INTRO- Pat Clyne [Publisher/Executive Director, IMAC Digest]

The UNESCO meeting got off to a roaring redundant standstill, bureaucracy at it's finest. A continuation of last years semantic disagreements among countries.

I believe this trip will be ProSEA's moment of truth. There is some disagreement in the ranks as to the approach to be taken at tomorrow nights cocktail party that we are hosting. But whatever happens, I think it will define who we are and what roll we will play, if any, in future negotiations. Our Dept. of State showed their colors today, they said- to the whole world, literally, that the law of salvage and the law of finds shouldn't apply to any warships over ten years old (and we all now know that all sunken ships are now considered warships- 'Juno case Norfolk')

With this now out in the open we have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by playing our trump card tomorrow night.

Peter Hess - [Consulting Admiralty Attorney]

I'm in Paris with ProSEA's Pat Clyne, Steve Yormak, Eke Boesten, Greg Stemm, and David Saul of Bermuda. The negotiations are running along similar lines as last summer's session. Very little discernible progress and the organization and planning has been poor. UNESCO's goal is to report something to the General Assembly in October, but this is highly unlikely to happen.

Our discussions so far were focused on definitions, particularly "abandonment" and "Warship". Many nations want to avoid the controversy over abandoned shipwrecks by asserting control over them even if they still have an owner. In other words, the government will tell you how you can salvage your own property, or more likely, will prohibit you from doing so.

The US delegation announced strong support for a broad definition of "Warship" and that the law of finds and salvage shall not apply to any warship more than ten years old! Bob Blumberg of the US State Dept told me that this position was announced at the Public Hearing in DC on March 30th, but neither Pat nor I recall such a bold new policy.

In essence, the US delegation (which is about the most friendly of the assembled bureaucrats that comprise the international, self-proclaimed "experts") has stated that no Spanish treasure ship--all of which they will classify as "Warships" in deference to Spain's present "sovereign" interests--can be recovered under the protection of admiralty law anymore. I told Blumberg that such a stance would be vigorously resisted and represents a major departure from present US policy.

Canada's delegation--which the very last moment, excluded an attorney in their federal government who is sympathetic to the private sector's cause and the railroading of the debate without any meaningful representation of the divers, salvors and underwater explorers who are to be legislated out of existence--was among the most reactionary and hostile to salvors. They seek to regulate any activity with the potential to affect Underwater Cultural Heritage (whether it's been abandoned or not), particularly "intentional" acts (such as by divers) as opposed to unintentional (i.e., trawl fishing). Canada expresses very strong support for "preservation in place" and appears to be laying the groundwork to assert jurisdiction over the Titanic in order to try to stop its salvage.

Spain, as suspected, has made a strong claim for perpetual ownership of Warships unless title is "expressly renounced in writing". This was not as surprising as the US position in support of it.

It appears that some delegations are trying to avoid issues that have the potential to derail the Convention (for instance, not trying to define abandoned property and simply regulating everything; focusing on "intentional" activities instead of fishing or cable-laying damage).

Tomorrow evening, ProSEA is hosting a wine and cheese reception with a presentation by Greg Stemm. We intend to show the delegates--who generally are astonishingly ignorant of shipwreck exploration, diving and legal developments in the field---what the private sector is actually doing.

Steve Yormak [International Admiralty Attorney]

The Canadian Delegation, 5 representatives strong, is making its presence felt by spearheading a movement at the UNESCO convention in Paris by advocating a unique archaeological perspective to all shipwrecks, which would in effect spell the end to all historic shipwreck recovery and tightly control any access to the hundreds of thousands of wrecks dotted throughout the world.

The UNESCO delegates, without any apparent public or private input, appear to be in the process of divvying up the worlds submerged wrecks to various governments.

It is apparent, archaeologically driven scenarios almost uniformly result in the "in situ" approach. The Canadian led team fully endorsees this approach, in effect, denying public access to the worlds shipwreck treasures to have or ever to view. Governments will be given total control to prohibit public access and to permit only a handful of archaeological explorations.

At this time it appears to be evident that the conference may well result in an extension of this approach, out into the oceans, comprising all of the Continental shelves.

Pub. note- Bob Blumberg promised me the whole position paper on disk- he's still fixing up typos. When he finishes, I will post the entire U.S. Position Paper on IMAC, hopefully by tomorrow. For now here are just a few excerpts: P.C.

Article 1. Definitions:

5. The definition of "underwater cultural heritage" as "all traces of human existence" is too broad. The United States recommends replacing those words with "objects of prehistoric, archaeological, historical or cultural significance found underwater on or under the seabed, which have been underwater for at least 50 years". The United States also recommends that the convention provide a process for determining the relative significance of underwater cultural heritage.

6. The definition of "abandoned" is imprecise and vague. In addition, the United States suggests no definition of abandonment is needed. There is no need for this Convention to address ownership of underwater cultural heritage. The Convention should focus on protection and management, and leave questions of ownership and abandonment to national law. Therefore, Article 1 (2) should be deleted.

9. The Convention should apply to all UCH that has been abandoned. Therfore, the reference to "abandoned" in article 2(1) SHOULD BE DELETED. WE are also of the view that the convention should not apply retroactively to previously recovered underwater cultural heritage. Therefore, Paragraph 1 should be revised to read "...heritage as defined in Article 1. This Convention does not apply to underwater cultural property recovered before the date of entry into force of this convention.

Article 3 bis. Applicability of the Law of Salvage and Finds: (Suggested wording by the U.S.)

Such a Provision could read:

"The Law of Salvage and Finds shall not apply to underwater cultural heritage. A State Party, may however, submit a reservation to this article at the time it deposits its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, in accordance with Article 21. A party submitting such a reservation shall, nevertheless, be bound by the other provisions of this convention, including the rules contained in the Annex."

More legal viewpoints and official U.S. policy from Paris will follow shortly- Stay Ahead on this with IMAC Digest.