UNESCO’s Convention on the protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, five years on.

1

UNESCO’s convention of 2001, ratified in 2009, is intended to protect, conserve and preserve international Underwater Cultural Heritage. This report will examine the convention’s intentions, how well it has succeeded with them and any flaws within the convention.

Matthew Callen January 2014

201885! Policy Review

I

1 Divescover, “Wrecks of the Red Sea I - Gulf of Aqaba”, http://divescover.com/blog/wrecks-of-red-sea-aqaba/, Accessed 9th January 2014

Contents:

Title: I

Contents: II

Introduction: III

Balancing Preservation with Access: IV - VI

Maintenance of Sovereign Status and Immunity: VII - VIII

Prevention of Commercial Exploitation: IX - X

Recommendations: XI

Conclusion: XII

Bibliography: XIII - XV

201885! Policy Review

II

Introduction:

1. The 20th century saw an increased threat to the worlds Underwater Cultural Heritage (hereafter referred to as UCH) from the development of Scuba equipment and the increase in easy access to UCH for untrained tourists using Scuba equipment.2

2. The UN’s “Law of the Sea” (UNCLOS), ratified in 1970, briefly passed over UCH in two brief articles (Article 149 and Article 303). It was felt by the international community that more protection was necessary for the 3 million estimated shipwrecks and countless other sites beneath the water3.

3. Hence in 2001 the “Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage” was drawn up. Ratified in 2009, the convention was intended to protect all UCH. Its main focus, and the areas assessed within this report, are:

! - Balancing Preservation with Access ! - Protecting individual states sovereign rights to their UCH! - Prevention of Commercial Exploitation

4. This report shall focus on the convention’s intentions, how they intended to enact their intentions and how successful they have been in doing so.

! 1. The direct success is in protecting and conserving UCH sites, both in Territorial waters ! and the High seas, as well as in sanctioning individuals and companies which have defied ! the convention. !! 2. Indirect success shall also be examined: the influence the convention has had upon ! states’ own legislation, international admiralty or maritime court cases and in increasing ! knowledge and awareness of UCH.

201885! Policy Review

III

2 M. Secci, “Protection Versus Public Access: Two Concepts Compared within the Italian Underwater Cultural Heritage Management System”, Journal of Marine Archaeology, Issue 6, 2011 Pages 113-128 Page 1133 UNESCO, “Wrecks”, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/the-underwater-heritage/wrecks/, Accessed on: 13th January 2014

Balancing Preservation with Access:

1.Several clauses within the convention focus on the balance between access and preservation. Preservation is focussed upon in situ preservation. The conventions main aims are to ensure that UCH shall be maintained within its underwater setting as a first recourse. Failing this long term preservation above water is the accepted alternative. Furthermore the convention supports non-intrusive public access.

2. In situ preservation is suggested as a first response to a UCH for several reasons.

! 1. Preservation in situ extends to protecting wrecks from damage by excavators whilst ! removing archaeologically significant objects.4 ! ! ! a. Thus careful excavations of UCH are encouraged rather than rougher ! ! ! methods which may be employed.!! 2. The context of sites are often a crucial aspect of how they are perceived and ! understood. In situ preservation allows UCH to be seen within its own environment5 and ! brings a better understanding of the site.

! 3. In situ preservation and protection is thus extended to the area around UCH. As the ! context is part of the UCH even disturbing the area around a site can be considered ! intrusive access. ! ! ! a. This allows better protection of UCH from being scouted before a salvage ! ! ! operation as well as being plundered6. ! !! 4. In the future we will have increasingly advanced archaeological methods. These superior ! methods will allow future archaeologists to discover more than we currently can.7 This is a ! common occurrence in archaeology, known as CRM “Cultural Resource Management”.8! ! ! a. The preservation in situ of UCH (especially wrecks) will also slow ! ! ! deterioration which will be extremely rapid when wrecks are exposed to light, ! ! ! air and certain chemicals again.9

! 5. The preservation in situ does protect the sanctity of human remains aboard wrecks, ! whether war graves or civilian remains.

3. There have been limited examples of in situ preservation. !! 1. Two of the most famous UCH sites are both conserved on land (The Mary Rose and ! The Vana) and it seems that particularly culturally valuable or well preserved wrecks tend to ! be conserved on land. !

201885! Policy Review

IV

4 T.J. Maarleveld, “How and Why Will Underwater Cultural Heritage Benefit from the 2001 Convention”, Museum International, No. 240 (Vol. 60: No. 4) Page 545 T.J. Maarleveld, “How and Why Will Underwater Cultural Heritage Benefit from the 2001 Convention”, Museum International, No. 240 (Vol. 60: No. 4) Page 566 T. Lambert-Law de Lauriston, “Underwater Cultural Heritage”, Accessed via: https://www.academia.edu/4792309/Underwater_Cultural_Heritage, On: 30th December 2013 Page 87M.P. Sokal “International Law for the Protection of the underwater cultural heritage: can our past be salvaged?”, 2005, http://www2.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/projects/iarc/culturewithoutcontext/issue16/papa-sokal.htm, Accessed on: 8th January 20148 http://history-world.org/archeology.htm, Accessed on: 6th Jan 20149 S. Khakzad & K. Van Balen “Complications and Effectiveness of In Situ Preservation Methods for Underwater Cultural Heritage Sites”, Conservation and Management of Archaeological sites,Vol. 14 No.s 1–4, 2012, Page 471

! 2. Some states do preserve wrecks in situ. Turkey has placed restrictions on diving, ! snorkelling and swimming near wrecks, whilst Croatia has covered some UCH in large ! cages to protect them from looting, fishing and anchorage10.

! 3. Reburial is often the easiest and cheapest way to preserve a site in situ for future ! excavation11.

! 4. Other sites have worked in situ preservation with public access by planning and building ! “Underwater Museums”, the best known being the Alexandria Underwater Museum ! project12.

4. However in situ preservation is not necessarily always the best option. It poses an apparent conflict between preserving the site, improving public understanding and leaving the site under water, which must be considered. Major issues include:

! 1. Inaccessible sites will not be dived, reducing public access. Furthermore, such a clause ! is extremely restrictive to access for members of the public who cannot dive or cannot ! afford to dive. ! ! ! a. The problem of protection of the context as well as the UCH is a further ! ! ! restriction on diving for the public; the fear of accidental law breaking will ! ! ! keep people away.

b. There is potential for hazards and dangers, for instance toxic substances or ammunition, to be on wrecks, which can make public access impossible.! ! !

c. This supports the case for above water conservation to allow increased public access13.

! 2. Sea currents pose a threat to fragile UCH. The strength of undersea currents as well as ! natural disasters such as storms and earthquakes can damage UCH and scatter artifacts ! and remains.! ! ! a. Thus, preserving in situ is not only more expensive and awkward but also ! ! ! far more likely to be unsuccessful.

! 3. Leaving sites in situ means running the increased risk of looting or human damages. ! Short of policing a site 24/7, items from the site will be far safer above water in museums. ! ! ! a. Consultaton with dredgers and fishers can protect sites from ! ! ! non-malicious human damage,14 for instance by ensuring that known ! ! ! wrecks are excavated and removed if any activity is planned for the area.

! 4. Many states establish a period of 200 years from the loss of a vessel as being the period ! during which it is an offence to disturb or excavate a site. Thus, in situ preservation of older ! warship wrecks is a moral choice rather than a legal obligation.

201885! Policy Review

V

10 S. Khakzad & K. Van Balen “Complications and Effectiveness of In Situ Preservation Methods for Underwater Cultural Heritage Sites”, Conservation and Management of Archaeological sites,Vol. 14 No.s 1–4, 2012, Page 47211 English Heritage, “Preservation In Situ”, http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/advice/advice-by-topic/heritage-science/archaeological-science/preservation-in-situ/ Accessed, 7th January 201412 UNESCO, “The Alexandria Underwater Museum Project”, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/museums-and-tourism/alexandria-museum-project/, Accessed 6th January 201413 T.J. Maarleveld, “How and Why Will Underwater Cultural Heritage Benefit from the 2001 Convention”, Museum International, No. 240 (Vol. 60: No. 4) Page 5514 T.J. Maarleveld, “How and Why Will Underwater Cultural Heritage Benefit from the 2001 Convention”, Museum International, No. 240 (Vol. 60: No. 4) Page 54

5. Therefore, general public access to and in situ preservation of UCH are irreconcilabe aims. The best which can be hoped for is access to sites for only the elite, as the costs (both public and governmental) prevent full public access.

! 1. As such, this report recommends the amendment of Article 2 Clause 5 (see ! Recommendation 1), in order to better allow the preservation of UCH and to increase public ! access in a way which is safe, legal and affordable.

201885! Policy Review

VI

Maintenance of Sovereign Status and Immunity:

1. Another aspect within the convention is that of Sovereign status and immunity, especially of military vessels, and territorial waters. The convention is keen to ensure that it does not impinge upon state rights or jurisdiction, but also keen to maintain UCH and foster international cooperation.

2. A serious problem which has caused several states, including the UK and USA, not to ratify the convention is the problem of the status of wrecked vessels outside territorial waters.

3. The convention specifies in Article 9, Clause 5 that other states may declare an interest in being consulted in the protection of a UCH site, and must then be ‘consulted’.

!! 1. This consultation is particularly vague, could be construed to be very different levels ! of involvement and requires clarification (see Recommendation 2).

4. This issue of sovereign immunity of state vessels is already dealt with by Article 4, Clause 1 of the 1989 “International Convention On Salvage”15, which specifies that:

! 1. All sunken military vessels have sovereign immunity, which does not elapse by passage ! of time. ! ! ! a. This report believes this should be extended to all vessels verifiably ! ! ! belonging to a state (see Recommendation 3).! ! !

! 2. Furthermore; “Unauthorised ‘salvage’ of sunken State vessels is legally precluded, the ! ‘salvor’ is denied any kind of reward, and artifacts removed from the bottom of the sea must ! be returned to the sovereign owner.”16. ! ! ! a.This renders financial loss to the salvage company along with ! ! ! potential court charges. ! ! !! 3. Prior to the convention, courts have supported US claims to wrecks just 30 years after a ! vessel sunk17.

! 4. Since the convention came into existence courts have been far more supportive of ! states’ claims, especially against private salvage companies (See Prevention of ! Commercial Exploitation: 3.3).

5. Another aspect of Sovereign immunity and jurisdiction is the protection of states’ UCH within territorial waters. The convention explicitly states in Article 9, Clause 1,b,i that all vessels must declare any UCH discovered to the state party in whose waters it is found and are forbidden from disturbing or looting such sites.

! 1. The convention has been used to support national laws in the impounding and charging ! of vessels and their masters guilty of not reporting incidences of UCH or disturbing and ! looting such sites.

a. The most recent is The Louisa Case of May 2013. ! ! ! b. Spain was judged to have acted legally in impounding a geographic ! ! ! survey vessel from St. Vincent and the Grenadines which had not

201885! Policy Review

VII

15 International Maritime Organisation, “The International Convention On Salvage”, London, 198916 M.J. Aznar-Gomez, “Treasure Hunters, Sunken State Vessels and the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage”, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 25, (2010) Page 21317 D.J. Bederman, “Rethinking the Legal Status of Sunken Warships”, Ocean Development & International Law, Issue 31, 2000, Page 101

! ! ! surrendered “diverse pieces of archaeological origin” recovered from ! ! ! Spanish waters to the Spanish authorities18.

6. The real success of the convention is in becoming a framework for national law defending UCH within territorial waters.!! 1. This has been the case for Antigua & Barbuda19, the convention also formed the basis ! for Italy’s “Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio” in 201020.!! 2. Other sovereign states have as stringent, or stricter, national laws in place protecting ! UCH, including the UK’s “Protection of Wrecks Act” of 1973, Australia’s “Australian ! Commonwealth Historic Shipwrecks Act” of 1976, and Sweden’s “Lagen om kulturminnen” ! of 198821. !! 3. As such laws are in place to protect UCH in territorial waters and the numbers of states ! passing legislation is growing22. The convention stands as a way of ensuring that all UCH in ! the High Sea is protected (Article 2.7 and Article 18).

7. An emerging aspect of sovereign jurisdiction is the inter-state cooperation to establish how UCH is to be examined, conserved and protected, including: !! 1. The case of the Netherlands and Australia “Concerning Old Dutch Shipwrecks ! Committee”, after Australia took Dutch ships and cargo without permission for exhibition in ! museums, was signed in 1972.

a. It ensures that the cultural claims to finds are established and ensures better cooperation between the states dealing with their UCH23.

b. The Netherlands explicitly surrendered their claim to four Dutch ships off Western Australia, whilst still retaining their position as state of historical origin24.

! 2. The case of the Chinese vessel found off Cambodia in 2007, where Cambodia enlisted ! Chinese archaeologists and divers to recover artifacts and stabilise the wreck damaged by ! Vietnamese fishermen looting the vessel25.! ! ! !8. The balancing of sovereign immunity with cooperation is a difficult issue in a world where

heritage is a serious attraction. The convention addresses this by influencing state laws, encouraging states to communicate effectively and also to cooperate on joint projects to which they have a claim, while protecting the sovereign rights and claims of states.

201885! Policy Review

VIII

18 International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, “The M/V “Louisa” Case”, 2013, via: http://www.itlos.org/index.php?id=147&L=0, Introduction, Section 4819 K. Christian, “Call for residents to prevent theft of underwater treasures”, http://www.antiguaobserver.com/call-for-residents-to-prevent-theft-of-underwater-treasures/, 2013, Accessed on: 6th January 201420 Massimalino, Page 11821 P. Akesson, “Legislation Worldwide”, http://www.abc.se/~pa/uwa/legislat.htm, Accessed 22nd January 201422 U. Guerin & B. Egger “Guaranteeing the Protection of Submerged Archaeological Sites Regardless of their Location: The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage”, Journal of Marine Archaeology, Issue 5, 2010, Page 10223 HM Australian Government, “Ministerial Councils, Boards and Advisory Committees Contents” Vol. 2, Section 1: Attachment E, Page 1324 T. Scovazzi, “The Application of “Salvage Law and Other Rules of Admiralty”, in T. Scovazzi and R. Garabello “The Protection of The Underwater Cultural Heritage: Before and After the 2001 Convention”, Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2003, 1st Edition, Page 2225 C. Sokha & C McDermid, “Ancient Shipwreck in troubled waters”, The Phnom Penh Post, 2007, http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/ancient-shipwreck-troubled-waters , Accessed on: 2nd January 2014

Prevention of Commercial Exploitation:

1. A significant target of the convention was to prevent and control commercial exploitation of UCH. The convention damns commercial salvage as utterly incompatible with its aims. Though technically illegal, there have been attempts to use laws of salvage and finds to justify raiding UCH.

2. Technically UNESCO’s “Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property” (1970) should prevent such commercial exploitation.

! 1.The aforementioned convention establishes a “state cooperation mechanism” to prevent ! growing trade in cultural artifacts26.

! 2. However, UCH is not explicitly mentioned or targeted for protection under this ! convention.

! 3. This report recommends the amendment of the aforementioned convention to explicitly ! include and protect UCH (see Recommendation 4)

3. International and national laws on salvage and finds are complex and do not always agree27. Despite the express distinction between UCH and legal salvage and finds, UCH protection is often dependent on state laws (See Maintanence of Sovereign Immunity:6).

! 1. Since 1961, French law has stated the Law of Finds is not applicable for UCH. !The UK ! and most commonwealth countries have established this principle since the 1970’s and the ! Baltic states since the 1980’s28. !! 2. The aforementioned Netherlands-Australian agreement explicitly states that salvage by ! any individual or party not directed by either state party is “radically incompatible” with the ! agreements basic aim29 .

! 3. An example of a pre-convention salvage case is The Nuestra Senora de Atocha case ! (1971), where a Spanish wreck in American territorial waters was considered to have been ! abandoned and thus the $8 million of artifacts belonged to the salvage company who ! recovered the ship30. !! 4. Since the convention, two extremely similar cases have been The La Galga & Juno case ! (2001) and later The Mercedes case (2007), also recovered from American waters ! (territorial or EEZ):

201885! Policy Review

IX

26 U. Guerin & B. Egger “Guaranteeing the Protection of Submerged Archaeological Sites Regardless of their Location: The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage”, Journal of Marine Archaeology, Issue 5, 2010 Page 98 27 DCMS, “Heritage Protection for the 21st Century: Part 3- ‘Protecting the Marine Historic Environment in the UK’”, London, 2007, Page 4728 G. Carducci, “New Developments in the Law of the Sea: The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 96, No. 2 (April, 2002) Page 42529 T. Scovazzi, “The Application of “Salvage Law and Other Rules of Admiralty”, in T. Scovazzi and R. Garabello “The Protection of The Underwater Cultural Heritage: Before and After the 2001 Convention”, Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2003, 1st Edition, Page 2330 T. Scovazzi, “The Application of “Salvage Law and Other Rules of Admiralty”, in T. Scovazzi and R. Garabello “The Protection of The Underwater Cultural Heritage: Before and After the 2001 Convention”, Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2003, 1st Edition, Page 40

a. All three were Spanish wrecks recovered by treasure hunting company Sea Hunt Inc.

b. The decision was made by US Admiralty courts to declare the salvage operations illegal and the ships and cargo to be the property of the Kingdom of Spain31.

c. This incurred serious expense for Sea Hunt Inc.!! 5. This shows that Salvage operations without state permission will not be upheld by ! Admiralty courts but states may also sue such companies for disturbing UCH sites and ! disturbing war graves32.

4. Test cases of Sovereign states against private salvage companies have been remarked on. The fact that in all of them the State won is indicative of the international perspective of UCH and the belief that nations have a right to their heritage whether it is within their borders or across the world.

201885! Policy Review

X

31 M.J. Aznar-Gomez, “Treasure Hunters, Sunken State Vessels and the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage”, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 25, (2010) Pages 212-21832 M.J. Aznar-Gomez, “Treasure Hunters, Sunken State Vessels and the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage”, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 25, (2010) Page 218

Recommendations:

1. This report suggests the amendment of Clause 5 Article 2 of the Convention. !! 1.The clause should be amended to ensure that all items of historic, archaeological ! or cultural value be removed from UCH to prevent their loss to under sea currents, ! illegal salvaging operations and private looting, loss within the sea bed or potential damage ! by inexperienced divers.

! 2. Such a clause change would bring further positive effects:! ! a. Such an amendment would better fulfill Clause 3 Article 19 of the convention ! ! which encourages public access to UCH. ! ! b.This would allow the items recovered to be conserved and thus their chance of ! ! long-term preservation would increase. The items would further benefit our ! ! understanding of the past due to a larger number of academics having access. ! ! c. This would still allow the wreckage in question to remain on the sea bed and thus ! ! maintain its context and setting.

2. This report supports the establishing the exact role states should have in the excavation of UCH to which they lay claim despite being in another state’s territorial waters.

3. This report supports the extension of sovereign immunity to all known UCH relating to a definite state. This is already the case for warships (under the International Convention on Salvage). Such a change would have a threefold effect:

! 1. Increased international cooperation and communication between states! pertaining to ! UCH and also fostering shared skills and training.

! 2. Increased international support for the convention, as such a change would mean states ! were not risking the lose of UCH outside their territorial waters.

! 3. Increased international pressure applied for states to establish national UCH laws ! which are legally binding. ! ! a. This pressure would come from states who have a claim to a UCH site within ! ! other states’ territorial waters, which would be otherwise unprotected by specific ! ! maritime state law.

! 4. Examples of such interstate cooperation already exist, as previously mentioned the ! Australian-Netherlands agreement is the most known and successful.

4. This report suggests the amendment of the “Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property” (1970) to explicitly forbid trafficking in UCH artifacts to better aid the convention in preventing commercial exploitation of UCH.

201885! Policy Review

XI

Conclusion:

1. As the convention is in no way legally binding and cannot be enforced by UNESCO, it can be accused of lacking the necessary power to enforce the protection of UCH. As such, it relies upon states to institute legally binding measures to protect UCH and prevent exploitation.

2. A facet of the convention is the balance of preservation with access. This can be achieved by recovering certain items which in turn will increase public knowledge and access, whereas leaving all sites in situ reduces both of these. In situ preservation can also cause serious damage through outside agents or malicious acts.

3. A crucial aspect is the sovereign immunity of state parties, their territorial waters and their UCH (whereever it may lie). Encouraging states to develop their own laws concerning UCH, encouraging international cooperation and UCH excavation and management. This is the most enduring effect of the convention and the most powerful.

4. The final aspect of this convention is making unlawful salvage punishable and non-profitable for individuals and companies. This would be achievable through a stricter enforcing of the “Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property” (1970), especially with regards to UCH.

5. The work done over the past five years as part of the convention has made a huge difference to UCH, however the complete success of this convention will be seen when the only difference between underwater and above water heritage is whether it is wet or dry, otherwise in protection, conservation, public access and site knowledge they will be identical.

Word Count: 2,971

201885! Policy Review

XII

Bibliography: International Documents:ICOMOS, “Charter on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage”, Sofia, 1996

IMO, “The International Convention On Salvage”, London, 1989

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, “The M/V “Louisa” Case”, 2013, via: http://www.itlos.org/index.php?id=147&L=0

UN, “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, Geneva, 1970

UNESCO, “Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property”, Paris, 1970

UNESCO, “Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage”, Paris, 2001

National Documents:HM Australian Government, “Ministerial Councils, Boards and Advisory Committees Contents” Vol. 2, Section 1: Attachment E

HM Government, “Protection of Wrecks Act”, London, 1973

HM Government, “Protection of Military Remains Act”, London, 1986

Reports:DCMS, “Heritage Protection for the 21st Century: Part 3- ‘Protecting the Marine Historic Environment in the UK’”, London, 2007

Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee, “Heritage Law at Sea: Proposals for Change” , Wolverhampton, 2000

UK National Commission for UNESCO, “Position Statement: 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage”, London, 2008

UNESCO, “‘Information Brochure on the 2001 Convention”, 2009, Available via: http://www.unesco.org/culture/underwater/infokit_en/

WreckProtect, “Guidelines for Protection of Submerged Wooden Cultural Heritage, including cost-benefit analysis”, 2011

Articles:M.J. Aznar-Gomez, “Treasure Hunters, Sunken State Vessels and the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage”, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 25, (2010) Pages 209-236

D.J. Bederman, “Rethinking the Legal Status of Sunken Warships”, Ocean Development & International Law, Issue 31, 2000, Pages 97-125

G. Carducci, “New Developments in the Law of the Sea: The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 96, No. 2 (April, 2002) Pages 419-434

201885! Policy Review

XIII

U. Guerin & B. Egger “Guaranteeing the Protection of Submerged Archaeological Sites Regardless of their Location: The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage”, Journal of Marine Archaeology, Issue 5, 2010 Pages 97-103

J.R. Harris, “Protecting Sunken Warships as Objects entitled to Sovereign Immunity”, The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), Pages 101-125

S. Khakzad & K. Van Balen “Complications and Effectiveness of In Situ Preservation Methods for Underwater Cultural Heritage Sites”, Conservation and Management of Archaeological sites,Vol. 14 No.s 1–4, 2012, Pages 469–78

M.E. Leshikar-Denton, “Cooperation is the Key: We can Protect Underwater Cultural Heritage”, Journal of Marine Archaeology, Issue 5, 2010 Pages 85-95

T.J. Maarleveld, “How and Why Will Underwater Cultural Heritage Benefit from the 2001 Convention”, Museum International, No. 240 (Vol. 60: No. 4) Pages 50-62

T. Scovazzi, “The Law of the Sea Convention and Underwater Cultural Heritage”,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 27, (2012) Pages 753-761

M. Secci, “Protection Versus Public Access: Two Concepts Compared within the Italian Underwater Cultural Heritage Management System”, Journal of Marine Archaeology, Issue 6, 2011 Pages 113-128

Websites:P. Akesson, “Legislation Worldwide”, http://www.abc.se/~pa/uwa/legislat.htm, Accessed 22nd January 2014

Divescover, “Wrecks of the Red Sea I - Gulf of Aqaba”, http://divescover.com/blog/wrecks-of-red-sea-aqaba/, Accessed 9th January 2014

English Heritage, “Preservation In Situ”, http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/advice/advice-by-topic/heritage-science/archaeological-science/preservation-in-situ/ Accessed on: 7th January 2014

K. Christian, “Call for residents to prevent theft of underwater treasures”, 2013 http://www.antiguaobserver.com/call-for-residents-to-prevent-theft-of-underwater-treasures/, Accessed on: 6th January 2014

S. Lambert-Law de Lauriston, “Underwater Cultural Heritage”, Accessed via: https://www.academia.edu/4792309/Underwater_Cultural_Heritage, On: 30th December 2013

Nautical Archaeology Society, “Battling Shipwreck looters”, 2013, http://www.nauticalarchaeologysociety.org/content/battling-shipwreck-looters, Accessed on: 4th January 2014

News Limited, “Shipwreck timbers add to mounting evidence that explorers visited New Zealand, Australia, much earlier than generally accepted”, 2013, http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/shipwreck-timbers-add-to-mounting-evidence-that-explorers-visited-new-zealand-australia-much-earlier-than-generally-accepted/story-fnjwl1aw-1226788010037, Accessed on: 29th December 2013

201885! Policy Review

XIV

News Network Archaeology, “Shipwreck Sites in Straits of Malacca need constant monitoring against looting”, 2013, http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/shipwreck-sites-in-straits-of-malacca.html#.UswojDIgGK2, Accessed on: 28th December 2013

M.P. Sokal “International Law for the Protection of the underwater cultural heritage: can our past be salvaged?”, 2005, http://www2.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/projects/iarc/culturewithoutcontext/issue16/papa-sokal.htm, Accessed on: 8th January 2014

C. Sokha & C McDermid, “Ancient Shipwreck in troubled waters”, The Phnom Penh Post, 2007, http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/ancient-shipwreck-troubled-waters , Accessed on: 2nd January 2014

UNESCO, “Underwater Cultural Heritage”, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/the-underwater-heritage/, Accessed on: 18th December 2013

UNESCO, “The Alexandria Underwater Museum Project”, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/museums-and-tourism/alexandria-museum-project/, Accessed on: 6th January 2014

Western Australian Museum, “Excavation of the Batavia Wreck Site”, http://museum.wa.gov.au/research/research-areas/maritime-archaeology/batavia-cape-inscription/batavia/wreck-excavation, 2013, Accessed on: 4th January 2014

Wrecksite, 2001-2014, http://wrecksite.eu/wrecksite.aspx, Accessed on: 5th January 2014

K. Yeung, “Plunder Vs Ethics for Shipwrecked Treasure”, Jakarta Expat, 2013, http://jakartaexpat.biz/featured/plunder-vs-ethics-for-shipwrecked-treasure/ Accessed on: 7th January 2014

Books:T. Scovazzi, “The Application of “Salvage Law and Other Rules of Admiralty”, in T. Scovazzi and R. Garabello “The Protection of The Underwater Cultural Heritage: Before and After the 2001 Convention”, Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2003, 1st Edition

Documentaries:“Shipwreck: Britain’s Sunken History: Home Waters to High Seas”, Directed by: Francis Welch, Bristol, Produced by BBC, First Broadcast: 2nd December 2013.

“Shipwreck: Britain’s Sunken History: A World Turned Upside Down”, Directed by: Francis Welch, Bristol, Produced by BBC, First Broadcast: 9th December 2013.

“Shipwreck: Britain’s Sunken History: Civilising the Sea”, Directed by: Francis Welch, Bristol, Produced by BBC, First Broadcast: 16th December 2013.

201885! Policy Review

XV