## Facts

- In 1895, Robert E. Brown, a citizen of the United States and a mining engineer, sought to secure valuable mining rights connected to the Witfontein farm in the South African Republic.
- The South African Republic’s mining regime treated minerals as belonging to the state and opened areas for prospecting and location by proclamation, with prospecting licences issued through designated local officials.
- On 18 June 1895, a proclamation declared part of Witfontein a public digging (public gold field), to take effect on 19 July 1895. Brown prepared to peg and register a large number of claims immediately upon the field’s opening.
- On the morning of 19 July 1895, Brown applied for 1,200 prospecting licences. The responsible authorities refused to issue the licences, stating that the opening had been suspended or postponed, and later measures (proclamations and legislative actions) continued to obstruct Brown’s attempt to secure the full set of claimed rights.
- Brown pursued relief in the domestic courts of the South African Republic. In January 1897, the High Court ruled in Brown’s favor in significant respects, including setting aside a Volksraad measure that impeded his position and ordering that licences be issued (with discussion of further relief depending on what could still be pegged or realized).
- Brown contended that later administrative and legal developments prevented him from obtaining the practical benefit of that judgment and from securing the expected value of the mining opportunities.
- In 1900, Great Britain conquered and annexed the South African Republic (annexation dated 1 September 1900 in the arbitral record). The United States later espoused Brown’s claim against Great Britain, arguing that the earlier conduct of South African Republic authorities, and the subsequent failure to provide an effective remedy, should engage Great Britain’s international responsibility after annexation.
- The United States claimed £330,000 plus interest from Great Britain as compensation for the alleged denial of Brown’s real property and mining-related rights.
- The dispute was submitted to an ad hoc Great Britain–United States arbitral tribunal, seated in Washington, D.C., which issued its award on 23 November 1923.

## Issues

1. Whether the treatment of Brown’s asserted mining and related property rights by the authorities and courts of the South African Republic amounted to a denial of justice or other internationally wrongful act.
2. Whether, for purposes of diplomatic protection, Brown had sufficiently pursued and completed available local remedies, or whether the international claim was barred or weakened by a failure to exhaust them.
3. Whether and to what extent an international tribunal could examine and construe the municipal law of the South African Republic (including proclamations, legislation, and court decisions) to decide if an international wrong occurred.
4. Whether Great Britain, following annexation, incurred international responsibility to the United States for the alleged wrongs connected to Brown’s claims, justifying an award of compensation.

## Decision

- The tribunal disallowed the United States’ claim against Great Britain.
- No compensation was awarded to the United States on Brown’s behalf, and the request for £330,000 (plus interest) was rejected.
- In reaching that outcome, the tribunal addressed the relationship between municipal law and international responsibility, the asserted denial of justice, and the significance of the local proceedings and remedies.

## Legal Principles

- A state may present an international claim on behalf of its national (diplomatic protection), but recovery depends on showing an internationally wrongful act attributable to the respondent state and resulting injury.
- Denial of justice is an international wrong only when the failure of a state’s judicial or remedial system reaches a serious level under international law; adverse outcomes or administrative difficulties under local law are not, by themselves, enough.
- In resolving denial-of-justice and related claims, an international tribunal may examine and construe relevant municipal law and domestic decisions to determine what rights existed and whether the local system failed in a manner that engages international responsibility.
- Exhaustion of local remedies is a common requirement in diplomatic protection claims; the availability and use of domestic judicial remedies can affect admissibility and the merits.
- Considerations of equity may inform an international tribunal’s assessment of whether, in the circumstances, compensation is warranted, but equity does not replace the need for a legally established international wrong.

## Conclusion

In Robert E. Brown Case (United States v. Great Britain), 6 R.I.A.A. 120 (1923), the United States sought £330,000 plus interest after Britain annexed the South African Republic, alleging that Brown was wrongfully deprived of mining-related property rights beginning in 1895 and that the resulting harm should be attributed to Great Britain after annexation; the arbitral tribunal, after addressing the municipal-law setting, denial of justice, and the role of local remedies and equity, disallowed the claim and awarded no compensation.
