Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Underwater Cultural Heritage and the Market: The Uncertain Destiny of Historic Sunken Warships Under International Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Art, Cultural Heritage and the Market

  • 2809 Accesses

Abstract

The recovery of historic sunken military vessels raises a number of legal issues, including those of ownership, state immunity, preservation of cultural heritage and military defence. Maritime powers hold that sunken warships are immune from the jurisdiction of countries other than the flag state and that military property is never abandoned unless by explicit consent. Therefore, they insist on a rule that would require the consent of the flag state even in the case of activities directed at a wreck located in the territorial waters of other states. Other countries, however, contend that such an approach would unduly limit the sovereignty of the coastal states. Given the recent technological developments and the recovery of more and more military vessels, an analysis and critical assessment of the relevant legal issues and emerging case law could not be timelier. In fact, notwithstanding the historical, military and geopolitical relevance of sunken military vessels, a regime complex governs these shipwrecks at the international law level, leaving many legal issues unsettled. It remains to be seen whether the firm and uniform approach of maritime powers may determine the crystallisation of a norm of customary law.

The views expressed in this chapter are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the European Commission. The author wishes to thank Richard Barnes, Sarah Dromgoole, Craig Forrest, Sead Kadic, Fabian Raimondo, Hildegard Schneider, and Conor Talbot for their comments on an earlier draft. The usual disclaimer applies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Claimant Kingdom of Spain’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment, 22 September 2008, p. 7. All the legal documents referring to this case and cited in this article may be found at http://www.justia.com. Accessed 16 July 2013.

  2. 2.

    ‘Sunken Treasure Haul Arrives in Spain from the U.S.’, BBC News, 25 February 2012.

  3. 3.

    ‘Spain Allows First Glimpse of Shipwreck Treasure won from US Salvage Firm’, Guardian, 30 November 2012.

  4. 4.

    ‘Spain Reveals Shipwreck Treasure’, BBC News, 30 November 2012.

  5. 5.

    ‘Sunken Treasure Haul Arrives in Spain from the U.S.’, BBC News, 25 February 2012.

  6. 6.

    When no owner exists or can be determined, the party who recovers the property at sea is entitled to the application of the law of finds. Under this doctrine, title to the abandoned property is given to the finder. Schoenbaum (2009), §§ 16–17.

  7. 7.

    Salvage law governs salvage, which is the act of rescuing life or property from peril. The Blackwall, 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 1, 14 (1869). For commentary, see Rose (1989), p. 171. By way of analogy, admiralty courts have applied the concept of salvage to the recovery of ancient relics. If a private actor rescues an ancient shipwreck, thus being considered a salvor, she is entitled to a reward. The reward often consists of a generous percentage of the value of the saved vessel or part of the sale proceedings and auctioning of recovered artefacts. Curfman (2008), p. 188.

  8. 8.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. v the Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Verified Conditional Claim of the Republic of Peru, 1 August 2008, § 5.

  9. 9.

    See ‘Peru and Bolivia also Want their Share of the Gold found in Spanish Galleon’ MercoPress South Atlantic News Agency, 29 December 2009. Available at http://en.mercopress.com/2009/12/28/peru-and-bolivia-also-want-their-share-of-the-gold-found-in-spanish-galleon. Accessed 16 July 2013.

  10. 10.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. v Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, Case No. 8:07-cv-614-T-23MAP, Order of the District Judge, 22 December 2009.

  11. 11.

    A party who wishes the Supreme Court to review a decision of a federal or state court files a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. v Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-1067.htm. Accessed 16 July 2013. The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on 27 February 2012 and denied on 14 May 2012 http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051412zor.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2013.

  12. 12.

    See Kowalski (2012), p. 91 (mentioning that ‘there is some reason to think that the ship [Wilhelm Gustloff] was transporting the famous “Amber Room”, brought by the Nazis from Russia’). On the Amber Room, see Chap. 2 by Bandle and Contel, in this volume.

  13. 13.

    Vadi (2013), p. 335.

  14. 14.

    See, e.g., Harris (2001), p. 75.

  15. 15.

    Relevant stakeholders can include: the flag states, the coastal states, the heirs of the legitimate owners, the salvors, the archaeological community, and even mankind as a whole. Other states may have a cultural link to the cargo or a nationality link with the passengers. See Vigni (2012), pp. 279–280.

  16. 16.

    Roach (1996), p. 351.

  17. 17.

    Dromgoole (2012), p. 4.

  18. 18.

    The terms “sovereign immunity” and “state immunity” are used interchangeably in the context of this study. See Shaw (2008), pp. 697–698 (explaining that the term “sovereign immunity” draws upon the fact that “sovereignty until […] recently was regarded as appertaining to a particular individual in a state […] This personalization was gradually replaced by the abstract concept of state sovereignty but the basic mystique remained.”).

  19. 19.

    Brus (2011), p. 49.

  20. 20.

    Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 128 S. Ct. 2180, 2189–90 (2008), at 25.

  21. 21.

    Verma (2004), p. 212.

  22. 22.

    The Schooner Exchange v. Mc Faddon, 11 US 116 (1812), AJIL, 1909, pp. 227ff.

  23. 23.

    United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) opened for signature 10 December 1982, in force 16 November 1994. 1833 UNTS 397, 21 ILM 1261 (1982).

  24. 24.

    See Koh (1982).

  25. 25.

    UNCLOS, Article 29.

  26. 26.

    UNCLOS, Article 95.

  27. 27.

    UNCLOS, Article 96.

  28. 28.

    UNCLOS, Article 32.

  29. 29.

    UNCLOS, Article 30.

  30. 30.

    UNCLOS, Article 31.

  31. 31.

    Oxman (1983–1984), p. 818.

  32. 32.

    See e.g. Ngantcha (1990).

  33. 33.

    Oxman (1983–1984), p. 810.

  34. 34.

    Brussels Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules with Respect to Assistance and Salvage at Sea, adopted on 23 September 1910, in force 1 March 1913. UKTS 4 (1913), Cd. 6677. Article 14.

  35. 35.

    International Convention on Salvage, London, 28 April 1989, in force on 14 July 1996. UKTS 1996 No. 93. Article 4.

  36. 36.

    Ex plurimis see Roach (1996), p. 351.

  37. 37.

    Roach (1996), p. 352.

  38. 38.

    United States v. Steinmetz, 763 F. Supp. 1293, 1299, D.N.J. 1991.

  39. 39.

    For commentary, see Yeates (1999–2000), p. 385.

  40. 40.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Case No. 8:07-CV-614-SDm-MAP, Claimant Kingdom of Spain’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment, 22 September 2008, at p. 21. All the legal documents referring to this case may be found at http://www.justia.com. For commentary see Vadi (2010), pp. 253–277.

  41. 41.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, United States Court of Appeals, D. C. Docket No. 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP, 21 September 2011, available at http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201010269.pdf, at pp. 14 and 28.

  42. 42.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, United States Court of Appeals, D. C. Docket No. 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP, 21 September 2011, available at http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201010269.pdf, at p. 46.

  43. 43.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, United States Court of Appeals, D. C. Docket No. 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP, 21 September 2011, available at http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201010269.pdf, at p. 43.

  44. 44.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, United States Court of Appeals, D. C. Docket No. 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP, 21 September 2011, available at http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201010269.pdf, at pp. 48–49, footnote 16.

  45. 45.

    See e.g. Vierucci (2000), p. 716; Caflisch (1982), p. 22; Riphagen (1975), p. 128.

  46. 46.

    Lauterpacht (1955), pp. 851–852; Migliorino (1985), p. 251.

  47. 47.

    Walker (1999–2000), p. 350 (citing Tucker v. Alexandroff, 183 US 424, 438 (1902) holding that “a ship is born when she is launched, and lives so long as her identity is preserved”).

  48. 48.

    Vierucci (2000), p. 716 (stating that “[…], leur perte entraîne un changement de la nature de l’object”).

  49. 49.

    Baltimore, Crisfield & Onancock Line Inc. v. United States, 140 F.2d at 230 (4th Cir. 1944).

  50. 50.

    Baltimore, Crisfield & Onancock Line Inc. v. United States, 140 F.2d at 230 (4th Cir. 1944), p. 233.

  51. 51.

    Baltimore, Crisfield & Onancock Line Inc. v. United States, 140 F.2d at 230 (4th Cir. 1944), p. 234.

  52. 52.

    Garabello (2004), p. 173.

  53. 53.

    Vierucci (2000), p. 717.

  54. 54.

    Bou Franch and Aznar-Gómez (2004), p. 239 (quoting an amicus curiae of the United States).

  55. 55.

    Bou Franch and Aznar-Gómez (2004), p. 226.

  56. 56.

    See Harris (2001), p. 75.

  57. 57.

    Bou Franch and Aznar-Gómez (2004), p. 248.

  58. 58.

    Bou Franch and Aznar-Gómez (2004), pp. 248–249.

  59. 59.

    United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, 3 June 2004, 44 ILM 803 (2005).

  60. 60.

    United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, 3 June 2004, 44 ILM 803 (2005), Article 21(d).

  61. 61.

    United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, 3 June 2004, 44 ILM 803 (2005), Article 19.

  62. 62.

    The maritime zone where the shipwreck is located can make a difference, though. If a military vessel sinks in the territorial waters of a third state and the flag state does not want to remove the wreck and the wreck is a danger for navigation of for public safety, the territorial state removal of the wreck without the consent of the flag state could be justified on grounds of force majeure. In face of such conflict of interests, the interest of the territorial state appears to be stronger.

  63. 63.

    Strati (1995), p. 222.

  64. 64.

    See, among others, US Department of State, Office of Ocean Affairs, Protection of Sunken Warships, Military Aircraft and Other Sunken Government Property, Public Notice No. 4614, Federal Register, vol. 69 No. 24, 5 February 2004, p. 5647; Communication from the Embassy of Spain, Note 128, 19 December 2002, Federal Register, vol. 69 No. 24, p. 5647; William J. Clinton, “Statement on United States Policy for the Protection of Sunken Warships”, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 195, 22 January 2001.

  65. 65.

    Hatteras Inc. v. The U.S.S. Hatteras, 1984 AMC 1094, pp. 1101–1102.

  66. 66.

    Sea Hunt, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, 47 F. Supp. 2nd, pp. 688, 690–692.

  67. 67.

    Sea Hunt, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, 221 F.3rd, pp. 634ff, p. 646 (4th Cir. 2000).

  68. 68.

    Sea Hunt, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, 221 F.3rd, pp. 634ff, p. 646 (4th Cir. 2000), para. 13.

  69. 69.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Case No. 8:07-CV-00614-SDM-MAP, Claimant Kingdom of Spain’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment, p. 3.

  70. 70.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Case No. 8:07-CV-00614-SDM-MAP, Claimant Kingdom of Spain’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment, p. 9.

  71. 71.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Case No. 8:07-cv-614-T-23MAP, Order of the District Judge, 22 December 2009, p. 4.

  72. 72.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, United States Court of Appeals, D. C. Docket No. 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP, 21 September 2011, at p. 30, footnote 8. Available at http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201010269.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2013.

  73. 73.

    La Belle was an auxiliary vessel of the French Navy, under the command of the explorer René Robert Cavalier. Cavalier was in charge of establishing a colony at the mouth of the Mississippi River. In 1686 the ship sank. When the shipwreck was found by archaeologists, the US and France concluded an agreement. See Murphy (2003), p. 688; Vadi (2013), p. 350.

  74. 74.

    The HMS Erebus and the HMS Terror—two English ships charged with finding the fabled North West Passage—vanished in 1845. See Scovazzi (2006), p. 400.

  75. 75.

    Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Great Britain and Canada Pertaining the Shipwrecks HMS Erebus and HMS Terror, 5–8 August 1997, reprinted in Garabello and Scovazzi (2003), p. 263 (stating that “[…] Britain does not waive sovereign immunity or ownership with respect to the wrecks or their contents […]”).

  76. 76.

    The Agreement, signed in The Hague on 6 November 1972, is reprinted in Garabello and Scovazzi (2003), p. 254. Under Article 1 of the Agreement, “The Netherlands as successor to the property and assets of the V.O.C, transfers all its rights, title and interest in and to the wrecked vessels of the V.O.C. lying on or off the coast of Western Australia […]”.

  77. 77.

    Exchange of Notes Constituting an Agreement Between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Italy regarding the Salvage of the H.M.S. Spartan, 6 November 1952, 158 UNTS 432.

  78. 78.

    The Griffon was on a mission for famed French explorer René-Robert Cavelier. In September 1679 the ship was dispatched to Niagara near the falls, to pick up more supplies and was never seen again. See Nasaw (2009).

  79. 79.

    Nasaw (2009) at p. 2.

  80. 80.

    UNCLOS, Article 149.

  81. 81.

    CPUCH, Preamble.

  82. 82.

    Strati (1991), p. 860.

  83. 83.

    Strati (1991), p. 860.

  84. 84.

    Strati (1991), p. 886.

  85. 85.

    Ferri (2012), p. 254.

  86. 86.

    Strati (1991), p. 864.

  87. 87.

    Macdonald (2009), p. 1.

  88. 88.

    See generally Vrdoljak (2006).

  89. 89.

    Strati (1995), p. 228.

  90. 90.

    Strati (1991), p. 889.

  91. 91.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Case No. 8:07-cv-614-T-23MAP, Order, 22 December 2009, p. 3 (hereinafter Order).

  92. 92.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Report and Recommendation, p. 29 (hereinafter Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation).

  93. 93.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, The Republic of Peru’s Response to the Kingdom of Spain’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment, 17 November 2008, p. 2 (hereinafter Peru’s Response).

  94. 94.

    Peru’s Response, p. 17.

  95. 95.

    Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, p. 29.

  96. 96.

    Peru’s Response, pp. 17–25.

  97. 97.

    Peru’s Response, pp. 32–34.

  98. 98.

    Peru’s Response, p. 33.

  99. 99.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Kingdom of Spain reply to Claimant Republic of Peru Response to Spain’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment, 26 January 2009 [hereinafter Spain’s Reply], p. 8.

  100. 100.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Kingdom of Spain reply to Claimant Republic of Peru Response to Spain’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment, 26 January 2009 [hereinafter Spain’s Reply], p. 8.

  101. 101.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Kingdom of Spain reply to Claimant Republic of Peru Response to Spain’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment, 26 January 2009 [hereinafter Spain’s Reply], p. 10.

  102. 102.

    Spain’s Reply, p. 10.

  103. 103.

    Spain’s Reply, p. 10.

  104. 104.

    Spain’s Reply, p. 11.

  105. 105.

    Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, p. 31.

  106. 106.

    Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, p. 32.

  107. 107.

    Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, p. 33.

  108. 108.

    Order, p. 4.

  109. 109.

    Vadi (2013), p. 354.

  110. 110.

    Baltimore, Crisfield & Onancock Line Inc. v. United States, 140 F. 2d 230, 235 (4th Cir. 1944).

  111. 111.

    Baltimore, Crisfield & Onancock Line Inc. v. United States, 140 F. 2d 230, 235 (4th Cir. 1944), p. 234.

  112. 112.

    Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 569 F.2d 330, 337 (5th Cir.1978) (Spanish galleon sunk in 1622).

  113. 113.

    Forrest (2003a), p. 42 (stating that “there is certainly evidence that states are increasingly proffering the application of an express abandonment theory”).

  114. 114.

    Hatteras v. U.S.S. Hatteras, 1984 AMC 1094 (S.D. Tx 1981) at 1098.

  115. 115.

    Vadi (2013), p. 354.

  116. 116.

    Yeates (1999–2000), p. 371.

  117. 117.

    CPUCH, Preamble.

  118. 118.

    Booth (2006), p. 299.

  119. 119.

    Sinclair (1980), p. 113.

  120. 120.

    28 USC § 1602ff.

  121. 121.

    Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, p. 16.

  122. 122.

    Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, p. 23.

  123. 123.

    Nafziger (2006) (defining international cultural law as those international law norms—whether customary of treaty norms—that require the protection of culture, cultural heritage and cultural rights).

  124. 124.

    For a detailed analysis of UNCLOS provisions dedicated to underwater cultural heritage, see generally Papa Sokal (2005).

  125. 125.

    See UNCLOS, Arts. 149 and 303.

  126. 126.

    UNCLOS, Article 1(1)(1).

  127. 127.

    UNCLOS, Article 149.

  128. 128.

    UNCLOS, Article 303(1).

  129. 129.

    UNCLOS, Article 303(2).

  130. 130.

    UNCLOS, Article 303(3).

  131. 131.

    Roucounas (1987), p. 313.

  132. 132.

    UNCLOS, Articles 149 and 303.

  133. 133.

    Oxman (1987–1988), p. 364.

  134. 134.

    Forrest (2002), p. 7.

  135. 135.

    Forrest (2002), p. 7.

  136. 136.

    Aznar (2004), p. 603 (defining the two provisions as “a truly constructive ambiguity”).

  137. 137.

    UNCLOS, Article 149.

  138. 138.

    Oxman (1987–1988), p. 361.

  139. 139.

    Oxman (1987–1988), p. 361.

  140. 140.

    UNCLOS Article 76(1).

  141. 141.

    UNCLOS Article 55.

  142. 142.

    Scovazzi (2007), p. 291.

  143. 143.

    UNCLOS, Article 303(4).

  144. 144.

    The Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, adopted on 2 November 2001, in force on 2 January 2009. 87 states voted in favour, 4 against (Russia, Norway, Turkey and Venezuela) and 15 abstained (Brazil, Colombia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Guinea-Bissau, the Netherlands, Paraguay, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Uruguay). The US, although invited to participate in the negotiations, did not have the right to vote as it was not a member of UNESCO at the time (the US rejoined UNESCO in October 2003). At the time of this writing, the convention has 44 states parties. The list of states Parties is available at http://portal.unesco.org/la/convention.asp?KO=13520&language=E&order=alpha. Accessed on 16 July 2013. ILM 2002, pp. 40ff.

  145. 145.

    Koshtial (2008), p. 65.

  146. 146.

    Forrest (2002), p. 3.

  147. 147.

    Forrest (2002), p. 3.

  148. 148.

    See Aznar-Gómez (2008), p. 103.

  149. 149.

    See Francioni (2008), p. 5.

  150. 150.

    See e.g. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, November 21, 1972, 1037 UNTS 151, 11 ILM 1358; Convention for Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 17 October 2003, in force 20 April 2006, 2368 UNTS 1.

  151. 151.

    See Aznar-Gómez (2008), p. 104 (noting that other international law instruments include such a temporal criterion for administrative convenience).

  152. 152.

    O’Keefe (2006), p. 91.

  153. 153.

    Dromgoole (2003), p. 63 (stressing that “The 1998 Draft also used this 100-year cut-off point, but had a provision that a state could unilaterally decide to include remains less than 100 years old; this has now been omitted”).

  154. 154.

    CPUCH, Article 1(8).

  155. 155.

    See Garabello (2004), p. 172.

  156. 156.

    Forrest (2010), p. 337 (pinpointing that “a wreck site may be so old that it predates any conception of the state in international law…”).

  157. 157.

    Boesten (2002), p. 146. Up to now, the Dutch government has issued licenses to salvors upon the announcement that a Dutch wreck has been found. Boesten (2002), p. 147.

  158. 158.

    Parthesius (2010), p. 32 (defining the VOC as a “commercial and military organisation”).

  159. 159.

    Parthesius (2010), p. 35.

  160. 160.

    Boesten (2002), p. 146.

  161. 161.

    Parthesius (2010), p. 69.

  162. 162.

    CPUCH, Article 2(3).

  163. 163.

    CPUCH, Articles 2(5) and 33, and Annex (Rule 1).

  164. 164.

    CPUCH, Article 2(7).

  165. 165.

    Guérin (2012), p. 4.

  166. 166.

    Prott (2006), p. 142.

  167. 167.

    CPUCH, Article 4(a)–(b).

  168. 168.

    O’Keefe (2002), p. 171.

  169. 169.

    Annex, Rule 2.

  170. 170.

    CPUCH Article 3.

  171. 171.

    CPUCH Article 2(8).

  172. 172.

    CPUCH Article 12(7).

  173. 173.

    CPUCH Article 10(7).

  174. 174.

    CPUCH Article 7(3).

  175. 175.

    CPUCH Article 7(3).

  176. 176.

    Papa Sokal (2005).

  177. 177.

    Boesten (2002), p. 148.

  178. 178.

    Boesten (2002), pp. 142–143 (referring to UNESCO Final Report, 1999, CLT-99/CONF.204).

  179. 179.

    Boesten (2002), p. 142.

  180. 180.

    Boesten (2002), p. 142.

  181. 181.

    Boesten (2002), p. 142.

  182. 182.

    CPUCH Article 7(3).

  183. 183.

    Scovazzi (2012), p. 277.

  184. 184.

    See Oxman (2006), p. 840 (deeming that such move facilitates “further territorialization” of the law of the sea).

  185. 185.

    Stanford (1986), p. 7.

  186. 186.

    Henckaerts (2005), p. 208.

  187. 187.

    First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (GC I); Second Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Conditions of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (GC II); Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 (GC III); Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (GC IV).

  188. 188.

    Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict, 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (AP I).

  189. 189.

    For an exhaustive overview, see Petrig (2009).

  190. 190.

    Petrig (2009), p. 350.

  191. 191.

    GC I, Article 15; GC II, Article 18(1); GC IV, Article 16(2).

  192. 192.

    GC I, Article 17(3); GC III, Article 120(4); GC IV, Article 130(1).

  193. 193.

    Vadi (2013).

  194. 194.

    United States v. Steinmetz, 973 F. 2d 212, 222 (3d Cir. 1992).

  195. 195.

    158 UNTS 431, Art. 5.

  196. 196.

    Shipwreck Salvage Work on British Warships Condemned, BBC News, 11 October 2011.

  197. 197.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel and the Kingdom of Spain, Case No. 8:07-CV-614-SDM-MAP, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida Tampa Division, Statement of Interest and Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Kingdom of Spain, 29 September 2009, p. 1.

  198. 198.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel and the Kingdom of Spain, Case No. 8:07-CV-614-SDM-MAP, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida Tampa Division, Statement of Interest and Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Kingdom of Spain, 29 September 2009, p. 1.

  199. 199.

    Roach and Smith (1996), p. 473; Aznar-Gómez (2010), p. 223.

  200. 200.

    Bedermann (2000), p. 100.

  201. 201.

    Garabello (2004), p. 173.

  202. 202.

    Bedermann (2006), p. 663.

  203. 203.

    For an overview, see Vadi (2013), p. 372. See also Dromgoole (2003), p. 74.

  204. 204.

    See Momtaz (2007), pp. 458ff.; Aznar-Gómez (2010), p. 219.

  205. 205.

    Oxman (1987–1988), p. 355.

  206. 206.

    CPUCH, Art. 7(3).

  207. 207.

    See CPUCH, Article 2(8) and Article 3.

  208. 208.

    Lund (2006), p. 18.

  209. 209.

    See CPUCH, Article 2(9).

  210. 210.

    Prott and O’Keefe (1992), pp. 310–311.

  211. 211.

    CPUCH, preamble.

  212. 212.

    UNCLOS Article 149.

  213. 213.

    See CPUCH, Annex, Rule 7.

  214. 214.

    See e.g. Altmann v. Austria (C.D. Cal. 2001), (9th Cir. 2002), aff’d 541 U.S. 677 (2004); Agudas Chasidei Chabad v. Russia (D.D.C. 2006), (D.C. Cir 2008, 13 June 2008); Cassirer v. Spain C.D. Cal. 2006, 9th Cir. 2010, 12 August 2010, pending petition for writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court.

  215. 215.

    UNCLOS, Article 303(1).

  216. 216.

    O’Keefe (2006), p. 90.

  217. 217.

    The Constitution of UNESCO, signed on 16 November 1945, in force 4 November 1946, 4 UNTS 275 (1945), preamble.

  218. 218.

    See Article 19 of the CPUCH and Rule 8 of the Annex.

  219. 219.

    CPUCH, preamble.

  220. 220.

    Risvas (2013).

  221. 221.

    See Article 303(4) of the UNCLOS, and Article 6(1), first sentence, of CPUCH.

  222. 222.

    UNESCO Constitution, preamble.

  223. 223.

    Parthesius et al. (2005), p. 211.

  224. 224.

    See generally Vadi (2009, 2013).

  225. 225.

    Dromgoole (2004), pp. 189–190.

  226. 226.

    Dromgoole (2004), p. 190.

  227. 227.

    Dromgoole (2004), p. 191.

  228. 228.

    Henn (2011–2012), p. 192.

  229. 229.

    Forrest (2003b), pp. 321–322.

  230. 230.

    Booth (2006), p. 297.

  231. 231.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Order of the District Judge, p. 32.

  232. 232.

    Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Order of the District Judge, p. 4.

  233. 233.

    Claesson (2011), p. 63.

  234. 234.

    Neyland (2011).

References

  • Aznar M (2004) Book review of Eke Boesten, archaeological and/or historic shipwrecks in international waters. Public international law and what it offers. Eur J Int Law 15(3):603–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aznar-Gómez MJ (2008) La definición del patrimonio cultural subacuático en la Convención UNESCO de 2001. PH Boletín del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico 67:100–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Aznar-Gómez M (2010) Treasure hunters, sunken state vessels and the 2001 UNESCO convention on the protection of underwater cultural heritage. Int J Mar Coastal Law 25(2):209–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedermann DJ (2000) Rethinking the legal status of sunken warships. Ocean Dev Int Law 31(1):97–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedermann DJ (2006) Congress enacts increased protections for sunken military craft. Am J Int Law 100(3):649–663

    Google Scholar 

  • Boesten E (2002) Archaeological and/or historic valuable shipwrecks in international waters. Public international law and what it offers. TMC Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Booth F (2006) The collision of property rights and cultural heritage; the salvors’ and insurers’ viewpoints. In: Hoffman B (ed) Art and cultural heritage, law, policy and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 293–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Bou Franch V, Aznar-Gómez MJ (2004) Spanish practice on ancient sunken warships and other state vessels. In: Scovazzi T (ed) La protezione del patrimonio culturale sottomarino del Mediterraneo. Giuffré, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Brus MMTA (2011) No functional immunity of state officials for international crimes: a principled choice with pragmatic restrictions. In: van Hoek AAH et al (eds) Mededelingen van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht – Making choices in public and private international immunity law. T.M.C. Asser Press, Den Haag, p 37. ISBN: 9789067043397, 9067043397

    Google Scholar 

  • Caflisch L (1982) Submarine antiquities and the international law of the sea. Netherlands Yearbook Int Law 13:3–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claesson S (2011) The value and valuation of maritime cultural heritage. Int J Cult Property 18:61–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curfman D (2008) Thar be treasure here: rights to ancient shipwrecks in international waters. Wash Univ Law Rev 86:181–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Dromgoole S (2003) 2001 UNESCO convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. Int J Mar Coastal Law 18(1):59–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Dromgoole S (2004) Murky waters for government policy: the case of a 17th century British warship and 10 tonnes of gold coins. Mar Policy 28:189–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dromgoole S (2012) Reflections on the position of the major maritime powers with respect to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage 2011. Mar Policy 38:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferri N (2012) The right to recovered underwater cultural heritage: the neglected importance of article 149 of the UN Law of the Sea Convention. In: Borelli S, Lenzerini F (eds) Cultural heritage, cultural rights cultural diversity. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 253–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrest CJ (2002) Defining ‘Underwater Cultural Heritage’. Int J Nautical Archaeology 31(3):3–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrest C (2003a) An international perspective on sunken state vessels as underwater cultural heritage. Ocean Dev Int Law 34:41–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrest C (2003b) Has the application of salvage law to underwater cultural heritage become a thing of the past? J Marit Law Commerce 34(2):309–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrest C (2010) International law and the protection of cultural heritage. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Francioni F (2008) Culture, heritage and human rights: an introduction. In: Francioni F, Scheinin M (eds) Cultural human rights. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 1–15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Garabello R (2004) Sunken warships in the Mediterranean. Reflections on some relevant examples in state practice relating to the Mediterranean sea. In: Scovazzi T (ed) La protezione del patrimonio culturale sottomarino nel mare mediterraneo. Giuffré, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Garabello R, Scovazzi T (eds) (2003) The protection of the underwater cultural heritage: before and after the 2001 UNESCO convention. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Guérin U (2012) The 2001 UNESCO convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage: references and guidelines for interventions on submerged archaeological sites. In: Henderson J (ed) Beyond boundaries: Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Underwater Archaeology. Römisch-Germanische Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Roman-Germanic Commission of the German Archaeological Institutes) Rudolf Habelt, Bonn, pp 3–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris JR (2001) The protection of sunken warships as gravesites at sea. Ocean Coastal Law J 7:75–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Henckaerts J-M (2005) Study on customary international humanitarian law. Int Rev Red Cross 87:175–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henn C (2011–2012) The trouble with treasure. Historic shipwrecks discovered in international waters. Univ Miami Int Comp Law Rev 19:141–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh TTB (1982) A constitution for the oceans – remarks by President of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/koh_english.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2013

  • Koshtial U (2008) The 2011 UNESCO convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage: advantages and challenges. Museum Int 60(4):63–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski W (2012) World War II wrecks in Polish waters: current problems of legal protection. In: Henderson J (ed) Beyond boundaries: Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Underwater Archaeology. Römisch-Germanische Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Roman-Germanic Commission of the German Archaeological Institutes) Rudolf Habelt, Bonn, pp 89–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht H (1955) Lassa Oppenheim’s international law: a treatise. Longmans & Green Co., London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lund C (2006) The making of the 2001 UNESCO convention. In: Prott L (ed) Finishing the interrupted voyage. UNESCO and Institute of Art Law, Leicester, pp 14–19

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald S (2009) Difficult heritage. Negotiating the Nazi past in Nuremberg and beyond. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Migliorino L (1985) The recovery of sunken warships in international law. In: Vakas B (ed) Essays on the new law of the sea. Kratis, Zagreb

    Google Scholar 

  • Momtaz D (2007) La Convention sur la protection du patrimoine culturel subaquatique. In: Ndiaye TM, Wolfrum R, Kojima CAE (eds) Law of the sea, environmental law, and settlement of disputes. Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy SD (2003) U.S.–France Agreement regarding the sunken vessel La Belle. Am J Int Law 97(3):688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nafziger J (2006) The development of international cultural law, American Society of International Law. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting 100:317–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Nasaw D (2009) US and France battle for rights over shipwreck found in Lake Michigan. Guardian, 16 February

    Google Scholar 

  • Neyland RS (2011) Underwater archaeology of the world wars. In: Ford B, Hamilton DL, Catsambis A (eds) Oxford handbook of maritime archaeology. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngantcha F (1990) The right of innocent passage and the evolution of the international law of the sea: the current regime of ‘free’ navigation in coastal waters of third states. Pinter, London

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe PJ (2002) Fourth meeting of governmental experts to consider the draft convention on the protection of underwater cultural heritage. Int J Cult Property 11:168

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe P (2006) Protection and international collaboration: the legal framework of the UNESCO Convention 2001. In: Prott L (ed) Finishing the interrupted voyage. UNESCO and Institute of Art and Law, Leicester, pp 90–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxman BH (1983–1984) The regime of warships under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Vanderbilt J Int Law 24:809

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxman BH (1987–1988) Marine archaeology and the international law of the sea. Columbia VLA J Law Arts 12:353–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxman BH (2006) The territorial temptation: a siren song at sea. Am J Int Law 100:830–851

    Google Scholar 

  • Papa Sokal M (2005) International law for the protection of underwater cultural heritage: can our past be salvaged? Cult Without Context 16

    Google Scholar 

  • Parthesius R (2010) Dutch ships in tropical waters – the development of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) shipping network in Asia (1595–1660). Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parthesius R, Millar K, Jeffery B (2005) Preliminary report on the excavation of the 17th century Anglo-Dutch East-Indiaman Avondster in Bay of Galle, Sri Lanka (2005). Int J Nautical Archaeology 34:211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrig A (2009) The war dead and their gravesites. Int Rev Red Cross 91(874):341–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prott L (2006) The need for ratification: urgency and uniformity. In: Prott L (ed) Finishing the interrupted voyage. UNESCO and Institute of Art Law, Leicester

    Google Scholar 

  • Prott LV, O’Keefe PJ (1992) “Cultural Heritage” or “Cultural Property”? Int J Cult Property 1:307–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Riphagen W (1975) Some reflections on functional sovereignty. Netherlands Yearbook Int Law 6:121–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risvas M (2013) Multilateral and bilateral approaches in the protection of underwater cultural heritage. In: Vadi V, Schneider H (eds) Art and heritage disputes. Transnational dispute management

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach JA (1996) Sunken warships and military aircrafts. Mar Policy 20:351–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roach JA, Smith RW (1996) United States responses to excessive maritime claims. Naval War College, Newport

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose FD (1989) Restitution to the rescuer. Oxf J Legal Stud 9:167–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roucounas E (1987) Sub-marine archaeological research: some legal aspects. In: Leanza U (ed) Il regime giuridico internazionale del mare mediterraneo. Giuffré, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenbaum TJ (2009) Admiralty and maritime law. West, St. Paul

    Google Scholar 

  • Scovazzi T (2006) Les épaves de navires d’état. Annuaire Français de Droit International 52:400–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scovazzi T (2007) The 2001 UNESCO convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. In: Nafziger JAR, Nicgorski AM (eds) Cultural heritage issues: the legacy of conquest, colonization, and commerce. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Scovazzi T (2012) The merits of the UNESCO convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. In: Borelli S, Lenzerini F (eds) Cultural heritage, cultural rights, cultural diversity. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 267–278

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (2008) International law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair JM (1980) The law of state immunity, recent developments. Recueil des Cours de l’Academie de Droit International 167:113–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanford P (1986) Nautical archaeology: the real treasure. Sea History 39(1):7

    Google Scholar 

  • Strati A (1991) Deep seabed cultural property and the common heritage of mankind. Inter Comp Law Q 40(4):859–894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strati A (1995) The protection of the underwater cultural heritage: an emerging objective of the law of the sea. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Vadi V (2009) Investing in culture: underwater cultural heritage and international investment law. Vanderbilt J Transnational Law 42:853–904

    Google Scholar 

  • Vadi V (2010) International law and the uncertain fate of sunken military vessels. Italian Yearbook Int Law XIX:253–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Vadi V (2013) War, memory and culture: the uncertain legal status of historic sunken warships under international law. Tulane Marit Law J 37(2):333–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Verma SK (2004) An introduction to public international law. Prentice Hall, Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Vierucci L (2000) Le statut juridique de navires de guerre ayant coulé dans les eaux étrangères: le cas des frégates espagnoles Juno et Galga retrouvées au large des côtes des Etats-Unis. Revue Générale de Droit International Public 705–725

    Google Scholar 

  • Vigni P (2012) Historic shipwrecks and the limits of the flag state exclusive rights. In: Borelli S, Lenzerini F (eds) Cultural heritage, cultural rights, cultural diversity. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 279–300

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vrdoljak AF (2006) International law, museums and the return of cultural objects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker JE (1999–2000) A contemporary standard for determining title to sunken warships: a tale of two vessels and two nations. Univ San Francisco Marit Law J 12:311–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeates JW (1999–2000) Clearing up the confusion: a strict standard of abandonment for sunken public vessels. Univ San Francisco Marit Law J 12:359–388

    Google Scholar 

Cases

  • Altmann v. Austria (C.D. Cal. 2001), (9th Cir. 2002), aff’d 541 U.S. 677 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • Agudas Chasidei Chabad v. Russia (D.D.C. 2006), (D.C. Cir 2008, 13 June 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Baltimore, Crisfield & Onancock Line Inc. v. United States, 140 F.2d at 230 (4th Cir. 1944)

    Google Scholar 

  • The Blackwall, 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 1, 14 (1869)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassirer v. Spain C.D. Cal. 2006, 9th Cir. 2010, 12 August 2010, pending petition for writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatteras v. U.S.S. Hatteras, 1984 AMC 1094 (S.D. Tx 1981) at 1098

    Google Scholar 

  • Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Case No. 8:07-cv-614-T-23MAP, Order of the District Judge, 22 December 2009. All the legal documents referring to this case may be found at http://www.justia.com

  • Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. v Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-1067.htm Accessed on 16 July 2013

  • Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Case No. 8:07-CV-614-SDm-MAP, Claimant Kingdom of Spain’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment, 22 September 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, United States Court of Appeals, D. C. Docket No. 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP, 21 September 2011, available at http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201010269.pdf

  • Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel and the Kingdom of Spain, Case No. 8:07-CV-614-SDM-MAP, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida Tampa Division, Statement of Interest and Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Kingdom of Spain, 29 September 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Case No. 8:07-cv-614-T-23MAP, The Republic of Peru’s Response to the Kingdom of Spain’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment, 17 November 2008, (Peru’s Response).

    Google Scholar 

  • Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 128 S. Ct. 2180, 2189–90 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sea Hunt, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, 47 F. Supp. 2nd, pp. 688

    Google Scholar 

  • Sea Hunt, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, 221 F.3rd, p. 634 ff. (4th Cir. 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • The Schooner Exchange v. Mc Faddon, 11 US 116 (1812), AJIL, 1909, p. 227 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 569 F.2d 330, 337 (5th Cir.1978)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker v. Alexandroff, 183 US 424 (1902)

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Steinmetz, 973 F. 2d 212, 222 (3d Cir. 1992)

    Google Scholar 

Legal Instruments

  • Brussels Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules with Respect to Assistance and Salvage at Sea, adopted on 23 September 1910, in force on 1 March 1913. UKTS 4 (1913), Cd. 6677

    Google Scholar 

  • Constitution of UNESCO, signed on 16 November 1945, in force on 4 November 1946, 4 UNTS 275 (1945)

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, November 21, 1972, 1037 UNTS 151, 11 ILM 1358

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, adopted on 2 November 2001, in force on 2 January 2009. ILM 2002 40 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Exchange of Notes Constituting an Agreement Between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Italy regarding the Salvage of the H.M.S. Spartan, 6 November 1952, 158 UNTS 432

    Google Scholar 

  • First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (GC I)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (GC IV)

    Google Scholar 

  • International Convention on Salvage, London, adopted on 28 April 1989, in force on 14 July 1996. UKTS 1996 No. 93

    Google Scholar 

  • Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict, 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (AP I)

    Google Scholar 

  • Second Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Conditions of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (GC II)

    Google Scholar 

  • Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 (GC III)

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, 3 June 2004, 44 ILM 803 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature 10 December 1982, in force 16 November 1994. 1833 UNTS 397, 21 ILM 1261 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New York University, New York, NY, 10012, USA

    Valentina Vadi

Authors
  1. Valentina Vadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valentina Vadi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands

    Valentina Vadi

  2. Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands

    Hildegard E. G. S. Schneider

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vadi, V. (2014). Underwater Cultural Heritage and the Market: The Uncertain Destiny of Historic Sunken Warships Under International Law. In: Vadi, V., Schneider, H. (eds) Art, Cultural Heritage and the Market. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45094-5_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation