Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/177642652/Bowman
Timestamp: 2016-10-25 07:34:55
Document Index: 302623921

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 450', 'arts 1', '§ 4', 'Arts 373', '§ 2101', 'art 7', 'art 6', 'Art. 76', 'Art. 55', 'Art. 2', 'art=8150']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicOCEANS APART OVER SUNKEN SHIPS: IS THE UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGE CONVENTION REALLY WRECKING ADMIRALTY LAW?©
LIZA J. BOWMAN* A ship is the most living of inanimate things.1 I. INTRODUCTION
The law that governs the ownership and disposition of historic shipwrecks found in international waters remains uncertain.2 Until recently, jurisdiction over title to discovered shipwrecks was not problematic, since international law has clearly recognized the sovereignty of the coastal state within its territorial waters. But with the advent of technology that makes salvage possible in the deepest waters,3 it is necessary to adapt maritime law to deal with international disputes over wrecks. Admiralty and property law, in the form of salvage law and the law of finds respectively, have been applied to settle disputes over shipwrecks and their cargoes for hundreds of years.4 Under traditional salvage law and
2004, L. Bowman.
McCarthy Tétrault LLP. The views expressed in this article are those of the author. The author would like to thank Professor Sharon A. Williams for her valuable comments on earlier work leading to this article.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Common Law (Boston: Little, Brown, 1881) at 26.
“International waters” are those beyond the territorial seas of states. See Patrick J. O’Keefe, “International Waters” in Sarah Dromgoode, ed., Legal Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage: National and International Perspectives (London: Kluwer Law International, 1999) at 223 for this definition. “Territorial waters” refers to those waters over which a state exercises jurisdiction and control, i.e. internal waters, archipelagic waters (of an archipelagic state) and territorial sea. For a summary of these maritime zones, see infra note 102 and accompanying text. Technical advances include better deep-diving robots and manned submersibles, precise systems of magnetic and acoustic sensing and mapping, highly accurate positioning systems, and improved navigation and hydrographic software. This technology is capable of reaching 20,000 feet, enough to reach 98 per cent of all ocean floors. See James A.R. Nafziger, “The Titanic Revisited” (1999) 30 J. Mar. L. & Com. 311. Timothy J. Runyan, “Shipwreck Legislation and the Preservation of Submerged Artifacts” (1990) 22 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 31 at 33.
[VOL. 42, NO. 1
the law of finds, however, thousands of wreck sites have been plundered and destroyed. From a prehistoric canoe5 to the R.M.S. Titanic,6 finders and salvors have laid claim to wrecked vessels and appropriated at an alarming rate what is now recognized as the cultural heritage of humankind. In response to the need to protect this cultural property, the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage7 on November 2, 2001. Despite its many proponents, the Convention has numerous detractors who believe that if it enters into force, it will nullify treasure salvage, an important part of our legal heritage. In this paper I shall examine the relationship between salvage law and the underwater heritage law proposed by the Convention, and the sources of tension between them. A review of the traditional law governing shipwrecks, salvage law, and the law of finds highlights the problems that have arisen in respect of claims in both international and territorial waters. Most of the salvage cases are American, but a consideration of the Canadian cases illustrates how complex this area of law has become. Finally, I shall consider the Convention in respect of its purpose, the control it purports to exercise over underwater cultural heritage, its proposed methods of funding, and public awareness and training. By attempting to interpret the most controversial provisions in relation to the traditional law,
Allred v. Biegel, 219 S.W. 2d 665 (Mo. App. 1949). Although the canoe was found protruding from the banks of a river rather than underwater, the case was a seminal one in establishing the proposition that abandoned property that is “embedded in the soil” vests in the owner of the land where it is found. For discussion of a Canadian case in which a shipwreck was held to be so embedded, see text accompanying note 78. R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, 9 F. Supp. 2d 624 (E.D. Va. 1998), aff’d and rev’d in part, sub nom. R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. Haver, 171 F.3d 943 (4th Cir. 1999). In this case the salvor in possession of the wreck attempted to prohibit Deep Ocean Expeditions from giving tours of the site to the public for a fee. Shortly after the discovery of the R.M.S. Titanic, the U.S. Congress enacted the R.M.S. Titanic Maritime Memorial Act of 1986. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 450rr-450rr-6 (1994). This Act suggested the creation of an international treaty that would prevent unscientific and needlessly intrusive work on the wreck. This suggestion has not been acted upon. For a discussion of how the case of the R.M.S. Titanic illustrates the tension between attempts to encourage archaeological data preservation and the constraints imposed by traditional admiralty law (under which the case has been litigated), see Terence McQuown, “An Archaeological Argument for the Inapplicability of Admiralty Law in the Disposition of Historic Shipwrecks” (2000) 26 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 289 at 320-22, n. 132. UNESCO, 31st Sess., U.N. Doc. 31 C/24 (2001) [the Convention]. Eighty-seven states voted in favour of the Convention. Four states voted against (Norway, Russian Federation, Turkey and Venezuela) and fifteen abstained from voting (Brazil, Columbia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Iceland, Israel, Netherlands, Paraguay, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Uruguay). Under Article 27, the Convention will enter into force three months after the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the DirectorGeneral of UNESCO.
I shall demonstrate that salvage is not completely incompatible with the preservation of the cultural heritage. Indeed, these laws are interdependent, each requiring the other to remedy serious deficiencies and to render the legal protection of historic shipwrecks more effective for all parties involved. II. A. THE TRADITIONAL LAW The Law of Salvage
Salvage is the rescue of any vessel, cargo, freight or other recognized subject of salvage from danger at sea. Salvage services can be either contractual or voluntary. A salvage award is given to the person who has salved the property as compensation for the salvor’s efforts. There are three areas of civil salvage:8 property salvage, life salvage,9 and treasure salvage. The origins of the law of marine salvage are ancient and can be traced back to the sea laws of Byzantium and the Mediterranean seaport cities.10 The Rhodian Sea Laws, which may have originated from as early as 900 B.C., allowed a volunteer salvor to claim a reward based on a percentage of the salved property and the danger involved in the operation.
Civil salvage can be distinguished from military or prize salvage as follows: The Admiralty Court recognises two kinds of salvage, viz., military salvage and civil salvage. Military salvage is such a service as may become the ground of a demand for reward in a court sitting as a Prize Court and consists of the rescue of property from the enemy in time of war. Civil salvage is such a service as may become the ground of a demand for reward in the court on the civil side of its jurisdiction; it includes the preservation of life or property from dangers which may be encountered in times of peace and war.
See Francis D. Rose, Kennedy and Rose: The Law of Salvage, 6th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2002) at 10. A discussion of prize salvage, which dates back before Roman times but is described by Rose as “of virtually no practical importance today,” is beyond the scope of this article. Life salvage is the act of saving human lives at sea. Under the general maritime law, a life salvor has no claim against the person saved, and a salvor who has saved life but no property has no right to compensation from the owner of the ship or its cargo. This rule has been modified by international conventions, statutes and case law. Article 16(1) of the 1989 Salvage Convention, see infra note 13 and accompanying text, precludes any life salvage reward per se, but permits such compensation under national legislation. Article 16(2) lays down the basic rule that a life salvor who has taken part in rendering the salvage services is entitled to a fair share of the payment awarded to the salvor for salving the vessel or other property or for preventing or minimizing damage to the environment. See generally Geoffrey Brice, Maritime Law of Salvage, 3d ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1999) at 195201; William Tetley, International Maritime and Admiralty Law (Cowansville, Qc.: Yvon Blais, 2002) at 353-56; Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law, 3d ed. (St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 2001) at 860-62; and M. McInnes, “Life Rescue in Maritime Law” (1994) 25 J. Mar. L. & Com. 451.
Schoenbaum, ibid. at 834.
The laws of Oléron, which provided that wrecks, broken parts of ships, and their lading were to be kept safe for the people who owned them before the shipwreck, influenced the development of English and other national maritime laws.11 No unified law of salvage was applied uniformly and internationally until 1910, when the first international salvage convention was adopted.12 Today, salvage is regulated by the 1910 and 1989 salvage conventions,13 the common law, statute law, and industry practices, such as Lloyd’s Open Forms. The 1989 Salvage Convention replaced the 1910 Salvage Convention for states that are parties to both conventions to the extent that their provisions were incompatible. The 1989 Salvage Convention has the force of law in several states, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States.14 Among the goals of the 1989 Salvage Convention was to update the 1910 Salvage Convention rules and in particular address the problem of marine pollution. The most significant provision in this regard is Article 14, which recognizes that a salvor can receive “special compensation” if the salvor attempts to save a ship or cargo that threatens damage to the marine environment. The salvor will receive such compensation, which is equivalent to the salvor’s costs, only if the salvor failed to earn a reward by means of successfully saving the property. The traditional rule that a salvor will receive remuneration only if the ship is saved is known as the “no cure, no pay” principle. Where the salvor is actually successful in preventing or minimizing environmental damage, a tribunal may allow the special compensation to be increased by up to 30 per
Brice, supra note 9 at 5.
The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law respecting Assistance and Salvage at Sea, 23 September 1910, 212 Cons. T.S. 187 [1910 Salvage Convention] came into force on 1 March 1913. It remains in force for some seventy states. International Convention on Salvage, 2 May 1989, IMO Doc. LEG/CONF. 7/27 [1989 Salvage Convention], reprinted in [1990] 1 L. M.C.L.Q. 54 (adopted on 28 April 1989 at London, England, and entered into force as of 14 July 1996). For the United Kingdom, see the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (U.K.), 1995, c. 21, ss. 224(1) and Sch. 11, Part I; for Canada, see the Canada Shipping Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-9, as am. by S.C. 1993, c. 36, s. 449. 1 [Canada Shipping Act]; see also the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, S.C. 2001, c. 26, s. 142(1) and Sch. 3, Parts 1 and 2 [Canada Shipping Act, 2001]. The Canada Shipping Act, 2001 is not yet in force. The new Act received Royal Assent on 1 November 2001. However, only a few of its provisions, such as the amendments made to the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987, R.S.C. 1985 (3d Supp.), c. 17, have come into force. The majority of provisions of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 will come into force when the Regulations have been developed and put in place. The United States ratified the 1989 Salvage Convention on 31 October 1991, and deposited its instrument of ratification with the International Maritime Organization on 27 March 1992. However, the 1989 Salvage Convention did not come into force in the U.S. until 14 July 1996, when it came into force internationally. See Tetley, supra note 9 at 326, n. 23.
cent. which attracted widespread media attention
. no pay” principle. treating the loss as an actual total loss.
See Tetley. Once the original owners are indemnified. supra note 9 at 612. n. In the case of a total loss of the whole ship or an “apportionable part” of the goods. An example of a salvage operation with a predetermined fee negotiated is the Irving Whale. and whether or not their exertions prove successful in preserving any property. This will depend on specific circumstances. they cease to retain proprietary rights in competition with the insurer. from the time of the casualty. so too do the insurance implications. New Brunswick. See also Tetley. the insured may give up or “abandon” proprietary rights in the property to the insurer. no pay” doctrine in the interest of preventing marine pollution. The parties to a LOF 2000 salvage contract can invoke a “Special Compensation Protection and Indemnity Clause.16 In the absence of a binding agreement fixing the amount of remuneration. Such agreements are rare. See Rose. the federal government of Canada awarded a contract to Donjon McAllister Joint Venture to lift the Irving Whale for an estimated $12. especially more recent ones. Brice. and Geoffrey Brice.1 million. supra note 9 at 591-92. In June. The 1989 Salvage Convention recognizes that most salvage services today are performed under a contract. or both. prepared by the Council of Lloyd’s and known as Lloyd’s Open Form (LOF). supra note 9 at 334. 1995. guarantees remuneration for salvors’ exertions.L. 55 and accompanying text. See Tetley. In the case of a constructive total loss of a ship or of goods. The barge. supra note 9 at 269. Article 6(1). whether or not the vessel poses any threat to the environment.” as this clause has come to be known. however. “Salvage and the Role of the Insurer” (2000) L. Article 14 has thus created an incentive for salvors to attempt salvage of vessels that threaten to pollute the marine environment even where success is unlikely. giving rise to difficult legal questions.M.15 Lloyd’s Standard Form of Salvage Agreement. at 342-45. Wrecks and their cargoes may be insured in different parts of the world.C. See Tetley. This agreement has also made an exception to the “no cure. ibid. provides the example of the direct effect of American concepts of the retention or abandonment of title on London underwriters claiming title to submerged vessels. The most recent versions of the form take into account Article 14 of the 1989 Salvage Convention and entitle salvors to some compensation if they have used their “best endeavours” to prevent or minimize environmental damage. Lawrence while on its way from Halifax. LOF 2000 deviates even further from the “no cure. 615-16. as an insurer may not want to risk assuming more liabilities by exercising such rights. is the most common form of salvage contract in use around the world. regardless of whether they have saved the ship or cargo. Nova Scotia to Bathurst. The insurer is then subrogated to all the insured’s rights and remedies in respect of the subject matter.” “SCOPIC 2000.17 the salvor is entitled to monetary compensation once the
Supra note 13. Marine insurance plays an important role in determining proprietary rights to wrecks. an oil barge that sank in 1970 in the Gulf of St. The insurer thereby assumes proprietary rights. As the international dimensions of treasure salvage increase. or even 100 per cent in exceptional cases. the insurer becomes entitled to take over the insured’s interest in whatever may remain of the subject matter paid for. supra note 8 at 642. 26 at 30.Q. including a margin of profit.
supra note 14. as it is called.
due to its leakage of oil and PCBs. V. is determined by future legal proceedings. time spent and the extent and skill of the work done. and the risks of liability. “Pure” salvage. involves the salvor assuming the risk of his operation with no guarantee of a reward. whether it be stranded. In contemporary salvage. 1997) at 208. 1998) at 355-69 for a helpful
. 13(1). Insurers. (Montreal: International Shipping Publications. This means that the salvor cannot have been under any legal obligation to render assistance.21 As the law stands. desperate for an increase in their own business as underwriters and arbitrators of salvage cases. United States Admiralty Law (Boston: Kluwer Law International. Traditionally. NO. The controversy lies in whether a sunken ship should be the object of salvage. Second. Du Contrat Pour Renflouer L’Irving Whale (9 June 1995). online: <http://www. then it is decided by a court or arbitral tribunal.ca/whale2/jun9. Canada Shipping Act.20 Voluntary salvage occurs less often than contractual salvage. Regarding the salved property. and the value of the property salved. The third criterion. There are three criteria required for a salvor to establish a valid “pure” salvage claim. Maritime Liens and Claims. Mangone.ec. Art. supra note 8 at 643.g. and Rose. is by contrast highly controversial. See William Tetley. have tried to reduce the dependence of salvors worldwide on Lloyd’s of London for arbitration. the factors include the danger to and value of property used in the salvage service.6
[VOL. The saving of property is the benefit conferred upon the owner of the vessel. danger to property. Third. announcing the awarding of the contract. Sch.ns. These factors are now enumerated by statute18 along with others such as the promptness of the services rendered and the availability and efficiency of equipment for salvage operations. but has nevertheless given rise to intriguing treasure salvage cases. Tetley. See Environment Canada. but with limited success. First. the factors are the danger to life. The amount of the award. 42.gc. the property must have been in peril. See Gerard J. The first and second criteria for a valid salvage claim are fairly straightforward.19 If the parties cannot agree on the quantum of the salvage reward.html> (date accessed: 14 November 2003). was successfully lifted and transported to Halifax in 1996. if any. the salvor must have been successful in salving some of the property. supra note 9 at 338-41. regarding the salvors. several factors have been taken into account in determining the amount of a reward. supra note 8 at 78-158. 2d ed. 1
property has been salved and brought to a place of safety. the services rendered must have been voluntary. salvage awards are assessed by arbitrators. LOF provides for arbitral awards: Rose.
See e. that the property must be in marine peril. There is a wide variety of items that qualify as salvable property.
In the majority of cases. supra note 9 at 209-10. See generally Brice. any vessel. The type of property that may be salved can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. a ship in distress is usually considered to be one that is not yet lost.
§ 4. 72 F. Halsbury’s. supra note 24 at 626.26 For the purposes of statutory provisions relating to salvage and wreck. 115 at 118 (E. ligan (or lagan).22 Aircraft. 7. 635 at 637 (E. The Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage: An Emerging Objective of the Contemporary Law of the Sea (London: Kluwer Law International. Property in all four of these categories may be salved at common law.24 The right to claim a ship as “wreck of the sea” has its roots in English law during the Anglo-Saxon era. Ninety-Nine Gold Coins. and their cargo are recognized subjects of salvage by international convention and statute.N. “Jetsam” refers to property thrown overboard to lighten a ship that is in danger of sinking. Canada. supra note 9 at 278-79. especially historic shipwrecks. 4th ed. Under English law. it is assumed that the convention includes wrecks due to its
outline of salvable property in the United States. However. See Anastasia Strati.N.2003]
sunken. 163. as well as her apparel. A derelict vessel is one that has been abandoned at sea by its crew without hope of recovering or intention of returning to it. lagan and derelict. and Sovereigns: Competing Interests in the Medieval Law of Shipwreck” (1990) 11 J. the wearing apparel of passengers and other effects carried by them for their daily personal use. Salvors. See Broere v. United Kingdom.
26 27 25 24 23 22
See Brice. bunkers. 1272. “Flotsam” is property found floating after a ship has sunk. 1948).27 The 1989 Salvage Convention does not mention wreck. vol. One of the more interesting laws defining shipwrecks was the first Statute of Westminster. hovercraft. and France. supra note 9 at 322.. it could not be considered a wreck by virtue of the fact that it was retained by its owners. cargo or freight (including passage money). Tetley. or otherwise imperilled in navigable waters. 1899). royal fish such as whales and sturgeon also qualify. “Shippers.Y.23 Wreck and derelict have long been common subjects of salvage. jetsam. stores. the modern definition of “wreck” has expanded to include jetsam. 1997) at 626. flotsam.D.. or wreck. see Rose Melikan. Mass. “Ligan” (or “lagan”) is property on the sea that is attached to buoys. is held to be a proper object for salvage.D.
. 1995) at 48-49. See Halsbury’s Laws of England. 3 Edw. Many believe that this doctrine should not apply to underwater cultural heritage. For a historical perspective. aff’d.Y. 78 F. cat or dog escaped alive from a ship.Supp.Supp. Among the property that is exempt are the personal effects of the master and crew. Legal Hist. “Wreck” refers to goods that have come to land after shipwreck. Even money found floating on dead bodies has been held to be subject to a salvage award. Two Thousand One Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars.25 Wreck salvage refers to the salvage of property historically classified as either flotsam. n. which provided that if a man. 111 F. 1947). 43(1) (London: Butterworths. See The Statutes of Westminster. Gardner v. 552 at 553 (D.
supra note 8 at 189. Unclaimed wreck found within the waters of the United Kingdom becomes the property of the Crown. Such property is usually sold to a museum and the proceeds of this sale will form the salvage payment.shtml> (date accessed: 14 November 2003). for example.uk/history/archaeology/marine_receive1. see Brice.” online: BBCi <http://www.30 If no one establishes a claim within one year from the time when the wreck came into the Receiver’s possession. however. The Convention applies generally to any property which is not permanently and intentionally attached to the shoreline. or the property itself is awarded to the finder. if as a matter of construction wrecks fall within the terms of the [1989 Salvage] Convention. It can therefore confidently be asserted that it applies to vessels or goods which are afloat. An owner of a find that is over one hundred years old will be advised as to its archaeological importance. must report his discovery to the Receiver of Wreck. lagan and derelict found in or on the shores of the sea or any tidal water.bbc. “Wreck” in this context primarily refers to contemporaneous wrecks.
Brice. supra note 8 at 106. and Rose. 42. 1
generally inclusive nature. Rose. Either the Crown or the owner of the property provides monetary award. Therefore. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of Part IX of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. and that found outside those waters is returned to the finder. NO.co. supra note 14. Under section 255(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. but it can also apply to archaeological or historical wrecks. flotsam. U.
.28 Commonwealth jurisdictions have the statutory institution of Receiver of Wreck.31 The degree of peril is important in determining the amount of the salvage award. The Receiver may have to locate the owner of the wreck so that this person can claim it. the term “wreck” includes jetsam. one of the most important elements for a court to consider in awarding salvage is whether a sunken ship or wreck is in real
Rose. many question whether a sunken ship or wreck is truly in danger for the purpose of a salvage claim. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency. “The Receiver of Wreck. it will apply to them. it is unlikely to have become so attached intentionally. the Receiver must dispose of the wreck. supra note 9 at 56. Property which has sunk and become attached to the shoreline should also be covered since. supra note 9 at 299-300. Despite the protective nature of the Receiver’s work. 276.29 The Receiver is then responsible for the preservation of the wreck and the provision of an appropriate salvage award for the finder.8
[VOL. any person who finds or takes possession of a wreck in United Kingdom waters. regardless of whether or not he is the owner. [emphasis in original]
For a general description of these provisions. designed to prevent plundering of wrecked vessels and their cargoes while recognizing the rights of salvors. even if it has become permanently attached. supra note 8 at 330. explains that [c]onsequently.K.
Salvage services will not normally be rendered if the property is valueless. a contract salvage claim was contaminated by fraud. Western Australian Museum (1977). 16 A. Fla.N. property loses its value.) at 663. or stem from the fact that the ship is in an unknown location. 880 (S. 1995). Unidentified Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel. Sweeney. Jackson Marine Co.L.R.. in Treasure Salvors. The plaintiff had discovered its remains and retrieved numerous artifacts from its wreckage. See Joseph C. has been injured by the elements.2d 330 at 337 (1978).D.36 Ships that show no sign of deterioration in their underwater environment. 1982). Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. the Court of Appeals.3d 556 (4th Cir. held that “[T]here is no dispute that the Atocha was lost. 56 F. Inc. Even after the discovery of the vessel’s location it is still in peril of being lost through the actions of the elements. For example. it extends to the recovery of property in or from a ship which has lain at the bottom of the sea for a long time. 540 at 557 (S.Supp.Y. Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel. Unidentified. 99 F. 185 at 193.. however. Salvage law is guided by equity.35 Other courts have confined themselves to less creative rulings. Inc. v.” because “[s]alvage is not limited to recovery of property in or from a ship which is actually in distress. 21 F.2d 466 (5th Cir. are probably not in sufficiently “real” danger to justify salvage.A. as these services are usually considered necessary only when the danger threatens the economic value of the subject of salvage: see Rose.N. 759 F. Fifth Circuit.37 Often a ship that has
See The Saragossa. This case involved a salvage claim to the Gilt Dragon. Black Gold Marine. 1951). In Danner v. Columbus-America Discovery Group v.
569 F. or a reasonable apprehension of loss. A salvor is not entitled to a salvage award if he has caused the wreck’s peril. a salvor need only “recover the ship. Inc. & Com.32 The loss can be pecuniary.Y. 1985). supra note 8 at 170.C. There only has to be some peril to satisfy this requirement. Cas.2003]
danger. L.D.
Cobb Coin Co. and unconscionable conduct. “An Overview of Commercial Salvage Principles in the Context of Marine Archaeology” (1999) 30 J. a Dutch ship that crashed into a reef forty miles from present-day Perth on its way from the East Indies to Holland. v.D. and salvors must therefore have “clean hands” to qualify for remuneration.”33 Yet finding an element of danger in order to justify a grant of salvage rights over a wreck has been difficult for some American courts. or is merely stranded. Mar. 425 at 426 (S. for a discussion of the absence of clean hands as a defence to salvage. This is a factual question determined on a case-by-case basis.Supp. 1867).
. its cargo or a part thereof. According to Judge Anthony Mason in a 1977 decision of the Australian High Court. In a more recent treasure salvage case. 549 F.”34 In another case it was held that a shipwreck could be in danger due to pirates. 623 (H. v. a salvage award was denied where salvors looted the salved vessel and prevented assistance by other salvors. compulsion.
Robinson v. simply holding that once underwater. United States.
L. Lissaman questioned this aspect of salvage. a marine archaeologist testified that the exposed part of the Atlantic was not large enough for a significant number of zebra mussels to attach themselves. Disturbing this equilibrium could cause chemical changes that in turn bring about the ship’s rapid deterioration.R. Calif. Justice Douglas H. supra note 2 at 228. Critics have pointed out that the emphasis in judgments seems to be on measurement.) at 592 and 638 [Mar-Dive]. some American courts have considered whether the salvor’s work met archaeological standards in the assessment of the salvage award.. Delgado. which sank in 1852 and is firmly buried in about thirteen feet of mud at the bottom of Lake Erie. a case that will be examined in more detail below. At issue in the case was a claim to salvage the Atlantic. In Columbus-America Discovery Group v. Fourth Circuit.10
been underwater for a length of time has reached an equilibrium with its environment. [T]he Atlantic has been resting undisturbed on the lakebed of Lake Erie since she sank in 1852. Lissaman noted:
Danger of loss or damage to the subject matter of the service is the very foundation of a claim to salvage and the degree of danger has been said to be the most important element to consider in awarding salvage. MarDive Corp. ed. .41 A commonly cited example demonstrates this:
The district court noted further that Columbus-America had published a book and
James M. It was unlikely that the ship could be better preserved by salvage.. In an attempt to discourage this destructive treatment of wrecks. NO. However. I conclude that the salvage proposed by Mar-Dive will not save the Atlantic from any danger.
. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference (Pleasant Hill. 141 D. 974 F. “Treasure Hunters in the Carribean: The Current Crisis” in James P. Parrent. The court agreed. Therefore. a case involving a nineteenth-century wreck laden with a cargo of gold. O’Keefe.. 42.: Society for Historical Archaeology.
(1996). 1988) 32 at 35.39
The salvors had argued that the ship was in peril of being destroyed by zebra mussels. said that an extra factor should be added: “the degree to which salvors have worked to protect the historical and archaeological value of the wreck and the items salved.38 In Ontario v. 1992) [Columbus-America]. Div. The use of damaging methods of excavation also causes a wreck’s peril. the Court of Appeals. Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel (The Central America). The Unidentified.. Gen. conservation and popular publications. (4th) 577 (Ont. the combined weight of which would eventually cause the vessel’s structural collapse.”40 But whether courts really understand the principles of archaeological excavation is another matter.2d 450 at 468 (4th Cir.
235. supra note 4 at 32. however.. For example.”43 courts are nevertheless at a disadvantage in properly assessing the archaeological methods used if they have to rely on the salvors’ evidence.45 Aside from equity. L. O’Keefe. See Runyan. In the latter case.48 Second. such as maintaining collections from sites as entities. and had provided educational materials to schools interested in teaching their students about the Central America and its history.46 The guiding premise behind the theory of salvage is to return goods to the stream of commerce. When courts are willing to grant awards for partial excavations.. Salvors. Mayes. Supra note 40 at 468. in 1986 porcelain and gold salved from the Geldermahlsen.47 As a result. 2027 at 2039. under intense time and financial pressures and threatened by rivals.42
Although courts have decided that “salvors who seek to preserve and enhance the historical value of ancient shipwrecks should be justly rewarded. Some historians and archaeologists argue that a wreck site should not be abandoned to the public until qualified authorities have assessed the site’s significance to the national and international heritage. “Organizing. It is unlikely that salvors would produce evidence against their own interest. the salvage award can never exceed the value of the property salved. supra note 2 at 229.2003]
promoted a television account of its endeavors. either fully or partially. & Com. supra note 2 at 228. First. . Manning. a Dutch vessel wrecked
Supra note 36 at 573. a salvage award is usually paid from the proceeds of the sale of the maritime property or the salvor is awarded the material raised. The court found that “the efforts to preserve the site and its artifacts have not been equaled in any other case” . the material is often dispersed into the antique trade. See Thompson M. Although there is no fixed rate for a salvage award. there are aspects of the salvage award that run counter to important objectives of cultural heritage law. Horan.
O’Keefe. are therefore tempted to extract commercially valuable material as fast as possible to the detriment of other materials in a wreck.
See Edward W.44 A court might refuse to grant an award. they have traditionally been generous. if it discovered that a salvor’s excavation had not conformed to archaeological standards. and Financing a Treasure Salvage Operation” (1999) 30 J. Rep. salvage is driven by commercialism. Mar. they are in effect encouraging the irreparable dismantlement of a site that cannot be put back together again. “Current Legal Issues in the Law of Historic Shipwrecks” (1986) 5 Preservation L.
145. the era of private enterprise recovery of ancient shipwrecks will be over. NO. there are some who believe that treasure hunters have contributed greatly to our understanding of maritime history and should not be condemned or stopped from continuing their efforts.” thereby excluding salvage law from national law governing underwater heritage. 1984) [Chance]. A treaty that has addressed the problem of dispersal is the Agreement Between Australia and The Netherlands Concerning Old Dutch Shipwrecks. & Arts 373 at 376.12
[VOL. v. we cannot conclusively determine whether stricter legal protection of shipwrecks on an international level will curb these illegal activities. 18 A. Parties may reserve the right not to apply the provisions of the 1989 Salvage Convention “when the property involved is maritime cultural property of prehistoric. Ga.Supp. Some have argued that further proscription of treasure salvage will promote a black market in looted and counterfeit artifacts.52 Since no effective deterrents to protect the underwater cultural heritage have yet been put in place. The only reference to underwater heritage is in the form of a reservation. 1972. Certain Artifacts Found and Salvaged from the Nashville. 597 (D. this argument can be effectively countered by the fact that an active black market already exists. was sold at Christie’s. made such a reservation in
Facts from UNESCO Press Release.S.49 Very few courts have refused to grant a salvage award based on policy considerations that it is inappropriate to rescue marine antiquities for the purpose of selling them. Unidentified Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel50 and Chance v.
. 801 (S. in Subaqueous Exploration and Archaeology. Article 30(1)(d). supra note 6 at 326.”
577 F. for example.Supp. $16 million and established Christie’s pre-eminence in the sale of underwater cultural heritage.D. one of the world’s biggest international auction houses.L. ensuring that “the total assemblage should be capable of reassembly to allow further statistical and scholarly analysis. See McQuown. Fisher. It provides for the disposition of material from wrecks. n. One scholar expresses the view that “[i]t is a simple fact that with bureaucratic archaeologists in control. The auction raised U.T. By contrast. “The Abandoned Shipwrecks Act: The Role of Private Enterprise” (1988) 12 Colum. J. 1
in the South China Sea in 1752.54 Canada. Ltd. However.S. Nevertheless. dated 29 October 2001.A. 606 F.51 the salvors were denied an in specie award of historic artifacts on these grounds.”53 The 1989 Salvage Convention does not define the relationship between salvage law and protection of underwater cultural heritage. 1983). Supra note 13.L. Md. 42. archaeological or historic interest and is situated on the seabed.-V.
See Melvin A.
triggered by the salvor bringing some property from the wreck before the court. See Craig N.”. when the salvor appeared with mosaic friezes recovered from the panelling of the ship. Moyer v.58 American courts have also taken jurisdiction over wrecks in other states’ territorial waters. Lusitania.J. 1995).” The case of Eads v. The U. once an
Tetley. 1889). J. The Wreck of the Andrea Doria. Dunham. § 2101-2106 (1987). McLean. B. court has awarded the ship and cargo to U. supra note 9 at 283.. supra note 59. 22 Ark.Supp. 884 F. Brazelton.S. “Law of Salvage Reclaimed: Columbus-America Discovery v. 836 F. such as the RMS Lusitania.
In Bemis v.D.. Va. is considered by at least one writer to be the first reported U. The Lusitania was a cunard liner on a transatlantic voyage from New York to Liverpool when it was torpedoed off the Old Head of Kinsdale on May 7. Lusitania. an American court held that “[i]n a barbarous state of society wrecks were treated as the lawful plunder of the first comer .57 A court thereby asserted jurisdiction over the wreck of the Andrea Doria. however. which lies within twelve miles of the coast of Ireland.C. 477 at 480. supra note 21 at 364. 499 (1861). Atlantic Mutual” (1993) 13 Bridgeport L.60 Although traditionally it has not been applied to historic shipwrecks.61 In the United States. case in which the law of finds was applied to a sunken shipwreck. an Italian luxury liner that sank following a collision on the high seas in 1956. Mich. 38 F. 1993).
.59 With the advent of the UNESCO Convention. 43 U.S. citizens.
Bemis v. 1915.N. although the Irish government has declared the Lusitania to be a protected national historic site.55 The United States has also done this to some extent by enacting the Abandoned Shipwreck Act56 and other laws to protect heritage within federal offshore jurisdiction. But courts are still attempting to apply the principles of salvage to wrecks beneath international waters in addition to those within twenty-four miles from their coasts.D. The federal courts of the United States have developed an extraterritorial high seas jurisdiction known as quasi in rem jurisdiction. 503 at 507 (E.Supp.S. Rev. Yet recent trends suggest applying the law of finds when there has been a finding that the sunken property has been abandoned by its previous owners. 1099 (D.F. Brice. the law of finds has become an important part of American law in respect of underwater cultural heritage. the law of salvage will cease to have free reign over the exploration and exploitation of shipwrecks beyond the margin of federal jurisdiction.S. the court stated at 1048-49 that “[t]raditionally the law of finds was applied only to maritime property which had never been owned by anyone. 1042 (E. The Law of Finds
More than a century ago.2003]
ratifying the 1989 Salvage Convention.
See Mangone. Alleging that the owner has no intention of returning. NO. the next step is to decide whether to apply the law of finds or the law of salvage to the case at hand. not the sovereign.g. see Mark A.
. where title to property is not at issue because it is assumed that the property still belongs to someone. such as plants or fish. 1
admiralty court establishes jurisdiction. there is an exception to the rule that a finder of abandoned property takes title to the property when he reduces it to his possession. becomes the owner. J. See supra note 39 at 634. the finder has to demonstrate an intent to reduce the property to his possession and show that he is exercising effort and control to make it his possession. The maritime law of finds is substantially similar to the law of finds as applied on land. supra note 20 at 223-29. unlike salvage law. supra note 51.62 The object of the law of finds is to vest title in the first person who reduces abandoned property to his or her possession. Wilder. there is an important distinction between the English and American rules. he holds title to it. “Application of Salvage Law and the Law of Finds to Sunken Shipwreck Discoveries” (2000) 67 Def. the sovereign can assert its right over the wreck if no valid claim is made by the owner. in the same circumstances. Chance. A finder claims property at sea on the premise that the property has never been owned by anyone. it is not considered
For an analysis of the relationship between these two areas of law. the finder. as the case may be) does not vest in its finder.63 The object of the finder is to obtain legal title. Salvage law focuses instead on the right of the salvor to compensation for his successful efforts at saving the property.14
[VOL. The Court in Mar-Dive referred to the definition of “embeddedness” adopted in Chance. but in the owner of the land where the property is found. where the owner of the locus where the property is found asserts “constructive possession” over the property. Under English law. In respect of shipwrecks. Once a finder has taken control over the abandoned property. An important element in determining ownership of marine property depends on where the property was found. The title to abandoned property that is embedded in the soil (or in a river or sea floor. 92. a title which is good against the whole world. or has been abandoned by the owner. even if it is discovered on another person’s land. Under American law. where the court held that a ship which had sunk 120 years earlier and was embedded in the soil underlying the Ogeechee River belonged to the State of Georgia because riverbeds are the property of the state. Couns. including the original owner.
See e. At common law.64 Similarly.
68 C. See John Paul Jones. courts favor applying the law of salvage over the law of finds. when sunken ships or their cargo are rescued from the bottom of the ocean by those other than the owners.D. The Law Governing Shipwrecks in Canada
Canadian maritime law is a body of federal law. known as the Captain Lawrence. Mar.
. Inc.. and title to it vests in the owner of the land. The issue of abandonment has been problematic for American courts.65 American courts have more often applied the principles of salvage than the law of finds to historic shipwrecks. 3d 491 (6th Cir. “The United States Supreme Court and Treasure Salvage: Issues Remaining After Brother Jonathan” (1999) 30 J. 568 F. 1983). that the law of finds should apply only where the owner has expressly and publicly abandoned his property. Some argue that salvage law encourages less competitive. 205 at 21425. Fla. such as an owner’s expressed declaration abandoning title.66 In Columbus-America. Such an inference would be improper. Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel. and as such is uniform across Canada and excludes provincial law. From a public policy perspective. though.S. and where no one comes forward to claim the recovered property. 1562 (S. Finds law should be applied. the court articulated this preference for salvage:
. These lands were owned by the United States and controlled by the National Park System. Supra note 40 at 460-61. L.. in such a case the normal presumption would apply and an 67 abandonment would have to be proved by strong and convincing evidence. 523 U. salvage supports the preservation of maritime property and returns it to a use beneficial to society. in situations where the previous owners are found to have abandoned their property. 491 (1998) and Fairport International Exploration. Should the property encompass an ancient and longlost shipwreck. though. the courts have split as to whether abandonment can be inferred from the passage of time. Admiralty jurisdiction in Canada is concurrent as between provincial superior and inferior courts
In Klein v. In recent treasure salvage cases such as California v.Supp.. supra note 9 at 800. for example. secretive conduct than the law of finds because it awards payment for partial service and requires a lower standard of possession. Shipwrecked Vessel. n. Deep Sea Research. Unidentified. the court ruled that the United States had constructive possession and intent to control an eighteenth-century English war vessel embedded in its property. a court may infer abandonment. Such abandonment must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. & Com.
It appears. 177 F.
Supra note 62 at 94. should a previous owner appear and assert his ownership interests. thus it was not lost. then. however.
Schoenbaum. 1999). Florida. 2. v. Inc. The vessel was embedded in submerged lands in Biscayne National Park.2003]
wreck includes the following: “jetsam. ss. or of any of the inland waters of Canada..C. the Receiver continues to have jurisdiction over wreck. After the payment of expenses. 1985. governs wreck.C. stranded or in distress in waters. the property of shipwrecked persons. [1998] 3 S. 752. c.
. F-7.” See also ITO . supra note 14. must report the discovery to the Receiver of Wrecks and also deliver it to the Receiver. 1867. Tetley. 1867 (U.. App. lagan and derelict and any other thing that was part of or on a wrecked vessel. supra note 14. The Receiver has jurisdiction over any wreck. II. 2001. the Federal Court of Canada has a wide jurisdiction over any remedy sought or claim for relief made under or by virtue of “.70 Like the United Kingdom. Grail. 511. “Navigation and shipping” are among the subjects over which the federal Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction under section 91(10) of the Constitution Act. 22(1). s.” Part 7 of the Canada Shipping Act.R. 153-164. 3. Arthur J. Under the Canada Shipping Act. which is defined broadly. “Wreck” is defined in section 153 as jetsam. 2001. except to the extent that jurisdiction has been otherwise specially assigned. 422-75. Ordon Estate v.71 Receivers can be found on both the East and West coasts (Halifax and Vancouver). the proceeds are to be paid over to the Receiver General to form part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.. any part or cargo of any wrecked aircraft and any property in the possession of persons on board any aircraft that is wrecked.R.16
[VOL. Supra note 14. Canada has the institution of Receiver of Wrecks. [1986] 1 S.72 Anyone who discovers a wrecked vessel or part of such a vessel. including cargo. stores and tackle of any vessel and of all parts of the vessel separated therefrom. 2001 also contains new authority for the Minister of Fisheries and
Federal Court Act. R. and the Federal Court of Canada. as well as aircraft or parts thereof wrecked. Miida Electronics Inc. supra note 9 at 434-35.C. 1
that have maritime jurisdiction.C. 42. reprinted in R. 1985. flotsam. c.S.. 22(1).
Constitution Act. s.K. stranded or in distress.J. 5.
Pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act. and any wrecked aircraft. where most issues involving wrecks arise. ss. who determines the reward. NO.). costs.73 The 2001 Act no longer requires wreck to be delivered to a Receiver of Wreck as it has been deemed more practical and cost-effective for the person who found the object to simply report the find and follow the instructions given by the Receiver. Stone outlines the evolution of the Federal Court of Canada’s admiralty jurisdiction in “Canada’s Admiralty Court in the Twentieth Century” (2002) 47 McGill L. Both systems provide the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. 30 & 31 Vict.69 Most admiralty and maritime cases are taken before the Federal Court. 437.S. fees and salvage. Canadian maritime law or any other law of Canada relating to any matter coming within the class of subject of navigation and shipping. 2. flotsam. and to dispose of the wreck if no one claims it. Under s.International Terminal Operators Ltd. No. lagan and derelict found in or on the shores of the sea or of any tidal water. Appointed by the federal government under Part VI of the Canada Shipping Act. It is the Receiver’s responsibility to try and locate the owner. The Canada Shipping Act. cargo. v.
Le Chameau.ccg-gcc. the Court held that he must share the treasure with the other partners. before the regulations are in place.C. 2001 reorganizes. 2001: Regulatory Reform. 135 [Blunden]. Mar. L. Canada Shipping Act.htm> (date accessed: 13 January 2004). In that case. Public Consultations (Ottawa: Fisheries & Oceans Canada Communications Branch. Yormak. The regulatory project is linked with the development of regulations regarding the salvage of wreck or classes of wreck under Part 6 of the Canada Shipping Act.htm> (date accessed: 13 November 2003). Questions and Answers (Ottawa: Fisheries & Oceans Canada Communications Branch.76 a 1971 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. consultations will be held with the diving community. The new Canada Shipping Act. the second case. 2001 under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada.gc.ca/csa-lmmc/cons_e. and other stakeholders. Mar-
.ca/csa-lmmc/csa_info/Q&A_e. A second link is with the UNESCO initiative dealing with the underwater cultural heritage under the jurisdiction of Heritage Canada. Questions and Answers (Ottawa: Fisheries & Oceans Canada Communications Branch.2003]
Oceans and the Minister of Heritage Canada to jointly develop Heritage Wreck/Receiver of Wrecks Regulations that could restrict access to wrecks that are considered to be of heritage value. it reduces instances where the Federal Court will have exclusive admiralty jurisdiction.gc. 2003). salvage operators. This is the source for several statements in my discussion of Ontario v.R.ca/csa-lmmc/proj_e. This regulatory reform process will be carried out in two phases over the next several years. Storm.gc.74 There may well be overlap with provincial and territorial legislation in the administration of these regulations. The ship had sunk off the coast of Nova Scotia in 1725 and reportedly had on board a quantity of gold and silver coins. online: <http://www.
Steven R. “Canadian Treasure: Law and Lore” (1999) 30 J. 2003) online: <http://www. provinces. online: <http://www. Blunden is usually classified as a partnership case.77 and as such contributes little to treasure salvage jurisprudence in Canada. there have been only two reported Canadian decisions to date. Canada Shipping Act 2001: Regulatory Reform. Canada Shipping Act.ccg-gcc. See Canada. 2001: Regulatory Reform. The first is Blunden v. updates and streamlines the current Canada Shipping Act. In fact. However. 229. aboriginal groups. Fisheries & Oceans Canada.
[1972] S.htm> (date accessed: 13 November 2003). For example. Fisheries & Oceans Canada. See Canada. & Com. These consultations were scheduled to commence in the fall of 2003. conflicts may arise between the federal government and the provinces. Although this collaboration should help protect and preserve shipwrecks that have cultural or historical significance from being looted or damaged.ccg-gcc.75 Canadian courts have not encountered the multitude of treasure salvage cases that have come before their American counterparts. a partner withdrew from a formal partnership that had been formed to search for and salve the wreck of a French vessel. However. Fisheries & Oceans Canada. Mar-Dive Corp. When the partner secretly located the treasure in the area previously claimed by the partnership. 2003).
Ontario lawyer. The case is pending. which was expected to be overturned. but ceased operations after only a few months. 1
Dive. Two decades after the Atlantic had sunk. steamship that sank in Canadian waters in 1852. have since set their sights on wrecks in the Caribbean. The company began salving the wreck. In March 1992. the diver and treasure hunter who formed the MarDive team. he made numerous dives. Steven Yormak. sometimes using the dive lines left by Fletcher and retrieving artifacts.
Mar-Dive initially appealed the decision but gave up. an American firm. 42. They then revived Western Wrecking. Mar-Dive Corporation and Atlantic Western Limited. a U. the Western Wrecking Company. the company’s articles of incorporation were revoked. Meanwhile. It had
Supra note 39. when Canadian Michael Fletcher located the vessel.
. See Mark Bourrie. “Diver Sues for Access to Wrecks: Hamilton and Scourge are Target of Suit” The Hamilton Spectator (23 December 2000) A17. Borsse and three other Americans were seeking to obtain legal title to the Atlantic. a London. Mar-Dive submitted that it was the owner of the Atlantic. Fletcher. had become the property of the Crown in Right of Ontario. is trying to reverse the Atlantic judgment. NO. and videotaped it. American Stephen Borsse also located the wreck. the Americans formed two new companies. purchased title to the wreck from the captain who owned her. collected artifacts. In order to claim legal title. Borsse and his partners took several of the retrieved artifacts to California (where MarDive was headquartered) and commenced an in rem suit. the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an order recognizing Atlantic Western as the undisputed owner of the Atlantic. Borsse returned several times with an American colleague. See James Elliott. 35 at 38. Finally. But in 1989. joined by lawyers representing the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario. was soon challenging Borsse and his colleagues in a Canadian court.79 is worth considering in some detail as another example of the controversy surrounding claims to historic shipwrecks. In 1914.S. which purportedly transferred title to Atlantic Western. No further claims were made to the Atlantic until 1984. “In Court Over Ghost Gold: The Atlantic Case” (2001) 25 Can. Fletcher was ordered to stay away from the wreck. warships that sank in Lake Ontario during the War of 1812. apparently because their company ran out of money. The decision. Stephen Borsse and Joe Morgan. During the next five years.18
[VOL. He is representing American diver Gary Gentile in a case challenging the authority of the City of Hamilton and Province of Ontario to restrict access to the wrecks of the Hamilton and the Scourge. Judge Lissaman held that the wreck of the Atlantic.78 is particularly noteworthy. placed dive lines around the site. By 1991. which in turn entered into an agreement with Mar-Dive under which the latter agreed to salve the wreck. two U. Law.S.
Could any treaty be rendered irrelevant by private parties’ mere lack of compliance with its terms?
Treaty between the United States and Great Britain Concerning Reciprocal Rights for the United States and Canada in the Conveyance of Prisoners and Wrecking and Salvage.82 Judge Lissaman held that the salvage provisions of the Canada Shipping Act do not apply to provincial territorial waters. the judgments of the U. 35 Stat. Even if the wreck was not embedded. As Yormak points out. when Western Wrecking’s articles of incorporation were revoked. 2035. However. or failing that. it had been travelling between two American ports. then when Western Wrecking ceased its salvaging operations. He also found that salvage pertains only to contemporary vessels faced with marine peril—does salvage not pertain to any historic wreck. the Atlantic had been an American ship.80 Fletcher countered these arguments by maintaining that he was the first recent finder and. leaving one to speculate as to which bodies of water they ought to apply. Judge Lissaman dismissed the 1908 treaty as irrelevant because Mar-Dive failed to comply with one of its terms. namely the requirement to notify Canadian officials of their discovery of the wreck. the ruling in Mar-Dive raised several questions about Canada’s law in respect of historic shipwrecks. as had been the vessel with which it collided. Second. the Atlantic had been abandoned. The federal government withdrew from the case. Third.81 First.S. and it was contrary to public policy to recognize a judgment that had been based on misleading information. the wreck was not simply “floating” in the mud as Mar-Dive contended. his rights were superior. when the ship sank. then? In addition. Second. Third. Supra note 77 at 233-34. Supra note 39 at 622-36. court were not enforceable in Ontario because there was no “real and substantial connection” between California and the site of the wreck.2003]
three main arguments. as a result.
. Judge Lissaman awarded rights to the Province of Ontario for several reasons. if not when she sank. the Canada Shipping Act did not transfer the province’s rights over wrecks to the federal government. Fletcher’s position and interests were taken over by the Province of Ontario following an agreement reached prior to trial. but had become embedded at the bottom of Lake Erie. First. In Judge Lissaman’s view. the Province could assert title to her on the basis of the royal prerogative. and was thus the property of the Province of Ontario. 18 May 1908. Canada was obligated to defer to the American view of the case pursuant to a 1908 treaty between Great Britain and the United States that regulated wrecking and salvage in the Great Lakes.
at c.3(a).”).1 and c. 1867 confer on the federal Parliament the power “to make laws for the peace.g. The federal government owned the seabed of the territorial sea off British Columbia under the peace.g.C. See Hogg. 42. ibid.B. 792 [Reference Re Offshore Mineral Rights]. The Court relied on the “national concern” branch in the 1967 B. 163. [1967] S.
[1984] 1 S. (Toronto: Carswell. NO. 137 at 146.”85 The federal government therefore had the right to explore for and exploit resources on the continental shelf. Constitutional Law of Canada. 91 of the Constitution Act. power.” There are different branches of the p. and at what point a wreck can be said to be “embedded.. 92(13).g. 17. 29. 17. case.o. Reference Re Offshore Mineral Rights of British Columbia.84 the Court held that the coastal waters off British Columbia that ended at the low-water mark were within federal jurisdiction.3 for a detailed analysis of these cases. As those waters had not been within the jurisdiction of the colony prior to Confederation. . ibid. Hogg. s. See Peter W. and good government of Canada (“p. at 817. 4th ed.o.
.C. there is a distinction between federal jurisdiction and provincial property in Canada. “A Definition of Canadian Maritime Law” (1996) 30 U. in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the provinces . L. the federal Parliament’s jurisdiction over “Navigation and Shipping” threatens to encroach upon the important provincial head of power. “Property and Civil Rights.86 the Court decided that the waters between the mainland of British Columbia and Vancouver Island were within the jurisdiction of the province.R. In a 1967 ruling. Reference Re Offshore Mineral Rights. 1
Finally. Subsequently in Reference Re Ownership of the Bed of the Strait of Georgia and Related Areas. 388.C. See generally William Tetley. order.
Supra note 70. Three rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada illustrate the uncertainty this distinction has caused regarding the respective jurisdiction of the federal government and the coastal provinces to control the exploration for and exploitation of natural resources in coastal waters. since they had been included in the colony of British Columbia at the time of its creation and thus formed part of the province at the time it entered Confederation in 1871. they fell to federal jurisdiction.C. order and good government clause of the Constitution because offshore minerals were “of concern to Canada as a whole and go beyond local or provincial concern or interest.”83 Hence. Rev.R. In this regard.. 1997) at c.g.” Similar to provincial claims to objects embedded in provincial maritime property are the cases dealing with control over natural resources. the case raised the issues of what evidence would be required to prove a “real and substantial connection” with a foreign jurisdiction. The opening words of s.20
Canada has addressed the preservation of historic wreck sites in other ways. The p. III. online <http://www.
Runyan. preserves twentytwo sail and steamships underwater.g. power is “residuary” in its relationship to the provincial heads of power.g. because it is expressly confined to “matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the provinces. supra note 84 at c. Ontario. The site features a sixteenth-century Basque whaling ship.” See Hogg. 17.2003]
In Reference Re Newfoundland Continental Shelf. the result in Mar-Dive supports provincial jurisdiction over objects embedded in provincial maritime property and could have implications for similar provincial claims. Its function is to fill gaps in the scheme of the distribution of powers. 86.90 These efforts on the part of legislators and archaeologists to promote Canada’s underwater cultural heritage have also heightened public awareness of its educative value.pc. power. There have been plans to create a similar park at Red Bay.o.89 Most recently. Labrador.ca/progs/amncnmca/proposals/vision/visionb_E. Although there is only one case that sheds light on how Canada might handle future international disputes concerning wreck and salvage. A.asp> (date accessed: 8 January 2004). order and good government clause in its residual capacity. in consultation with the IMO (International Maritime Organization).88 By contrast. There were four years of negotiations within UNESCO before the final
[1984] 1 S. Supra note 7.g.C. noting the preservation of shipwrecks as one of the project’s goals.
The analysis that the Court used was similar to that of the “gap” branch of the p.87 the Court concluded that the right to explore for and exploit minerals on the continental shelf was within federal jurisdiction under the peace. a wreck of major historical importance.
. THE UNESCO CONVENTION Purpose
The Convention91 began as a draft agreement prepared by UNESCO and DOALOS (Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea). the Parks Canada Agency presented a proposal in 2000 for a National Marine Conservation Area for Lake Superior.2.gc.o. The Fathom Five Marine Park at Tobermory. supra note 4 at 40.R.g.
See Parks Canada. because Newfoundland had no jurisdiction over this area at the time it entered Confederation in 1949.
N. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Doc. the acronym “UNCLOS” originally referred to the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.C. Before that.
ILA. but now it is used to refer to the UNCLOS convention itself.98 In 1994. for examples of these bilateral and regional agreements. 62/122 (1982) [UNCLOS].97 Within the past decade.
93 94 95 96 97 98 92
Supra note 7 at Preamble. 10 December 1982. n. 823 UNTS 231 (entered into force 24 April 1972). 2002) at 14-32. Parties to the Convention express concern that this heritage “is threatened by unauthorized activities directed at it” and is the subject of “increasing commercial exploitation.”93 Great emphasis has been placed on the urgency of adopting an international instrument designed to protect underwater cultural heritage. there were two major accomplishments: the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea99 came into force and the International Law Association (ILA) adopted the Buenos Aires Draft Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. “A New International Regime for the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage” (2002) 51 I. Ibid.
See Craig Forrest. 42. Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Report of the Sixty-Sixth Conference 432 (1994). UNCLOS currently has 143 Parties to it.Q. 14 November 1970.92 Parties to the Convention acknowledge “the importance of underwater cultural heritage as an integral part of the cultural heritage of humanity and a particularly important element in the history of peoples. 511 at 552. 4. See O’Keefe supra note 92 at 3. 14 May 1954. 1
draft was adopted. for example in reports by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. the underwater cultural heritage was protected by a few general principles and several bilateral and regional agreements. U.96 and the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. n.95 the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import.100 A
A useful commentary on the legal background of the Convention appears in Patrick J. and their relations with each other concerning their common heritage.22
[VOL. and UNESCO’s fourth heritage convention.” realizing that responsibility for its protection rests with all states.94 The Convention is the first multilateral text on underwater cultural heritage. however. nations. O’Keefe. A/Conf. NO. The other three heritage conventions are the Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. there has been a concerted effort to merge cultural property law with the law of the sea. Shipwrecked Heritage: A Commentary on the UNESCO Convention on Underwater Cultural Heritage (Leicester: Institute of Art and Law. 294 UNTS 215 (entered into force 7 August 1956).L. As O’Keefe explains. 1037 UNTS 151 (entered into force 17 December 1975). 188. 16 November 1972.
Supra note 99.pdf> (date accessed: 8 January 2004) at 13-14 [UNESCO Information Kit]. online: UNESCO <http://www. For summaries of these maritime zones. the Exclusive Economic Zone. the contiguous zone. fiscal. 136. supra note 92 at 3-4.unesco. territorial sea. The territorial sea is the area of sea adjacent to a coastal State over which its sovereignty is exercised subject to letting foreign ships pass – the right of innocent passage. The Exclusive Economic Zone. Doc.” is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea and shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines (Arts. 3). it is helpful to review the key maritime zones affected by it. 76(1)). or “EEZ. 136). 57. 33. are “common heritage of mankind” (Art. The coastal State may enforce its customs. 76(1). 3. including polymetallic nodules. the shelf could extend as far as 350 nautical miles (Art. 76(5)). 5. 11 June 2002.96/CONF. There are six zones to which the Convention specifically makes reference: internal waters. Where the continental margin extends beyond this 200 mile limit. Tetley. the continental shelf.N. liquid or gaseous mineral resources in situ in the Area or beneath the seabed.202/5 (1998). 76(5).
. Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles from the baseline (Art. supra note 9 at 634-39. See supra note 7. Articles 8(1). The following are the definitions according to UNCLOS:102
Internal waters are located on the landward side of the baseline of the territorial sea (Art. 55 and 57). 1(1)). states have different rights and obligations. The Area and all solid.101 In order to understand the full implications of the Convention. In each of these zones. The continental shelf of a coastal State encompasses the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin. The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. and the Area.org/culture/legalprotection/water/images/infkite. 8(1)). during which UNESCO published the Draft Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. 5). A revised draft was produced after the first and second meetings of experts in 1998 and 1999: CLT-96/CONF. see the UNESCO Information Kit: General Information and Convention Text. Area means the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (Art. 2 (1999). or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured (Art. The draft agreed to at the fourth meeting of experts was adopted by the General Assembly. 33).
U.202/5 Rev. CLT. 55.2003]
comprehensive legal framework was further developed as the United Nations proclaimed 1998 the International Year of the Ocean. The normal baseline is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State (Art. immigration or sanitary laws and regulations in this zone (Art.
The desire for consensus did not always promote clarity of the law and the solution provided for in the Convention is far from satisfactory. Further. supra note 2 at 224. they ultimately became “the product of political compromise and trade-offs involving more general concerns among the maritime powers about creeping coastal state jurisdiction. and those of coastal States. as contained in particular in UNCLOS. Thus.105 To make matters more uncertain. the prima facie noncontroversial issue of underwater cultural heritage acquired a political character since it was employed as a basis for expanding both coastal jurisdiction over the continental shelf and the powers of the Authority over the Area for non-resource-related purposes. being the main promoters of the freedom of the high seas. The two relevant provisions of UNCLOS are Articles 149 and 303. other than that the objects must be found in the Area. NO. “Deep Seabed Cultural Property and the Common Heritage of Mankind” (1991) 40 I.L. it was originally the intention that these provisions would broadly govern the underwater cultural heritage. The high seas comprise all parts of the sea that are not included in the EEZ.”104 Article 149 states:
All objects of an archaeological and historical nature found in the Area shall be preserved or disposed of for the benefit of mankind as a whole. However.
Nafziger. there is no ranking provided for
Supra note 9 at 261. failed to provide sufficient protection for underwater cultural heritage. including the freedom of navigation. or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic state (Article 86). and one which fails to provide an effective and comprehensive regime of protection of underwater cultural property. See also Anastasia Strati.24
[VOL. Brice has argued that freedom of navigation includes the right to conduct salvage operations on the high seas. 859 at 865. Within this context. Here the freedom of the high seas exists. n.
. As Nafziger notes.
One of the problems with this provision is that it lacks a concise definition of the “objects” to which it refers. but it is nevertheless important. or the State of historical and archaeological origin. this provision implies that these objects must be either preserved or disposed of.103 The previous legal regime. 1
The Convention does not specifically mention another maritime zone. 11. the territorial sea or the internal waters of a state. particular regard being paid to the preferential rights of the State or country of origin. leaving no middle ground.
O’Keefe. 42. the drafters of the 1982 Convention adopted a compromise formula. the high seas. supra note 3 at 319.C. or the State of cultural origin.Q. Strati has summarized these political problems as follows: The lengthy negotiations of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) show that the archaeological issue was entangled within the more general conflict between the interests of the maritime powers.
the coastal State may. the state of cultural origin. L. the Australian company contracted to carry out the diving. from a privately-owned Australian ship that was 65 miles offshore. as it was within a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone that Thailand had declared in the Gulf in 1981. The Thai Navy seized a hoard of deep-sea treasure. Divcon countered the claim by insisting that archaeological finds were not covered by economic zones. “Maritime Wrecks: Where the Lex Ferenda of Underwater Cultural Heritage Collides with the Lex Lata of the Law of the Sea Convention” (1998) 38 Va.2003]
the states that are to have preferential rights.106 An incident in the Gulf of Thailand in 1992 illustrated this need for prioritization and a means of dispute settlement. apparently worked for an Australian-Malaysian consortium that was planning to sell the artifacts through a London auction house. But Thailand claimed Divcon was acting illegally when it salved the antiques. leaving the complexities of the situation unresolved. 747 at 763-64. The incident highlights the complexities surrounding the preferential rights of states of cultural origin. Divcon International. The coastal state may exercise the control necessary to “prevent
Jean Allain. Article 303(1) provides that states have a duty to protect objects of an archaeological and historical nature found at sea and must cooperate for that purpose.107 The treasure had been recovered from a twelfth-century Chinese junk. Int’l L. presume that their removal from the seabed in the zone referred to in that article without its approval would result in an infringement within its territory or territorial sea of the laws and regulations referred to in that article. Int’l & Comp.” defined in Article 33.
The zone referred to is the “contiguous zone. Divcon protested that they were in “international waters” and that the Thai authorities had even given them permission to proceed with the salvage operation. and the state of historical and archaeological origin – but also it does not provide a procedure to settle disputes that may arise from the drafters’ lack of clarity. J. June Harris. J. In the end. Not only does Article 149 fail to prioritize the claims of the three states to which it refers – the state or country of origin. in applying article 33. the Australian ship was released without any arrests and sailed on to Singapore without the artifacts. 223 at 245. alludes to this incident at 267.
. Facts from Teresa Poole. M. Article 303 is the other provision in UNCLOS that addresses the cultural heritage. But there is little else in the provision that would enable a state to fulfill this duty.000 porcelain pots and jars. including more than 2. supra note 9. Article 303(2) reads as follows:
In order to control traffic in such objects. “Thailand’s Navy Seizes Sunken Treasure Trove” The Independent [London] (11 February 1992) 11. “Who Owns the Pot of Gold at the End of the Rainbow? A Review of the Impact of Cultural Property on Finders and Salvage Laws” (1997) 14 Ariz. Brice.
“The UNESCO Draft Convention on Underwater Cultural Heritage: A Critique and Counter-Proposal” (1999) 30 J. Senator Jesse Helms wrote:
O’Keefe. a probable result of the provisions’ ambiguous and unreliable wording. The depth of this hostility is evident from a reading of the draft Convention. Mar. See Bederman. provided an alternative to the initial draft by drafting his own “International Convention on the Exploration and Protection of Submerged Historic Wrecks. Peltz. Nafziger.S. fiscal. L. From 1998 to 2001.” but these matters have no relationship to removal of archaeological material. David J. and preserves the law of salvage or other rules of admiralty. NO. “Salvaging Historic Wrecks” (2000) 25 Tul. In a letter to then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. It is uncertain. New Trends” (2002) 8 Widener L. Article 303(3) protects the rights of “identifiable owners. & Com. in addition to “laws and practices with respect to cultural exchanges. For salvors and those who represent them.109 This distance can be even greater because of coastal states’ ability to claim an entire continental margin that may extend as far as 350 nautical miles. 42. 1 at 105.
Robert D.J. The Convention. four meetings. 1
infringement of its customs. L.
. were held in Paris to discuss and modify the drafts.26
[VOL. Symp. 163 at 192-206. Bederman has critiqued the provisions of the Convention in its present form from the perspective of the American salvage industry in “Maritime Preservation Law: Old Challenges. 331 at 346-53.” with no explanation of who these might be. another staunch critic of the Convention. Not everyone saw the goal of those working on the drafts as ratification by the General Assembly. immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea. Senators and Congressmen also joined in the fray.110
U. One staunch critic of the Convention quoted an unnamed fellowdetractor as observing that
[t]he invited “experts” are exclusively government bureaucrats or academicians with little or no diving experience who are collectively and implacably hostile to any role for the private sector or any other non-governmental underwater exploration.” No state has applied either Article 149 or Article 303(2). Mar. the rise of legal protection for underwater cultural heritage sounded the death knell for private enterprise and possibly the law of treasure salvage. supra note 3 at 320. whether the provision also covers the margin between the contiguous zone and the seabed that typically lies between twenty-four and two hundred nautical miles offshore.” in collaboration with the Professional Shipwreck Explorers Association. attended by government delegations and experts from more than ninety countries. supra note 92 at 18. is accused of being too inflexible. Bederman.108 The provision appears to give states control over underwater cultural heritage between twelve and twenty-four nautical miles from their coastlines. J. by contrast. however.
Article 1(1)..S. to Madeleine K. together with their archaeological and natural context. as I am sure you are aware. U.S. Underwater cultural heritage is defined as “all traces of human existence having a cultural. to U. online: The Institute of Marine Archaeological Conservation <http://www. . periodically or continuously. this situation underscores the wisdom of our country’s decision some years ago to withdraw from UNESCO. ibid. the UNESCO convention proposes to substitute a government-run system that will crush private incentive to recover and preserve ocean resources.S. It is to the provisions under these three headings that I now turn. Senator. I urge you to join me in an effort to stop UNESCO’s effort to scuttle an important and workable area of Anglo-American law drawn from centuries of maritime custom. at a single stroke. artefacts and human remains. and may spell the end of serious archaeological access to underwater sea sites.” Examples of this heritage include “sites.”112 One of the Convention’s more outspoken critics wryly suggested that the definition in the negotiating draft. aircraft. which was
Letter from Jesse Helms. funding. U. [T]he draft UNESCO convention will. that this convention will pose a formidable threat to America’s maritime salvage industry–and. and public awareness and training.111
While it appears from these statements that the divide between admiralty and heritage law can never be crossed.
Supra note 7. one realizes that not only can the deficiencies in the Convention help to resolve many problems in the law of salvage.. cited in Peltz.. but also how salvage law can contribute much-needed resources to the protection of wrecks.. admiralty jurisprudence. By considering how the Convention’s provisions deal with control over shipwrecks.html> (date accessed: 8 January 2004). which. structures. . their cargo or other contents. Control
The first criticism concerning the Convention is its apparently allinclusive definition of underwater cultural property. has strong roots in the United States Constitution. and objects of prehistoric character. B. and to put an entire American industry sector out of business. historical or archaeological character which have been partially or totally under water. vessels. Albright. buildings. at 107. In my mind. Secretary of State (27 June 2000). erase many centuries of workable maritime salvage law if it enters into force in its current form. In its place. there are ways of satisfying both sides’ interests in the same treasure. also. other vehicles or any part thereof.imacdigest.com/helmsltr..2003]
American salvors believe . together with their archaeological and natural context. for at least 100 years..
” He suggests that a more efficacious approach would be to first determine what specifically constitutes a historically or archaeologically important wreck or artifact (at 109). 202/7 (June 29–July 2. and customary tribal law in claiming aboriginal cultural property.”113 Despite the all-encompassing appearance of the definition. 57.” See Forrest. and money” surreptitiously “expressed in terms of altruistic goals. 1998).C. underwater cultural heritage shall not be traded. “The Aboriginal Right to Cultural Property” (1995) 29:2 U. at least one omission has been perceived: two experts thought that the underwater cultural heritage of indigenous peoples should be expressly recognized.
. sold. 42. n. Some experts preferred one hundred years. UNESCO 1998. which sank in 1912 and therefore does not yet qualify as “underwater cultural heritage” for the purposes of the Convention. 13. declaring that “[t]he commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage for trade or speculation or its irretrievable dispersal is fundamentally incompatible with the protection and proper management of underwater cultural heritage. Rev.” Furthermore. L. ibid. Brice. For instance. See Final Report of the First Meeting of Governmental Experts on the Draft Convention for the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Indigenous underwater cultural heritage would include non-human resources. Still others proposed that 1945 be adopted as the temporal limit so as to include in the definition of underwater cultural heritage all objects from the first half of the century having a historical or archaeological value. Rule 2 of the Annex elaborates this general principle. bought
Peltz.115 The one hundred-year time period significantly broadens the scope of wrecks that can be salved by non-governmental bodies and private individuals. in what he calls UNESCO’s “naked grab for absolute power” (at 111). at 4. NO. but everything from broken surfboards to yesterday’s beer cans thrown over the transoms of recreational fishing boats.28
similarly expansive. See generally Clarine Osgrove and Patrick Walker. points out that it is not practicable to refer to a specific age such as one hundred years because some newer wrecks rapidly acquire historic value and some older wrecks may be of little interest. Peltz adds that this all-inclusive reach of the Convention. supra note 98 at 523. control. supra note 9 at 271. Final Report of the First Meeting of Governmental Experts. included “not only historic shipwrecks. at 4 [Final Report of the First Meeting of Governmental Experts]. “clearly goes light years beyond any purported need to protect archaeologically or historically significant wrecks. supra note 110 at 105. has long captured the public’s imagination. which discussed the role of fiduciary obligations of governments. constitutionally protected rights.114 The period of time during which a shipwreck must be submerged in order to be considered underwater cultural heritage also caused debate among the experts modifying the drafts of the Convention. Doc. while others recommended the adoption of a fifty-year limit. The provisions likely to receive the most criticism from treasure seekers are Article 2(7) and rule 2 of the Annex. such as palaeontological objects and “natural features of cultural significance to indigenous peoples that have spiritual associations with the oceans. the Titanic.” maintaining that “its real motivation is power. Article 2(7) states that underwater cultural heritage shall not be commercially exploited. CLT-98/CONF.B.
The debate as to whether the law of salvage and the law of finds are applicable to underwater cultural heritage resulted in Article 4.R. The core principle is simply “preservation for the benefit of humanity. the Convention attempts to protect the archaeological value of UCH by eliminating recognition of any economic value. the place of salvage law as a mechanism for the realisation of an economic value was a crucial issue during negotiations. “New Developments in the Law of the Sea: The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage” 96:2 Am. salvage law no longer applies once a ship has sunk. Int’l L. As explained above.
. In others. unless it is authorized by the competent authorities. As such. 419 at 426. supra note 92 at 63. maintains that it is difficult to justify exclusion of the law of finds from the Convention. and ensures that any recovery of the underwater cultural heritage achieves its maximum protection. In some countries. A redefinition of this body of law to include shared rules and principles of international law governing underwater cultural heritage poses no serious threat to responsible salvage or to the normal practice of salvage law.”118
But it is difficult to be so optimistic in view of the fierce debate concerning the application of these laws. 251 at 269. “The Evolving Role of Admiralty Courts in Litigation Related to Historic Wreck” (2003) 44 Harv. Commercial incentives can contribute to a responsible management of historic wreck.117 Despite the Convention’s purported regulation of the ownership of historic wrecks. It states that any activity relating to underwater cultural heritage to which the Convention applies shall not be subject to the law of salvage or law of finds. Nafziger. As a consequence. its application would not ensure protection of the heritage in accordance with the Convention’s principles. for example.
One commentator has argued that there is an implied fourth condition concerning the applicability of the law of finds: “[P]revious abandonment of ownership is required and never presumed. particularly if the salvage is conducted with the consent of interested states. O’Keefe.” See Guido Carducci. But its exclusion “means that an ancient wreck found on the deep seabed.
[t]he Convention introduces the idea that the commercial recovery of UCH [underwater cultural heritage] is incompatible with the preservation of this resource.2003]
or bartered as commercial goods. As one commentator points out. and the law of finds to sunken and abandoned vessels.” James A. Int’l L. the law of salvage applies generally to vessels in peril. and in particular all salvage work conducted by states parties. supra note 98 at 533. and brought ashore has no owner unless the State where it comes ashore provides for this. is in full conformity with the Convention. Since this law treats the finder as owner with complete control over what has been found.J. J. some believe that this body of law will remain intact:
The law of salvage and finds will nevertheless continue to be important. the law of finds is not applied to
Forrest. The Underwater Convention provides no guidance on the basis that it was not a Convention dealing with ownership issues.
International Council on Monuments and Sites. Forrest. The ICOMOS Charter.icomos.
.119 In order to resolve the problems caused by different legal systems and perspectives. the private law concept of abandonment does not exist in the domestic law of numerous countries.”122 Without prejudice to other international agreements and rules of international law.30
[VOL. because a ship that has been abandoned becomes the property of the Crown.121 regardless of ownership. which as modified provides the basis for the rules of the Annex. the ICOMOS Charter emphasizes preservation in situ and further states at Article 3 that “project funding must not require the sale of underwater cultural heritage. which carefully balances the interests of states in controlling activities off their own coasts with the interests of all countries in protecting the freedom to use ocean spaces.international. Experts feared that if no qualifications were put on the application of the law of salvage and finds. Article 7(1). have the exclusive right to regulate and authorize activities directed at underwater cultural heritage in their internal waters. is intended to provide a standard against which activities are to be measured. 1
shipwrecks. especially those in Latin America.htm> (date accessed: 8 January 2004) [ICOMOS Charter]. a state that recognizes such laws may seek to apply them extraterritorially to the underwater cultural heritage of another state with a different legal regime for wrecks. archipelagic waters and territorial sea. In fact. 42. in the exercise of their sovereignty. Some of its provisions have attracted criticism from those states with a treasure-seeking lobby. For example.
O’Keefe.org/underwater_e.120 However. stating that the Convention “shall be interpreted and applied in the context of and in a manner consistent with international law. Charter on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage (1996). Archaeologists also found that the common objective of salvage.
Final Report of the First Meeting of Governmental Experts. supra note 92 at 61-62.
Supra note 7.” both of which would limit commercial operations. Article 3 attempts to address this concern. supra note 114 at 5. including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. was incompatible with the Convention’s protective regime. to the principles embodied in the ICOMOS Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage. the requirement that the Convention apply solely to “abandoned” underwater cultural heritage was eliminated and the question of title was not dealt with at all. Some states were concerned that the Convention could undermine the existing legal order based on UNCLOS. all underwater cultural heritage is to be subject to the protection regime established in the Convention and.” The Convention further provides that “States Parties. namely to rescue only what is of commercial value without regard to the preservation of heritage sites in their entirety. online: International Council on Monuments and Sites <http://www. supra note 98 at 524-25. NO. consequently.
123 In accordance with Article 303(2) of UNCLOS.S.124 Beyond the contiguous zone. Hoping to resolve this apparent discrepancy. and authorization. Any discovery or activity directed at underwater cultural heritage located in the EEZ or on the continental shelf of a coastal state is subject to a complex system of reporting.125 There is both a reporting regime and a protective regime for underwater cultural heritage in the EEZ. The states parties have a general duty to cooperate in the protection of underwater cultural heritage. Maritime states such as the U. The state party itself.128 The state party must then notify the Director-General of UNESCO of discoveries or activities reported to
Ibid.2003]
they must require that the rules of the Annex be applied to activities in these waters.127 When a state party’s national or state vessel discovers underwater cultural heritage or intends to undertake activities directed at it in or on another state’s EEZ or continental shelf. or alternatively the national or master of the vessel. however. on the continental shelf and in the Area. Article 9(1)(b). Ibid. Article 2(2). Under UNCLOS. and several Western European countries have traditionally argued in favour of maximum freedom and minimal jurisdiction in international waters. Article 9(1)(a). Ibid. Article 7(2).
. supra note 98 at 543. Forrest. the state party must ensure that the national or state vessel notifies it and that the other state receives notification. notification. Russia.126 and the coastal states and flag states must work together if these regimes are to succeed. But the Convention places an obligation on coastal states to monitor sites up to 200 nautical miles from their coasts. can notify the other state. the rights of coastal states gradually decrease as the distance from the shore increases. Ibid. States parties must ensure that their nationals or vessels flying their flag report any discovery or intention to engage in activities directed at underwater cultural heritage located in their EEZ or on their continental shelf. Supra note 7. Article 8.. those modifying the drafts based the jurisdictional structure of the Convention on the principles of nationality and flag state jurisdiction. the proposed extension of coastal state jurisdiction has been highly controversial. states parties may regulate and authorize activities directed at underwater cultural heritage within their contiguous zone and must require that the rules be applied in doing so.
or archaeological link. What is clear is that countries that have acceded to the convention could now find themselves in conflict with countries that have not. Italy would be obliged to exert authority over the U. “Who Owns the Watery Past?” The Art Newspaper (September 2002).
Cristina Ruiz.32
[VOL. online: The Art Newspaper < http://www. Article 9(3). Ibid.asp?idart=8150> (date accessed: 13 November 2003). 1
it.134 The coordinating state is responsible for implementing measures of protection that have been agreed upon by the consulting states.
. that state may declare to the state party in whose EEZ or on whose continental shelf the underwater cultural heritage is located its interest in being consulted on how to ensure the effective protection of the heritage. would not recognise Italy’s right to do so.com/news/article.theartnewspaper. historical. See generally Forrest. Ibid. and this unilateral jurisdiction could result in a legal impasse:
The question of whether the Unesco Convention does or does not conflict with UNCLOS remains open to interpretation.” organizing the consultations of the interested parties referred to in Article 9(5). NO. Article 10(3). For example.”132 Putting this provision into effect may be problematic. supra note 98 at 543-44.131 There is also a protective regime for underwater cultural heritage in the EEZ and on the continental shelf. Ibid. but is designated as the “coordinating state. issuing all necessary authorizations for such measures in conformity with the Convention’s rules. including UNCLOS. conducting any necessary preliminary research on the underwater cultural heritage and
Ibid. Article 9(5). for a discussion of Article 10. Article 10(2). but the U. The Convention states that “[a] State Party in whose EEZ or on whose continental shelf underwater cultural heritage is located has the right to prohibit or authorize any activity directed at such heritage to prevent interference with its sovereign rights or jurisdiction as provided by international law.133
The coastal state is not granted exclusive jurisdiction. The Convention is only binding upon the nationals and vessels of states that have acceded to it. Under the terms of the convention. vessel. especially a cultural. Supra note 7.S.129 The Director-General promptly follows up by making this information available to all states parties. to the underwater cultural heritage concerned. Article 9(4).130 If a state party has a verifiable link. let us imagine that a private US vessel were engaged in the recovery of artifacts from a shipwreck in international waters but within 200 miles of the coast of Italy (which voted in favour of the convention).S. however. 42.
the Convention’s reach from the shore is nevertheless considered virtually unlimited. “States Parties shall take all practicable measures to ensure that their nationals and vessels flying their flag do not engage in any activity directed at underwater cultural heritage in a manner not in conformity with this Convention. accepting.2003]
issuing authorizations for activities directed at it. Whether or not its provisions will actually work. with one notable exception. The reporting and protective regimes are similar to those applicable to the continental shelf and EEZ. one expert voiced the opinion that a system of protection based on the flag state jurisdiction would most likely not prevent the looting of underwater cultural heritage from the continental shelves of third states. including its rivers.138 After all. any State or territory may declare that the Rules shall apply to inland waters not of a maritime character.137 Article 16 illustrates the problem of control. Peltz. O’Keefe. rather than putting in place a slow and bureaucratic system. on the high seas. Early in the negotiations.” See generally Forrest. lakes.139 Articles 11 and 12 address underwater cultural heritage found in the Area. Nations may exercise jurisdiction over activities taking place even further offshore—that is. claims that national laws already exist to protect wrecks and their cargoes. the Convention can also apply to each country’s geographical “internal” waters.”
Final Report of the First Meeting of Governmental Experts. and Peltz. at 111-12.
Ibid.136 The responsibilities of states for ships flying their flag that might be undertaking activities directed at underwater cultural heritage extend beyond the obligations in Articles 9 and 11. Article 16. Article 10(5).135 However. a role that the coastal
Article 28 provides that “[w]hen ratifying. supra note 98 at 532-33. In fact. The coordinating state must also inform the Director-General of UNESCO of the results.
. “prior to consultations” with those states if necessary. the purpose of the Convention was to create a practical means of control. moats and possibly marshes. supra note 114 at 8. a coastal state is granted the right to undertake emergency measures to prevent “immediate danger” to the underwater cultural heritage belonging to other flag states. Ibid. rendering the Convention redundant and unnecessary. subject to the exclusive authority of no nation. wells. which reads. A state party will be appointed as coordinating state. who in turn will make this information available to all states parties. approving or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter. supra note 92 at 144. Article 10(4). supra note 110 at 108. or even on the continental shelf of another nation—by mandating that a state party prohibit its own citizens and vessels flying its flag from violating any provision of the Convention.
[VOL. while on a state-controlled operation. Inc. v. Court of Appeals. do not have to report the discovery. that they comply. Article 12(2). Doc. Article 13 reads: Warships and other government ships or military aircraft with sovereign immunity. Int’l L. Fourth Circuit. David J. The view of many maritime nations is that states do not abandon their property without an express declaration to that effect. on the continental shelf or in the Area. with Articles 9. operated for non-commercial purposes. in a statement entitled “President’s Statement on United States Policy for the Protection of Sunken Warships. Bederman.143 When the concept of abandonment was eliminated from the Convention.140 Article 13 protects the confidentiality of naval operations. has long maintained that title to U. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels” (2001) 95 Am. for example. NO. supra note 117 at 431-32. reproduced in Jason R. 42. difficult questions regarding sovereign immunity arose. held that Spain did not abandon. 195196 (22 January 2001). The United States. J. as far as is reasonable and practicable. by the adoption of appropriate measures not impairing the operations or operational capabilities of their warships or other government ships or military aircraft with sovereign immunity operated for non-commercial purposes. See O’Keefe.3d 634 (4th Cir. However States Parties shall ensure. Rev. & Int’l L. The U. Harris notes at 103-04 that the Statement appears to affirm the decision in Sea Hunt. Miami InterAm. regardless of when and where they were lost at sea. they were not subject to salvage. 97 at 100. Pres. Inc. “Sunken warships – historic wrecks – title – abandonment – law of finds – salvage rights: Sea Hunt. The definition of “State vessels and aircraft” in Article 1(8) includes warships. L. 1
state had assumed in the context of the other maritime zones. shall not be obliged to report discoveries of underwater cultural heritage under Articles 9. 678. supra note 92 at 101-102. 11 and 12 of this Convention.
. Because the ships had not been abandoned. see Michael White. see Carducci. undertaking their normal mode of operations. title to two Spanish warships.S.142 But there is no rule of express abandonment for sunken warships in international law. Harris. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels. position was reiterated in the closing hours of Bill Clinton’s presidency. which sank near the coast of Virginia in 1750 and 1802 respectively. “Rethinking the Legal Status of Sunken Warships” (2000) 31 Ocean Devel. but the term itself is not
Supra note 7. For commentary on the case. 2000). The U.S. 221 F. and not engaged in activities directed at underwater cultural heritage.141 Negotiators also battled over the sovereign immunity of state vessels and warships.” 37 Weekly Comp. La Galga and the Juno. either expressly or by implication. warships is not extinguished by the passage of time. 101 at 102-03. For a detailed discussion of the regime applicable to underwater cultural heritage in the Area. “Protecting Sunken Warships as Objects Entitled to Sovereign Immunity” (2002) 33 U. 11 and 12 of this Convention. 10. It provides that warships or other government vessels with sovereign immunity that accidentally come across underwater cultural heritage in the EEZ. v. 10.S.
nothing in the Convention shall be interpreted as modifying the rules of international law and state practice pertaining to sovereign immunities. Article 1(8). supra note 92 at 46. in particular.” O’Keefe. having been partially or totally underwater for at least 100 years. however.145 However. that are identified as such and that meet the definition of underwater cultural heritage. it has been suggested that the definition of “warship” in Article 29 of UNCLOS can be used.147 Articles 95 and 96. nor any state’s rights with respect to its state vessels and aircraft. Article 14. and the vessel must be manned by a crew under regular armed forces discipline.
Supra note 12.” ensures that warships are entitled to immunity from non-flag States. at the time of sinking. it appears that under generally recognized principles of international law.”
.144 Because Article 3 states that the Convention is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with UNCLOS. especially if it is no longer engaged in the active military service of the state and has long since been abandoned by its crew. entitled “Immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes. The three criteria of the definition. this definition is intended for modern navies and is not easily applied to warships that must meet the definition of underwater cultural heritage. only for government non-commercial purposes. as “warships. The 1910 and 1989 salvage conventions do not apply to warships. supra note 7. there must be special immunity for all warships. supra note 99. Therefore. it is uncertain whether the UNCLOS regime applies in the context of a sunken vessel. the commanding officer must be duly commissioned with his or her name appearing in the appropriate service list.” Article 96 provides that “[s]hips owned or operated by a State and used only on government non-commercial service shall. unless the ships have not complied with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea. on the high seas. At first glance. Article 95 states that “[w]arships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any state other than the flag State. the vessel is no longer under the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag
“State vessels and aircraft” is defined in the Convention.2003]
defined. 95 and 96 of UNCLOS provide for the immunity of warships and other government ships operated for noncommercial purposes.
UNCLOS. which O’Keefe acknowledges could be problematic.146 Articles 32. and other vessels or aircraft that were owned or operated by a State and used. including UNCLOS. Article 2(8) of the Convention states that consistent with state practice and international law. A number of commentators believe that a sunken vessel ceases to be a ship. Article 32. have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. Despite the straightforward appearance of these provisions. Article 4. and supra note 13. are as follows: the vessel must bear external marks showing its nationality. ensure that on the high seas these vessels are completely immune from the jurisdiction of nonflag states.
.unesco. the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state is recognized.”150 Beyond the EEZ or the continental shelf. Nafziger notes that flag states still feel powerless as the “. Article 7(3). Article 12(7) declares that “[n]o State Party shall undertake or authorize activities directed at State vessels and aircraft in the Area without the consent of the flag State. such as the United Kingdom and Germany. supra note 142 at 110-111.”151 While the Convention may not grant states full control over their
Forrest. The coastal state has exclusive jurisdiction over its archipelagic waters and territorial sea. and the Convention enshrines the need to respect human remains at these sites (supra note 7. objecting to the granting of special status to shipwrecks that carried slave traders and invading armies.. The Flag States are concerned about their lack of control over tampering with the bones of their dead and are also concerned with protecting the technology aboard their military vessels . but the Convention encourages the coastal state to inform the flag state of its discovery of state vessels “with a view to cooperating on the best methods of protecting [them]. See UNESCO.36
[VOL.shtml> (date accessed: 14 November 2003). supra note 143 at 112-14.
. Ibid. Article 10(7). Press Release (10 July 2001) online: <http://www. 42. Many ships have sunk during battle. The provisions in the Convention regarding warships are further evidence of the compromise reached between flag states and coastal states. Article 2(9)). the coastal state and the flag state must also work together. State vessels . 1
state. 74 and accompanying text.. n.
Ruiz. because “no activity directed at state vessels and aircraft shall be conducted without the agreement of the flag State and the collaboration of the Coordinating State. War graves constituted a controversial issue. rejects the view that sunken warships are insulated from general principles of salvage law.
149 150 151 148
Supra note 7. however.”149 In respect of the EEZ and the continental shelf. often contain the remains of military and other personnel.148 If this is the case. supra note 133. protect sunken warships in which there has been loss of life... Rule 5 of the Annex ensures that “[a]ctivities directed at underwater cultural heritage shall avoid the unnecessary disturbance of human remains or venerated sites. other countries claimed that all should be equal before death.. . NO.org/bpi/eng/unescopress/ 2001/01-81e. supra note 98 at 527. This view is based on the beliefs that warships should be immune from salvage as grave sites and that a sovereign can legitimately reject salvage services for its sunken warships. Harris..” Despite the requirement that coastal states notify flag states of their discoveries. They explained that they were reluctant to distinguish military underwater graves. Bederman.” Some reasons for the divisiveness of the issue were expressed in a UNESCO press release: While many countries. then warships that are underwater cultural heritage for the purposes of the Convention may not qualify for sovereign immunity.
During the negotiations leading to Article 29. in respect of the underwater cultural heritage concerned. historical and archaeological links which may arise. historical or archaeological link. 3. especially a cultural.
O’Keefe. and the interests of any State with a verifiable link. supra note 92 at 145-46.
. Canada had proposed a federal clause for the Convention. 4. Each State Party shall notify the Director-General and any other State with a verifiable link. taking into account the need for conservation and research.
The only exception is Article 29. protect and take all reasonable measures to stabilize underwater cultural heritage seized under this Convention. explaining that certain small areas of its territorial sea and internal waters remain within provincial jurisdiction. Each State Party shall record. exhibition and education. the provision does not provide a way of prioritizing the cultural. similar to the lack of a prioritization scheme in Article 149 for the preferential rights of the state or country of origin. is of particular interest. federal states and those with self-governing territories) to make a declaration to the depositary regarding the areas to which they do not wish the Convention to apply. historical or archaeological link.153 Article18(4). it appears to vest complete discretion in the governments of member states in respect to the disposition of all items defined as “underwater cultural heritage.” Article 30 prevents the intervention of any other authority by providing that “no reservations” are allowed by its adopting members.g. suggests that the seized material may have to be split where the link of the second state is strong. which aims at ensuring that seizures are for the public benefit. Article 18. to the underwater cultural heritage concerned of any seizure of underwater cultural heritage that it has made under this Convention. which allows states with groupings of smaller political units (e. or the state of historical and archaeological origin. Is the “public benefit” in this paragraph different from the “benefit of mankind” in Article 149 of UNCLOS? Further.154 Finally.2003]
sunken warships. See O’Keefe. especially a cultural. supra note 92 at 118-19. 2. Article 18(4) does not address the difficulties involved in reassembling a dispersed collection and the extent to which attempts to reassemble such a collection would–and should. the need for public access. the state of cultural origin. Article 18 reads: 1. A State Party which has seized underwater cultural heritage shall ensure that its disposition be for the public benefit. the need for re-assembly of a dispersed collection. Each State Party shall take measures providing for the seizure of underwater cultural heritage in its territory that has been recovered in a manner not in conformity with this Convention.
Supra note 7.152 Article 18 deals with seizure and disposition of underwater cultural heritage. given limited financial resources–reach.
If such financial rewards are outlawed.156
Rule 17 of the Annex states that “an adequate funding base shall be assured in advance of any activity. for drafting national legislation relating to application of the Convention. supra note 110 at 112.000 per day to salvage an historic wreck. Peltz.38 C. rule 2. This provision will severely limit a salvor’s ability to recoup his or her financial expenditures from the salvage operation. 42.
One of the advantages of ratification listed in the UNESCO Information Kit. The overall goal of the Convention is to increase protection on an international level. the Convention does not sufficiently address this need either. bought or bartered as commercial goods. It is difficult to imagine how wrecks can be protected at the international level. At an average cost of U. supra note 102 at 11. 1
One of the major deficiencies in the legal instruments now in place is that states do not have the financial resources to safeguard underwater cultural heritage. including conservation. supra note 6 at 321. sold. sufficient to complete all stages of the project design. documentation and curation of recovered artefacts. the salvor’s incentive to discover and recover historical shipwrecks may also disappear. Funding
[VOL.”
Supra note 7. when budgetary means do not support this protection at the local level. 132. what will likely eventually happen is similar to what has occurred under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act [in the U. in which states have sold permits to salvors in exchange for a “piece of the action. NO. Thus. n.155 there are concerns that the costs in time. within the limits of the Organization’s budget. particularly when they might end up having to turn them over to other governments under the Convention’s terms. money and expertise necessary to locate many of the wrecks are beyond the means and desires of most government agencies:
It is highly unlikely that governments will devote the resources necessary to locate and salvage historic wrecks. $30.” usually amounting to 25%.S. Annex. However. leaving cultural treasures lost on
.” except in cases of emergency to protect the underwater cultural heritage. is the opportunity for states parties to “benefit from UNESCO’s technical assistance.].S. however.”158 This moratorium on commercial activities means that the proceeds from such exchanges could never be used as project funding. and report preparation and dissemination.157 Private salvors are required to contribute much-needed funds to underwater cultural heritage exploration. The General Principles of the Annex also state that “[u]nderwater cultural heritage shall not be traded.
Article 19. further stating that “[e]ach State Party shall take all practicable measures to raise public awareness regarding the value and significance of underwater cultural heritage and the importance of protecting it under this Convention. with the proponents of the Convention. and training. supra note 98 at 550.163 The historic and educational value of old shipwrecks to our national and international cultural heritage has now been recognized. Supra note 7. Public Awareness and Training
A final goal of the Convention is to stress the importance of underwater archaeology for the knowledge of the past. Inherent in such a distinction is a notion of intellectual hierarchy. 2489 at 2526-27. Rev.” During the drafting process.
See Justin S. which is technical training.”162 States must help one another achieve these objectives by sharing information. notes that during the negotiations. information and education” in the Preamble. who view themselves as trained specialists. This proved unhelpful in reconciling private salvors.
. Article 15 of the negotiating draft read: “Each State Party shall endeavour by educational means to create and develop in the public mind a realization of the value of the underwater cultural heritage as well as the threat to this heritage posed by violations of this Convention and non-compliance with the Rules of the Annex. Final Report of the First Meeting of Governmental Experts. it has been acknowledged that commercial incentives have not been completely ruled out. See Final Report of the First Meeting of Governmental Experts. supra note 114 at 9.161 D. as long as they do not disturb the wreck itself.159 and rule 7 of the Annex confirms that “[p]ublic access to in situ underwater cultural heritage shall be promoted. whom the salvors view as officious interlopers with no practical experience in the field. The Convention emphasizes the “importance of research. the term “education” was replaced by “public awareness. except where such access is incompatible with protection and management. Responsible non-intrusive access to observe or document in situ underwater cultural heritage is encouraged. some experts also expressed the view that articles 15 and 16 (in the initial and negotiating drafts) implicitly made a distinction between education.2003]
the ocean floor. Nevertheless.” Such commercial incentives as the sale of television rights or paying school excursions have been considered acceptable. Article 2(10). Stern describes the establishment of exclusive photographic rights to the Titanic. there will still be some financial incentive to discover these underwater treasures. Stern.” the latter being a “less stringent duty on States” than the requirement to provide formal training connoted by “educating” the public. supra note 114 at 12. which refers to archaeology as a university subject.
Supra note 7.160 If salvors can dive onto a wreck for the purposes of taking pictures and marketing the images. Article 20. “Smart Salvage: Extending Traditional Maritime Law to Include Intellectual Property Rights in Historic Shipwrecks” (2000 ) 68 Fordham L. One author writes that
Ibid. Forrest.
Accompanying this argument that these artifacts lack archaeological value because they are so similar to one another is the claim
Runyan.. and their value and marketability will probably increase in time. Peltz. supra note 4 at 33 [footnotes omitted]. Over the past 30 years hundreds of shipwrecks have been found off Florida and in the Caribbean. then surely there are at least some items in which the general public would also be interested. which sank in 1545 and was raised in 1982 with over 15. However.164
Historic shipwrecks can provide information about early ship-building techniques.000 artifacts. time frame or technology . most have ceased to impart relatively new data. is comparable to a discovery on land of an important early frontier settlement frozen in time by a catastrophic natural event such as a volcanic eruption which buries the site and preserves it. . they must add significant previous unknown data to the world body of knowledge pertaining to a given culture. Furthermore. supra note 110 at 110. NO. Proponents of the Convention hope that it will act as a powerful disincentive to salvors and sports divers in order to protect the information that wreck sites have to offer.. If private collectors are willing to pay thousands and even millions of dollars for such “redundant” material. The discovery of an undisturbed wreck. and while many may have significant intrinsic value and are interesting or beautiful. 42. One supporter of this view gives the example of shipwrecks found off Florida and the Caribbean:
[F]or artifacts or sites to be construed as being of archaeological importance. there are also those who believe that such disincentives will severely limit the number of wrecks discovered. Some argue that most shipwrecks and their artifacts should not be given to museums and government archives because these items are by now redundant and of little historical importance. The artifacts’ intrinsic value lies in the fact that they are part of the underwater cultural heritage. It has only been in the last two decades that technology has brought these wrecks to the surface.
. Millions of artifacts have been recovered of many types of categories.40
[VOL. We are now to the point where these types and categories of artifacts have become extremely redundant. such as the Civil War ironclad USS Monitor or Henry VIII’s flagship the Mary Rose. trade and navigation.165
This is a specious argument because it assumes that items with intrinsic value or which merely invite curiosity cannot possess an educational component. the mystique of which is still novel. if these artifacts are as superfluous as some salvors claim them to be. it is odd that they are nevertheless continuing to retrieve them from the depths on a steady basis. 1
[t]he story which the salvors and wrecks have to tell is unique in many instances since shipwrecks are time capsules containing materials from an earlier age frozen in location at the moment of their sinking.
Robert Ballard discovered the Titanic using remotely operated vehicles funded by the U. supra note 98 at 551.”166 The Convention has responded to this argument in Article 2(5) and rule 1 of the Annex. “States Parties shall cooperate in the provision of training in underwater archaeology.”See O’Keefe. in accordance with which conservation shall be carried out?168 The transfer of technology will be on terms agreeable to the transferring state. in the transfer of technology relating to underwater cultural heritage. which promote in situ preservation of sites as the best means of achieving protection of the cultural heritage. a project design for the activity will be developed and approved by the competent authorities.
O’Keefe acknowledges that it will be difficult to establish “current professional standards” on an international basis. “has led some researchers to call for a moratorium on excavation . but the extent to which they must do so is unclear. Qualified archaeologists will determine whether the site would contribute anything new to the body of scientific and cultural knowledge already available before excavating it. and therefore can only display for the public a small fraction of the artifacts available. rules 9-16. in techniques for the conservation of underwater cultural heritage and. Supra note 7. Prior to any activity. navy.” insists Peltz. See Tim Hulse.. technicians. and resources for their training in a number of developing countries.” the Convention states.
. For example.2003]
that there are simply too many of them. Article 21 is particularly important owing to the lack of specialized archaeologists. Dr. Annex. Forrest. and some states may be unwilling to transfer certain types of technology.. Private and public collections have apparently become so large that governments no longer have the ability to catalogue them. and suggests that “[t]he best approach would be to aim for the most effective process of conservation available considering the circumstances. Article 21 does place an onus on developed states to provide training and the requisite technology. .169 Therefore. at 111. Will they be able to finance the training requested of them? Will the training and technology which they provide be required to meet certain standards? What if one state promotes underwater archaeological techniques that are considered incompetent by another? What are the “current professional standards” referred to in rule 24 of the Annex. on agreed terms. “Robert Ballard: Explorer of the drowned world” The Independent [London] (17 September 2000) 28. States parties should be in compliance if they share resources and cooperate. particularly military technology.S.167 This procedure could substantially reduce the number of wreck sites that can be excavated. supra note 92 at 178. “The staggering amount of material that has been amassed world wide. a
Ibid. The provision does not appear to put all states under the same obligation to provide training in archaeology.
Conservation methodology “should never be established as an activity lying outside the values. 1
developing state without its own resources to provide training could still be deprived of the highly technical equipment used by developed states. Thus. It has. [nor should it] ignore the very existence of the living heritage of cultural customs and traditions. as Article 21 suggests.. Despite the fact that salvors and admiralty lawyers tend to view inimically the stance of cultural heritage proponents as a moral one. both sides could better define the terms of Article 21. they could in fact benefit from the ethical codes and duties that the other side has attempted to formulate. brought together the opposing sides in this debate. One training scheme reportedly turned some former looters into allies and protectors.” See supra note 7. Rule 4 of the Annex ensures that “activities directed at underwater cultural heritage use nondestructive techniques and survey methods in preference to recovery of objects. as well as local groups assisting in protection. 42. ICOMOS has called for this type of scientific education to be undertaken at many levels – resource managers. and therefore less tangible values. in at least one instance.
. “Codes of Ethics: Form and Function in Cultural Heritage Management” (1998) 7 Int’l J. enabling them to contribute to designing effective training programs.42
[VOL.170 The interjection of scientific evidence in the debate deflects attention from what can be seen as the moralistic underpinnings. the public at large. O’Keefe. which adapted the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites. Admiralty lawyers are well aware of many of the national standards that are in place in various countries.172 Salvors could complement their vast practical experience with this knowledge of conservation techniques. they are in a position to share this knowledge with cultural heritage experts. Cult. aspirations and practices of communities . 1966. supra note 114 at 12. If states parties are obligated to cooperate in the provision of training. of cultural heritage arguments. Prop.171 Recovery should be attempted only after proper evaluation of the conservation needs of found items.
This idea that the conservation of cultural heritage requires public support at the local level is reflected in Mexico’s Declaration of Oaxaca.” See Patrick J. One such code which has governed the
Final Report of the First Meeting of Governmental Experts.. 32 at 38. then clear standards should be defined. making it easier for states parties to adhere to the training standards articulated therein. The training course for amateurs by the Nautical Archaeology Society of the United Kingdom focuses on physical and chemical techniques used in archaeology. The cooperative aspect of training is also of fundamental importance. persuading salvors to develop an awareness of conservation in their training. By working together. as part of the scientific action of the Commission of Science and Technology of the Council of Europe. NO.
” Second. Professional. as O’Keefe explains. and Cultural Struggle Over Salvaging Historic Shipwrecks” (2001) 65 Alb. it “places an object in context and gives it meaning. “Provenance and Trade in Cultural Heritage” (1995) U. L.” and other courts have imposed similar requirements on salvors. L. in the context of cultural heritage law means the entire history of an object. Inc. Coggins points out that archaeologists only dig as much as necessary for scientific research.D. treasure seekers tend to dig for profitable material without regard to preserving the site for future generations.” See generally O’Keefe. CONCLUSION
Supra note 121.174 Salvage law does not have a code of ethics per se. “A Licit International Traffic in Ancient Art: Let There Be Light!” (1995) 4 Int’l J. Provenance is important for two reasons. especially since there is no clear guide on what the content of a code of ethics should be.176 In the United States. O’Keefe. he argues. because there might be a defect in the title that means the purchaser will then have to hand the object back to someone with a better claim or there may be some legislative provision which means that the object can be seized by authorities.2003]
underwater cultural heritage is the ICOMOS Charter. 952 F. one court has actually referred to this duty as the “Archaeological Duty of Care. Marex Int’l. supra note 110 at 112. 825 (S. supra note 171. but the profession has considered adopting a much needed archaeological duty of care. “Provenance.
. see Christopher R. 259 at 261-62. Rev. Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel. The Unidentified. Such laudable mandates would be instantly negated if the Convention enters into force in its current form.178 IV. Prop. Supp. O’Keefe provides an example of a person who purchases such an object: “[The purchaser] cannot be sure of keeping it. 61 at 65. Ga. if an object lacks provenance. See Clemency Chase Coggins. “The Archaeological Duty of Care: The Legal. then the consequences may be legal. First. Bryant argues that the Archaeological Duty of Care would protect historical shipwrecks without abrogating the laws of finds and salvage in relation to wrecks.” See Patrick J. Rev. v. where the district court held at 829 that courts can impose this duty on salvors operating on wrecks of historic or archaeological value. Cult. admiralty law already requires explorers to act in good faith and perform “good” archaeology on salvage operations under the jurisdiction of admiralty courts. “[these codes] serve a valuable role both in educating the members of the various organizations and the public and in establishing goals for which these professionals aspire.177 Yet in the view of critics of the Convention. 1997). 97 at 138-43.
Peltz.175 The notion that salvors should act to preserve the archaeological and historical provenance of a wreck is an emerging doctrine in maritime law. For a survey of the other cases.B. Bryant.” which can generally be defined as a place of origin.173 Establishing accepted practices of professionals in salvage operations can help to deal with problems raised by the unique nature of cultural heritage issues.
O’Keefe recognizes that the enforcement of such codes is frequently difficult. Nevertheless.C.
NO.180 The U. o r g / D e p ts/los/reference_f i l e s / chronological_lists_of_ratifications. n. could still ratify the Convention. See Sean D.gc.htm> (date accessed: 13 November 2003). Murphy. is not a member of UNESCO. J.S. online: International Relations and Policy Development <http://www. Because the U.
. but the U. will take. 1
It may be several years before the Convention enters into force. J. especially since it has not yet approved UNCLOS. The Agreement.S.” Supra note 182 at 319. 313 at 317. “Admiralty Law: Evolving Legal Treatment of Property Claims to Shipwrecks in International Waters” (1990) 31 Harv. With its abundance of treasure salvage cases. however. potential conflicts of law. voted in favour of the Convention and has been discussing the processes of its ratification and implementation with partners from the Caribbean and Americas. See Canada@UNESCO. Salvors and admiralty lawyers bring a wealth of practical experience and substantial
The lack of support was due to “serious concerns with certain provisions. Canada. the interests of the State in adjudicating the dispute. 41.S.cfm> (date accessed: 13 November 2003).183 Because of the potential for infringement on the rights of other nations and the international community as a whole. at the General Conference the American delegation stated that it could not support the Convention as it now stands. “U. n. King has identified the following international implications that must be taken into account: “fairness to the parties. and the impact on the needs of other States. n. which the U.S. an actively involved member of UNESCO.181 The U. contacts with the adjudicating forum. 34 (citing United States Oceans Policy. that it will generally be guided by UNCLOS in other respects. 19 Weekly Comp. exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction must be. supra note 6 at 321. S . 468 at 469-70. Although it actively participated in the negotiations. but its effectiveness depends on the assistance that admiralty law can offer.S. Underwater cultural heritage law can work.S. 132.” such as Articles 9 and 10. Int’l L. 10. Int’l L. many speculate as to what position the U. 1983)). the American delegation was not entitled to vote. delegation said that it could not support the Convention. 42. which adopted a modified regime for those mineral resources found on the seabed in the high seas.
McQuown. O n l i n e : U n i t e d N a t i o n s < h t t p : / / w w w . Doc. the U. Concerns Regarding UNESCO Convention on Underwater Heritage” (2002) 96 Am.179 It remains uncertain whether the Senate will give its consent to the ratification of the Convention.K. u n ..182 Like the U. still has not been accepted by the U . See Marshall King.S. alleged create new rights for coastal states in a manner that could alter UNCLOS. reasonable.184 The UNESCO Convention presents a thoughtful theoretical framework from which to address the protection of historic shipwrecks in international waters. the needs of the international system.pch.44
[VOL. Pres.
The problems posed by the controversial nature of the part of UNCLOS that deals with deep seabed mining (Part XI) were addressed through the negotiation of the 1994 agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention. above all. Statement by the President.S. has indicated. 383 (Mar. declined to sign UNCLOS because of its deep-seabed mining provisions.ca/progs/ai-ia/ridp-irpd/07/index_e.
they can each get the best of both worlds and avoid sunken opportunities.2003]
financial resources to learn more about this heritage. The opposing sides in this debate should view their problems as opportunities for cooperation. That way.
More From This UserAfrican SatelliteDreptul Comertului International- Curs81-s2.0-S0195925503000921-main1-s2.0-S0195925502000161-mainCase AlvarezMpunyb RauOdysseynoul-cod-civil cartea VII.pdfDEDH6.pdfCalendrier académique 2013-14_FR_Version publique.pdfDrept Financiar Bancar si al Asigurarilor_sem1_2013-2014.pdfLawintheFilm_Seminar_Ann.pdfModalités d'éloignement de Leonarda Dibrani - raport Carta Organizatiei Natiunilor Unite ONU + StatutUnited Nations Charter Curs 12 Doctrine1 Ww CEDAW Hungary 2006- Lege Drepturi de Autor- Lege Drepturi de AutorAlidProiect de Lectie Istorie Cl a Ix-A - Marile ReligiiLena Constante - Evadare Tacuta1 ww_CEDAW_Hungary_200637755108-TESTE-GRILA-DREPT
Bowman by Andreea-Maria Lupuleţ15 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionPILPILInterests: Types, Government & PoliticsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)List price: $0.00Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedEmerging Ballast Waterby darkhunterCauses and Effetcs of the Rapid Sinking of the Titanicby GDineshKumarAll About Ecdisby ky1976Draft Survey Report Dummy(1)by HRodas EcCN1213by Zafer AltuncuAis Operaton Guidance MGN 277by api-26251207Snap Shot Report 36 Deepwater Horizon 25 June 2010 as of 1230 Hrs0by Michael AllenMGN 277 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE FOR AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS (AIS) ON BOARD SHIP.pdfby Nicolai Bachkatoff Netofa30by UFUKKKGuidance for Surveyors-10 Gmdssby captinnaserJock McLeanby MickThoirsPort Information CHILEby Nikos NoulezasVandewater v. Mills, 60 U.S. 82 (1857)by Scribd Government DocsOCIMF Anuual Report(2009)by Sherin SabeerBruceby Rob FurnaldLevy, Shalev - Prehistoric Metalworking in the Southern Levant_ Archaeometallurgical and Social Perspectivesby Marco TartariLondonby NatalijaFSHodder-Ed-2001-Archaeological_Theory_Today.pdfby Jossias Hélder HumbaneMykonosby Anonymous 28JsiJFaMichczyski Et Al 2007-Radiocarbon -T Monkeyby ronaldloliΒαθύπετροby starsreader89559-223994-yx1-PBby Goran JurisicThe Bermuda Triangleby Alejandra MartínezMaking a case for the Congaree Creek Archaeology Parkby The State NewspaperGREEN BOOKS AND MOREby The Seeker Of AllAdditional Proposed Changes Feb 2009by gunnerclarkPhillips v. Moore, 100 U.S. 208 (1879)by Scribd Government DocsLokayuktas Billby ayomipSimilar to BowmanEmerging Ballast WaterCauses and Effetcs of the Rapid Sinking of the TitanicAll About EcdisDraft Survey Report Dummy(1)CN1213Ais Operaton Guidance MGN 277Snap Shot Report 36 Deepwater Horizon 25 June 2010 as of 1230 Hrs0MGN 277 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE FOR AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS (AIS) ON BOARD SHIP.pdffa30Guidance for Surveyors-10 GmdssJock McLeanPort Information CHILEVandewater v. Mills, 60 U.S. 82 (1857)OCIMF Anuual Report(2009)BruceLevy, Shalev - Prehistoric Metalworking in the Southern Levant_ Archaeometallurgical and Social PerspectivesLondonHodder-Ed-2001-Archaeological_Theory_Today.pdfMykonosMichczyski Et Al 2007-Radiocarbon -T MonkeyΒαθύπετρο89559-223994-yx1-PBThe Bermuda TriangleMaking a case for the Congaree Creek Archaeology ParkGREEN BOOKS AND MOREAdditional Proposed Changes Feb 2009Phillips v. Moore, 100 U.S. 208 (1879)Lokayuktas BillAnother Brick in the Wall for CanadaPalindromes_ the Rotas Square