## Facts

- Spain exercised administrative and security authority in the Spanish Zone of Morocco under protectorate arrangements, while facing armed resistance and recurrent violence.
- From 1913 to 1921, British subjects and British protected persons suffered personal injuries, deaths, and property losses in the zone, many of which were linked to operations by local insurgents acting in an organized, war-like manner against Spanish authority.
- The United Kingdom presented claims against Spain, asserting that Spain bore international responsibility either because Spanish authorities (including military forces) caused the damage, or because Spain failed to provide reasonable protection and redress against insurgent violence within territory where Spain exercised authority.
- Spain denied any general obligation to make good all losses connected to rebellion and disputed responsibility for acts of insurgents, stressing the limits of its control and the conditions of armed disorder.
- By a Special Agreement of 29 May 1923, the United Kingdom and Spain submitted the dispute to a sole jurist as arbitrator to examine the classes of claims covered by the agreement, determine Spain’s responsibility where applicable, and address compensation (including questions of interest).
- The arbitrator (Max Huber) evaluated the claims by distinguishing among (i) harm caused by Spanish authorities, (ii) harm caused by insurgents in areas where Spain effectively exercised authority, and (iii) harm occurring where Spain’s authority was absent or too limited to make prevention or repression realistically possible.

## Issues

1. Under what conditions is Spain internationally responsible for injuries and losses suffered by British subjects and British protected persons in the Spanish Zone of Morocco when the immediate perpetrators were insurgents?
2. Does international law impose strict liability on an administering power for all conflict-related harm to aliens within a territory affected by rebellion, or is responsibility based on fault and reasonable conduct in the circumstances?
3. How does the extent of Spain’s effective authority and capacity to act in the relevant area affect the assessment of responsibility for failure to protect, punish, or provide redress?
4. What responsibility, if any, arises when injuries or losses are attributable to acts of Spanish authorities (including military operations) undertaken in the exercise of Spain’s functions in the zone?
5. May the United Kingdom present claims not only for British nationals but also for British protected persons, and if so, are the same standards applied to evaluate their claims?
6. When compensation is due, how should indemnities and interest be treated under the Special Agreement?

## Decision

- The arbitrator rejected the view that Spain was automatically liable for all losses caused by insurgents in the Spanish Zone of Morocco; the presence of rebellion and war-like operations did not by itself create an obligation to compensate every injury to aliens.
- Spain could incur responsibility for insurgent-caused harm only where Spain’s own conduct was blameworthy in the circumstances—such as a failure to take reasonable measures of protection or a failure to provide reasonably available means of repression or redress within an area where Spanish authority was actually exercised.
- The arbitrator treated the scope of Spain’s responsibility as closely tied to the reality of Spain’s authority and capacity in the place and time of the injury; where Spain lacked effective control or practical means to prevent or respond, responsibility was not presumed.
- For harms attributable to Spanish authorities themselves, the arbitrator assessed Spain’s responsibility under ordinary principles of State responsibility, allowing compensation where unlawful or wrongful official conduct was established on the facts of a particular claim.
- The arbitrator accepted that the United Kingdom could present claims on behalf of British protected persons covered by the Special Agreement, and evaluated those claims under the governing international standards identified in the award.
- The award addressed compensation on a claim-by-claim basis, including the treatment of interest where indemnities were found due under the terms of the Special Agreement.

## Legal Principles

- A State exercising administrative and security authority in a territory is not an insurer against all harm to aliens during rebellion; responsibility for insurgent acts generally requires a showing of fault tied to the State’s own conduct.
- The required standard is one of reasonable diligence in light of the circumstances, including the intensity of violence, the means practically available, and the degree of effective authority exercised in the area.
- International responsibility may arise from a failure to take reasonable protective steps, or from a failure to pursue available measures of repression and redress, when the State is in a position to act and the omission is not excused by conditions on the ground.
- Effective control and practical capacity are central to evaluating both breach and causation: the more limited the State’s actual power to prevent or respond, the less justified it is to infer responsibility from the mere fact of harm by insurgents.
- Acts of State organs (civil or military) attributable to the State can generate responsibility when those acts are wrongful under international law and cause injury to protected foreign persons or their property.
- Diplomatic protection may extend to covered protected persons as defined by the parties’ agreement, allowing the protecting State to bring their claims and obtain relief where the legal conditions of responsibility and proof are met.
- Where responsibility is established, indemnity and interest depend on the governing agreement and the tribunal’s assessment of compensation appropriate to the particular claim.

## Conclusion

In this arbitration, the sole arbitrator treated Spain’s authority in the Spanish Zone of Morocco as capable of generating international responsibility toward the United Kingdom, but refused to impose blanket liability for injuries caused by insurgents during rebellion; instead, responsibility turned on attribution to Spanish authorities or on a fact-based showing that Spain, within areas and periods of effective authority, failed to take reasonable measures of protection or redress, with compensation (and interest) determined claim by claim under the Special Agreement.


British Claims in the Spanish Zone of Morocco, 2 R.I.A.A. 617 (1929), translated in 1978 Int’l L. Comm’n Y.B., vol. II, Pt. I, 17102 (1929)