Mohammad Razavirad; Janet Blake
Abstract
The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea has devoted one of its provisions to protect the underwater cultural heritage in the contiguous zone. Article 303(2), contains a legal presumption in favor of the coastal state on removing the cultural heritage from the bed of contiguous zone. The relation of ...
Read More
The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea has devoted one of its provisions to protect the underwater cultural heritage in the contiguous zone. Article 303(2), contains a legal presumption in favor of the coastal state on removing the cultural heritage from the bed of contiguous zone. The relation of this article with article 33 has led to ambiguities and various interpretations on the legal nature of coastal state’s jurisdiction over this maritime zone. Some authors have spoken about the limited jurisdiction of the coastal state and some others on its broader jurisdiction over "objects of archaeological and historical nature" on the bed of Contiguous Zone. In the meantime, some put forward the theory of "24-mile archaeological zone" and pose some arguments to defend it. Article 8 of the 2001 UNESCO’s Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, albeit with a lot of complexity and ambiguity, does not seem to support broad jurisdiction or the theory of a "24-mile archaeological zone".
Mohammad Razavirad; Janet Blake
Abstract
In the field of commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage, the goal of commercial operators is to maximize profits with minimal cost and time, which is in conflict with archaeological principles requiring large investments and spending so much time. Today, due to the variety of commercial ...
Read More
In the field of commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage, the goal of commercial operators is to maximize profits with minimal cost and time, which is in conflict with archaeological principles requiring large investments and spending so much time. Today, due to the variety of commercial exploitation methods (which are no longer restricted to the sale of archaeological and historical objects), compromise between the goals of commercial operators and archaeologists is not unlikely. International documents have also adopted their own approach, some explicitly prohibiting any commercial exploitation of this heritage, and others implicitly prescribing it. The key question is raised on approach of the "UNESCO’s 2001 Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage". A detailed analysis of the provisions of the Convention indicates that it has almost prohibited the sale of archaeological and historical objects by adopting a retrogressive approach. The Convention's approach could have been more progressive in this field, in line with practical requirements, including the financing of future archeological projects.
