نویسندگان

1 دانش‌آموختۀ دورۀ دکتری تخصصی حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی، گروه حقوق عمومی و بین‌الملل، دانشکدۀ حقوق، الهیات و علوم سیاسی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران

2 دانشیار دانشکدۀ حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی و عضو هیأت علمی مدعو گروه حقوق عمومی و بین‌‌الملل، دانشکدۀ حقوق، الهیات و علوم سیاسی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

ناجیان و کاشفان در پی کسب منفعت اقتصادی حداکثری از اقدامات خود و باستان‌شناسان به‌دنبال فراهم کردن شرایط حفاظت مطلوب از میراث فرهنگی زیر آب هستند. تضاد میان اهداف این دو گروه آشکار است و امکان سازش میان اهداف متضاد آنها بسیار دشوار. قوانین داخلی و اسناد بین‌المللی با توجه به همین دشواری‌ها دو رویکرد کلی اتخاذ کرده‌اند: تعدادی از آنها به‌کلی اجرای قوانین نجات و کشفیات را در مورد بقایای تاریخی و باستانی زیر آب منع کرده و در مقابل عده‌ای دیگر اجرای این قوانین را در خصوص میراث فرهنگی زیر آب به‌صراحت تجویز کرده‌اند. در این میان «کنوانسیون 2001 یونسکو در خصوص حفاظت از میراث فرهنگی زیر آب» تلاش کرده است که میان مواضع متضاد دو طرف به‌نوعی سازش ایجاد کند. مادۀ 4 این کنوانسیون اجرای قوانین نجات و کشفیات را مشروط به شرایط خاصی تجویز کرده است. سازگاری این مقرره با بند 3 مادۀ 303 کنوانسیون 1982 مبهم و سازگاری آن با مقررات کنوانسیون بین‌المللی نجات (1989) در شرایط خاصی امکان‌پذیر است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Legal Challenges of Protecting Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Light of Salvage Law and Law of Finds

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Razavirad 1
  • Janet E. Blake 2

1 Ph.D. Candidate of Public International Law, Department of Public & International Law, College of Law and Political Science, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Visiting Professor, Department of Public & International Law, College of Law and Political Science, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Salvors and finders seek to maximize the economic benefits of their actions while archaeologists seek to provide optimal conditions for the protection of underwater cultural heritage. The contradiction between the goals of these two groups is obvious and reconciling their conflicting goals is very difficult. National laws and international documents have taken two general approaches to this challenge: some of them completely prohibit the application of salvage law and the law of finds to underwater archaeological and historical remains, and others explicitly authorize the implementation of these laws in the field of underwater cultural heritage. In the meantime, The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001) has tried to create a compromise between the conflicting positions of these two approaches. Article 4 of this Convention provides for the implementation of salvage law and law of finds subject to certain conditions. The compatibility of this provision with Article 303(3) of the 1982 Convention is ambiguous and its compatibility with the provisions of the International Convention on Salvage (1989) is possible under certain conditions.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Domestic Law
  • Salvage Law and Law of Finds
  • International Convention on Salvage (1989)
  • 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
  • UNESCO's 2001 Convention
  • Underwater Cultural Heritage

1. فارسی

الف) مقالات

1. صفایی، عبدالحسین؛ نظارت مقدم، کاظم (1394). «نجات دریایی در کامن لا و کنوانسیون نجات دریایی»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، سال چهارم، شماره دوازدهم، صص 59-37.

2. انگلیسی

A) Books

2. Blake, Janet E. (2015). International Cultural Heritage Law (Cultural Heritage Law and Policy), Oxford University Press.

3. Dromgoole, Sarah (2015). Underwater Cultural Heritage and International Law, Cambridge University Press.

4. Forrest, Craig J. S. (2012). International Law and the Protection of Cultural Heritage, Oxon, Routledge.

5. O'Keefe, Patrick J. (2002). Shipwrecked Heritage: A Commentary on the UNESCO Convention on Underwater Cultural Heritage, Institute of Art and Law.

6. Strati, Anastasia (1995). The Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage: An Emerging Objective of the Contemporary Law of the Sea, The Hague, Kulwer Law International.

 

B) Articles

7. Anderson, Andrew W. (1993). "Salvage and Recreational Vessels: Modern Concepts & Misconceptions”, U.S.F Maritime Law Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 203-232.

8. Burstein, Susanne M. (2002). "Saving Steel over Souls: The Human Cost of U.S. Salvage Law", Tulane Maritime Law Journal, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 307-332.

9. Dromgoole, Sarah. (2006). "United Kigdom", in Sarah Dromgoole (ed.), The Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage: National Perspectives in Light of the UNESCO Convention 2001, Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 313-350.

10. Fu, Kuen-Chen. (2006). "China (including Taiwan)", in Sarah Dromgoole (ed.), The Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage: National Perspectives in Light of the UNESCO Convention 2001, Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 17-42.

11. Elia, Ricardo J. (2000). "US Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage beyond the Territorial Sea: Problems and Prospects", The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 43-56.

12. Forrest, Craig J. S. & Gribble, John. (2006). "Perspectives from the Southern Hemisphere: Australia and South Africa", in Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee, The UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage: Proceedings of the Burlington House Seminar, October 2005, Portsmouth, Nautical Archaeology Society, pp. 30–35.

13. Gaskell, N. (1995). "Merchant Shipping Act 1995, Schedule 11", Current Law Statutes Annotated 1995, 21-373–21-434.

14. Le Gurun, Gwénaëlle. (1999). "France", in Sarah Dromgoole (ed), Legal Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage: National and International Perspectives, First Edition, Kluwer Law International, pp. 43-64.

15. Le Gurun, Gwénaëlle. (2006). "France", in Sarah Dromgoole (ed.), The Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage: National Perspectives in Light of the UNESCO Convention 2001, Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 59-96.

16. Nafziger, James A. R. (2000). "Historic Salvage Law Revisited", Ocean Development & International Law, vol. 31, no. 1-2, pp. 81-96.

17. O’Keefe, Patrick J. (1996). "Protecting the Underwater Cultural Heritage: The International Law Association Draft Convention", Marine Policy, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 297-307.

18. Stemm, Greg (1998). "Protection of Our Underwater Cultural Heritage: Thoughts on the Future of Historic Shipwrecks", Paper presented at Law of the Sea Institute.

19. Vadi, Valentina Sara. (2009). "Investing in Culture: Underwater Cultural Heritage and International Investment Law", Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 1-52.

20. Wilder, Mark A. (2000). "Application of Salvage Law and the Law of Finds to Sunken Shipwreck Discoveries", Defense Counsel Journal, vol. 67, no.1, pp. 92-105.

 

C) Theses

21. Giesecke, A.G. (1992). "Historic Shipwreck Resources and State Law: A Development Perspective", Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Catholic University of America.

 

D) Documents

22. Consideration of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage: Report of the CMI Working Group, (2002) CMI Yearbook 156.

23. Draft European Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage (1985).

24. Recommendation 848 of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (1978).

25. Report of the Meeting of Experts for the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, UNESCO Headquarters, Paris (22–24 May 1996), UNESCO Doc. CLT-96/CONF.605/6.

26. The ILA Draft Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (1994).

27. The UNESCO Draft Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (1999).

 

E) National Laws

A. Australia:

28. Commonwealth Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976.

29. Navigation Act 2012.

30. Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986.

B. China:

31. Law on the Protection of Cultural Relics 1982.

32. Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Relics 1989.

33. The Maritime Transportation Safety Law 1983.

C. France:

34. Decree No. 91-1226 (5 December 1991).

35. Decree No. 61-1547 (26 December 1961).

36. Law No. 89-874 (1 December 1989).

D. South Africa:

37. Customs and Excise Act 1996.

38. Maritime Zones Act No. 15 of 1994.

39. National Heritage Resources Act 1999.

40. Wreck and Salvage Act 1996.

E. United Kingdom:

41. Merchant Shipping Act 1995.