VOC,
I dont see that there is a whole lot of agreement, and most countries are very restrictive in their waters. There is UNESCO, and UNCLOS, which many countries have ratified, and more will likely ratify, if not follow the principles. Spain and many other countries such as the US, UK, Russia, and others, have categorically stated that their State vessels are off limits worldwide. The pale argument of non-commercial cargo is simply a tool that a country can use to enforce rules on other State owned vessels in their waters, as with States such as China, and Russia, container ships are State owned, and are not necessarily afforded sovereign immunity from Admiralty Claims.
The US Court was very distinct in its ruling and explanation. The shipwreck was allegedly found in international waters, and the Court defined In Res, and In Rem parameters very well.
The Court detailed that they have jurisdiction on items brought directly to the Court for disposition, albeit under the Law of Finds, which is an Admiralty function. The Court also described its jurisdiction in International Waters. The Court went on to describe that an Admiralty Arrest in International Waters is virtually worthless, and as an example, noted there was nothing to stop another salvor from recovering on the wreck. The Court would have jurisdiction if the recovery was brought into US jurisdiction, or perhaps a US based company, but if not, there was little remedy.
The system is not corrupt, and as I have tried to explain all along, Law of Finds, Law of the Sea, and Admiralty Arrests are misapplied to shipwrecks and have relied on vague interpretations in the past, and in large were successful because they were never really challenged. The RMS Titanic was the first real test, and in part, was successful as written because the parties agreed, but we can see how the salvors are severely restricted.
Now, with the Mercedes, there is case law on the jurisdictional and interpretation, that have been tested to the US Supreme Court, that will likely flavor shipwreck salvage.
In regards to the Admiralty Arrest of the Mercedes, I find the filing somewhat unusual on many issues. With any wreck found, isnt the primary goal of the salvor to ascertain the identification of the wreck, if nothing else, to see the potential ownership issues? Yet Odyssey spent weeks recovering the silver and gold, but did not recover a single cannon which would certainly have helped in identification. Werent there numerous articles, many of which were cited by Spain, where Odyssey made claims of the identity? Secrets of the Deep
The timing was way off as well, Odyssey argued for years to recover the Sussex, then very soon after permission was given by Spain, Odyssey showed up in the American Courts with 500,000 coins, granted, we all know NOW, it was from a different wreck, but at that time, many thought it was either the Sussex or the Merchant Royal, remember that whole fiasco?
Bederman was Council and had argued the Titanic caselaw, so he would have known the issues of the value of an arrest in international waters. One has to remember, that during that timeframe, Odyssey filed numerous Admiralty Arrests, many of them on known sovereign or State owned vessels.
A series of decisions by Odyssey certainly did not appear to help their cause.
Unfortunately, the consensus of Countries, in regards to UCH, has created the UNESCO accords, which offer little hope to shipwreck salvage. It will be some time, and careful negotiation, before the pendulum settles back down to common sense and reality.
I dont see that there is a whole lot of agreement, and most countries are very restrictive in their waters. There is UNESCO, and UNCLOS, which many countries have ratified, and more will likely ratify, if not follow the principles. Spain and many other countries such as the US, UK, Russia, and others, have categorically stated that their State vessels are off limits worldwide. The pale argument of non-commercial cargo is simply a tool that a country can use to enforce rules on other State owned vessels in their waters, as with States such as China, and Russia, container ships are State owned, and are not necessarily afforded sovereign immunity from Admiralty Claims.
The US Court was very distinct in its ruling and explanation. The shipwreck was allegedly found in international waters, and the Court defined In Res, and In Rem parameters very well.
The Court detailed that they have jurisdiction on items brought directly to the Court for disposition, albeit under the Law of Finds, which is an Admiralty function. The Court also described its jurisdiction in International Waters. The Court went on to describe that an Admiralty Arrest in International Waters is virtually worthless, and as an example, noted there was nothing to stop another salvor from recovering on the wreck. The Court would have jurisdiction if the recovery was brought into US jurisdiction, or perhaps a US based company, but if not, there was little remedy.
The system is not corrupt, and as I have tried to explain all along, Law of Finds, Law of the Sea, and Admiralty Arrests are misapplied to shipwrecks and have relied on vague interpretations in the past, and in large were successful because they were never really challenged. The RMS Titanic was the first real test, and in part, was successful as written because the parties agreed, but we can see how the salvors are severely restricted.
Now, with the Mercedes, there is case law on the jurisdictional and interpretation, that have been tested to the US Supreme Court, that will likely flavor shipwreck salvage.
In regards to the Admiralty Arrest of the Mercedes, I find the filing somewhat unusual on many issues. With any wreck found, isnt the primary goal of the salvor to ascertain the identification of the wreck, if nothing else, to see the potential ownership issues? Yet Odyssey spent weeks recovering the silver and gold, but did not recover a single cannon which would certainly have helped in identification. Werent there numerous articles, many of which were cited by Spain, where Odyssey made claims of the identity? Secrets of the Deep
Bederman was Council and had argued the Titanic caselaw, so he would have known the issues of the value of an arrest in international waters. One has to remember, that during that timeframe, Odyssey filed numerous Admiralty Arrests, many of them on known sovereign or State owned vessels.
A series of decisions by Odyssey certainly did not appear to help their cause.
Unfortunately, the consensus of Countries, in regards to UCH, has created the UNESCO accords, which offer little hope to shipwreck salvage. It will be some time, and careful negotiation, before the pendulum settles back down to common sense and reality.
Last edited:
