Bering Sea Fur Seals Arbitration (Great Britain v. United States)
International Arbitration
1 Moore’s Int’l Arb. Awards 755 (1893)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
The United States (plaintiff) adopted legislation to protect endangered fur seals off the coast of Alaska. Pursuant to this law, the United States seized ships owned by Great Britain (defendant) that the United States believed were engaged in killing seals approximately 60 miles off the coast. The evidence indicated that the seals’ homes were on an Alaskan island. The countries agreed to submit the dispute to international arbitration. The United States argued that domestic law regarding individuals’ property rights with respect to certain wild animals should extend to international law because the facts were substantially the same, the only difference being that the parties were countries rather than individuals. According to the United States, under natural law, just as a country is, in a sense, a trustee of the fruits of its lands, so, too, is the country a trustee of its wild animals in a way that may confer a property interest. The United States believed that it had an ownership interest in the seals because they lived on United States land—even if the seals swam outside the three-mile limit to its territorial waters. Great Britain did not believe that the United States could have any ownership interest in wild animals outside the three-mile limit to the United States’ territorial waters.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
Dissent (Harlan, J.)
Dissent (Moore, United States Senator)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.