; but she was eclipsed by the City of Baltimore ordered the same year, the dimensions of the last named being: 326 feet in length, 39 feet breadth, 26 feet depth, 2472 tons gross and 1774 net.
This vessel took the place of the City of Glasgow, which in March 1854 disappeared in mid-ocean with 480 souls on board. In September of the same year the City of Philadelphia was wrecked off Cape Race, but there was no loss of life.
“Inman’s iron screws,” as they were dubbed, were attracting attention, and it was recognised as merely a question of time when steamers of this type would prove successful rivals to the paddleboats.
Mr. Inman became sole managing director in October 1854, as the result of the offer of the British Government to charter certain of the steamers as transports during the Crimean War, the use of the vessels for this purpose being disapproved by Messrs. Richardson, who were Quakers. About this time the company purchased the Kangaroo from the Pacific and Australasian Company, and ordered the City of Washington from Messrs. Tod and McGregor. The Kangaroo was 257 feet in length, 36 feet in breadth, 27 feet depth, and had a gross tonnage of 1719 tons. The City of Washington was 358 feet in length, 40 feet in breadth, and 26 feet depth, with a gross tonnage of 2870 tons.
The Crimean War saw a great demand by the Allies for transports, and as the French Government offered better terms than the British
Government, the City of Manchester was chartered to the French, and was followed by the City of Baltimore, and six months later, when she had concluded her trial trips, by the City of Washington. Upon the termination of their engagement as transports these vessels returned to the Liverpool and Philadelphia service.
For some time Mr. Inman had been considering the advisability of making New York his American port instead of Philadelphia, and when the Kangaroo, with all her passengers on board, was frozen up in the Delaware and her departure for Liverpool was delayed for five weeks, he inaugurated, in December 1856, a monthly service to New York with the City of Washington. Two months later the Inman sailings were increased to fortnightly, the sailings in the alternate weeks being undertaken by the Collins liners. This arrangement was very short-lived, for in the same month the Collins Line service was withdrawn. In 1857 also, the title of the organisation was changed to “The Liverpool, New York, and Philadelphia Steamship Company,” to mark the extension of the service to New York.
In October 1857 Mr. Inman’s Company bought up the Glasgow and New York Steamship Company, and placed two of the vessels, the Edinburgh and the Glasgow, in the trade between Liverpool and New York. By 1860 the demands upon the resources of the line were such that the first City of New York was ordered from Tod and McGregor. She was 336 feet in length, by 40 feet beam, and 28 feet depth, and was of 2360 tons gross. Her engines were of the horizontal, trunk type, and she was the first vessel of this line in which engines of this design were installed.
The rivalry between the Inman and Cunard Lines was intense, and neither company produced a steamer which the other did not seek to surpass, but the Inman Company forged ahead both in the matter of speed and passenger accommodation and became for a time the premier company on the Atlantic. The White Star Line, however, entered the “ferry” with vessels of a different type, and the competition between the three great companies became keener than ever. The first City of Paris was added to the fleet in 1866. Her Cunard rival was the Russia. The City of Brussels, of 3081 tons, began her sailings in October 1869. She was the last of the Inman Line to be fitted with the long wooden deck-house which was a
conspicuous feature of so many ocean-going steamers. Her average speed was between 14 and 15 knots, which was slightly increased when she was re-engined in a few years’ time. In December 1869 she made the voyage from New York to Queenstown in 7 days 20 hours 33 minutes, a record which remained unbeaten until September 1875, when the City of Berlin made the westward passage in 7 days 18 hours and 2 minutes, and the homeward run in 7 days 15 hours 48 minutes. The City of Brussels was the first vessel, apart from the Great Eastern, in the North Atlantic trade, in which McFarlane Gray’s steam-steering gear was introduced.
The dangers inseparable from the North Atlantic traffic led to the adoption by the company in 1870 of the “lanes” or routes across the ocean as suggested by Lieut. Maury of the United States Navy, a more southerly course being taken during the months from January to August, to avoid the icebergs from the northern regions. The Cunard and other steam-ship companies adopted the system about the same time.
The City of Berlin was contracted for by Messrs. Caird and Co. in 1873, and when she was launched the Inman fleet counted up thirtyone vessels with a total of 76,766 tons. The rivalry between the builders of the great ocean-going liners, no less than between the firms owning the ships and the officers of the ships themselves, was very great, and Messrs. Caird were successful in their endeavour to turn out a vessel which should be admitted to be the finest oceangoing steamer afloat. The rapid acquisition of one first-class vessel after another placed the Inman Company in the front rank. This steamer was 489 feet long on the keel, and 513 feet over all, by 45 feet beam and 36 feet depth. Her speed was about 16 knots. She was of 5491 tons gross and 3139 tons net. She had a pair of engines of the inverted direct-acting compound type, with high- and lowpressure cylinders, and of 1000 nominal horse-power, but on her trial trip the indicated horse-power was 5200, and this was sometimes exceeded in her voyages. Her low-pressure cylinder was 120 inches in diameter, and the high-pressure was 72 inches. Her twelve boilers were heated by thirty-six furnaces, the boilers being so arranged that any number of them could be cut off.
It was pointed out by the Nautical Times that while the nominal horse-power of the City of Bristol, added to the fleet in 1860, was as one to ten as regards the gross tonnage, that of the splendid City of Berlin, put on the line in March 1875, was as one to five and a half. She could accommodate 400 passengers, of whom 200 were in the saloon, 100 in the second cabin, and the remainder in the steerage, and her crew numbered 150. Electricity as a means of lighting was introduced into the transatlantic trade on this steamer in November 1879.
All the Inman vessels hitherto launched were ship-rigged, and all had the graceful clipper bows for which the line was famous, the Inman fleet being unequalled for beauty. At times, as they were overhauled, they were barque-rigged, and one or two were given a three-masted schooner rig.
In June 1881 the beautiful City of Rome was launched at Barrow for the company, and sailed on her maiden voyage in the following October. She was constructed of iron throughout, and was 560 feet
T “C R ” (I L , 1881).
in length by 52¹⁄₂ beam and 37 feet depth, and was of 8144 tons gross. This was the first of the company’s steamers to have three funnels, and being placed between the main and mizzen masts at regular spaces they served to add to the appearance of the vessel. Her machinery marked another important innovation as, although the engine was on the three-crank system, it had three high-pressure cylinders of 46 inches diameter each, and three low-pressure cylinders of 86 inches diameter each, arranged on the tandem method, and the piston had a stroke of six feet. The eight boilers worked up to 90 lb. pressure, with forty-eight furnaces so arranged that a water-tight bulkhead was fitted fore and aft and formed the coal bunkers, but this arrangement was modified afterwards. This splendid vessel did not come up to expectations in the matter of speed and was returned to the builders.
In 1875 the company was converted into the Inman Steamship Company, Ltd. The City of Rome was the last steamer the founder of the line ordered, and he died before her completion. No further additions were made to the fleet of the Inman Company. After the company and fleet were acquired by the International Navigation Company in 1886, the new firm also bought the City of Chicago while she was on the stocks for the Dominion Line. This vessel was the only one under the Inman flag to have a straight stem. She ran for several years, and was then lost on the south coast of Ireland.
T “C C .”
“P ” “S ” (C , 1856 1862).
T
The first iron steamer built by the Cunard Company was the Persia, and she deserves more than a passing mention because of the association with her of David Kirkaldy, Napier’s draughtsman, to whom modern steel shipbuilding owes the discovery of the way to toughen steel and remove its brittleness. Kirkaldy’s drawings of the Persia are stated to have been the only steam-ship designs ever exhibited at the Royal Academy. He was also the first on the Clyde to give the question of trial performances the attention it deserved. The first trial trips recorded by him, on the Larriston, on September 22 and October 18, 1852, were printed when the Admiralty asked for particulars of the respective behaviour of a Smith’s and a Griffith’s propeller. But he was not allowed to continue his researches in this direction, and even the Persia left the Clyde without a single diagram having been taken, for although Kirkaldy was in the engine-room during the entire trial, he had not permission to record her performances. He obtained data concerning many vessels “so as to be able to deduce the variations of behaviour and relative economy, and trace such to their respective origins, e.g., whether any variation was due wholly or in part to the difference in the shape of the vessels, in the propellers, in the engines, or in the boilers. The utility of these investigations was signally demonstrated in the case of two vessels, Lady Eglinton and Malvina ... the former proved a great success on her trial trip, and the latter a comparative failure. He was able to trace the cause of the failure and in great measure to rectify it. He clearly foresaw that the time was surely approaching when his employers would require to estimate for and construct vessels to fixed requirements as to draught, speed, and economy of working.”[87]
[87] “Illustrations of David Kirkaldy’s System of Mechanical Testing,” by Wm. G. Kirkaldy.
The drawings of the Persia were made for his own pleasure, and the first intimation of their existence was the announcement in the papers that they had been admitted to the Academy By Napier’s instructions they were exhibited at the Paris Exhibition of 1855 together with drawings of the steam-ships Europa, America, Niagara, and Canada. Napier received a gold medal and the Legion of
