permit for beyond 3 miles out?

Thanks, Don. No offense taken at all - I was just trying to clarify the question again. Like you and Steve have pointed out, there's no clear cut answer within the 12 mile mark. It will primarily be determined by the level of interest by the gov't to protect or govern "their" wreck. However, I would hope that beyond the 12 mile mark, the answer would be clearer. My hope is that between 12-200 miles, the feds can only govern smuggling, fishing, oil and other natural resources, but not shipwrecks. That's how I read the law now. I can only pray that no new laws will be passed in my lifetime to change that :)

Godspeed!
Darren
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!
Darren,

I know you and I have discussed this several times, but I wanted to add my opinion as well. You posted your answer before I could get this done, but your last statement is correct. From what I understand, federal submerged cultural resources are only enforced to the 12 mile limit, and beyond this it is considered international waters. But that does not keep the governments of the world from extending their grasp and trying to hamper effort. Here is an article on the Titanic that is fairly interesting.

www.archaeology.org/0101/etc/titanic2.html]Titanic in the Courts[/url]


Robert in SC
 

Darren,

There is no doubt that since the Clinton proclamation of 1999, Federal Jurisdiction extends to the edge of the new Contiguous Zone at 24 nm. Read the preamble to the proclamation, which talks about the intent of the extension. This includes the increased protection of underwater cultural resources. The place to go to obtain permits for a wreck at the offshore distances you describe is a Federal Court. In some cases there are Federal reserves which might involve additional regulations, but the Court will adjudicate on those issues, based on federal regulations and international treaties. In general, it appears that Florida district Federal courts are more well disposed towards private recovery operations than some other districts. I am sure a well informed maritime attorney, and there are quite a few, will confirm these opinions to be the case.

You can find the Clinton proclamation on line. If you have any difficulties, I can dig up a link, or send you copies of the text.

Good luck.

Mariner
 

Brad,

The link you provide gives the wording of the proclamation, but not the complete package, which includes a statement of the Executive purpose of the proclamation and a summary statement.

The summary includes the following words:
"The proclamation, aimed at protecting the nation's coasts from pollution, drugs and illegal immigration, doubles the area in which the Coast Guard and other federal authorities may board foreign vessels, advancing certain law enforcement and public health interests of the United States, as well as preventing the removal of cultural heritage found within 24 nautical miles of the US coast."

Although the congressional report to which you also provide a link does state that the full extent of US authority in the Contiguous Zone is a matter of some debate, because the US has power to implement certain laws but does not have sovereignty in the contiguous zone, I think the summary attached to the Presidential proclamation makes it clear which laws it is intended to enable, and that does include the management of underwater cultural heritage.

I will try to find the internet site from which I downloaded the proclamation and associated pages, and post the link, but meanwhile I am 100% certain that the contiguous zone has to be treated as US waters when it comes to shipwrecks. So the advice to Darren is, as I said earlier in this thread, to approach a Federal District court.

Best wishes,

Mariner
 

Thanks, Mariner, for your research and time in explaining this. Fortunately my projects are further out than the 24 miles, but if I pursue one that is within the 24 miles, I'll keep this in mind. It would be interesting to know if there's been any precedent set forth in court on this so far.

Godspeed!
Darren
 

To my knowledge, no nation has ever claimed jurisdiction over a shipwreck in their Contiguous or EEZ Zones. The Law of the Sea Convention (1982) says nothing about cultural heritage.


Section 4.

CONTIGUOUS ZONE
Article 33
Contiguous zone
1. In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to:

(a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea;

(b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea.

2. The contiguous zone may riot extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

http://www.globelaw.com/LawSea/ls82_1.htm
 

Jeff,

But the most recent UNESCO Convention on Underwater Cultural Heritage does,and the term has been widely adopted.

Mariner
 

Mariner... It looks like UNESCO is dead in the water. Only five countries have signed it, and twenty are needed for ratification. I'm not holding my breath. :)
 

Jeff,

Neither am I, but that convention is a sign of the way things are moving, and it is worth noting that Spain is one of the five who have ratified it.

Mariner
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Atocha possibility....

⬅️ Previous Thread

British Man of War - Acteon

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Steve's Detector Rods

Latest Discussions

Back
Top