The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
? of international law and ownership https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1237 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | Uncle Fester [ Thu Dec 24, 2009 7:44 am ] |
Post subject: | ? of international law and ownership |
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/ ... latestnews Quote: MIAMI — A U.S. district judge has ruled that U.S. treasure-hunting company Odyssey Marine Exploration should return to Spain a fortune in old coins recovered from the wreck of a 19th-century Spanish warship. In an order filed in Tampa, Florida Tuesday, Judge Steven Merryday nevertheless directed that the return of the treasure to Spain be stayed until an appeals process in the case was concluded. It was the latest twist in a complex dispute over the treasure involving Spain, Odyssey and Peru. Merryday's order backed a recommendation by a U.S. magistrate judge in June that Odyssey should hand over to the Spanish government nearly 600,000 silver and gold coins valued at some $500 million that it recovered from the wreck of the 19th-century Spanish warship Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes. Spain said the Spanish naval frigate was carrying treasure back from Peru when it was sunk by British gunboats in 1804. SLIDESHOW: Salvaging Treasure from the Wreck of the 'Black Swan' Odyssey Marine, which has disputed the treasure came from the Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes, discovered wreckage and the 17-ton haul of artifacts in March 2007 in international waters about 100 miles west of the Straits of Gibraltar, which separate Spain from North Africa. "The ineffable truth of this case is that the Mercedes is a naval vessel of Spain and that the wreck of this naval vessel, the vessel's cargo, and any human remains are the natural and legal patrimony of Spain," Merryday said in his order. Odyssey, which specializes in the recovery of sunken treasure and had codenamed this particular project "Black Swan," says the coin haul legally belongs to the company. Odyssey said in a statement Wednesday that Merryday's ruling would for the time being keep the coins in Odyssey's custody pending an appeals ruling by the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. "Judge Merryday's ruling serves to move this case to the appellate court faster, where we feel confident that the legal issues are clearly in our favor," Odyssey CEO Greg Stemm said. "We will file our notice of appeal with the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Florida and Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals within the required time and look forward to presenting our case in that forum," said Melinda MacConnel, Odyssey vice president and general counsel. The Mercedes sank in the first few minutes of the Battle of Cape St. Mary's as an explosion ripped it apart, killing more than 200 sailors. The attack led Spain to declare war on Britain and enter the Napoleonic Wars on the side of France. Peru, which was ruled by Spain at the time the Mercedes was sunk, entered the legal fray in August when it filed a claim for information with the Tampa court. The filing said the coins may be "part of the patrimony of the Republic of Peru." Judge Merryday also backed the magistrate judge's June recommendation that Spain and Peru's competing claims over the coins would be best resolved through direct negotiations and not in a U.S. court. I know not as incendiary as the stuff I like to post. But honestly it was in international waters for century + give it to the gold hunters, they earned it. |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Thu Dec 24, 2009 9:56 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Yeah this contradicts centuries of salvage law on the waters. If it sinks - finder's keepers. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:03 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Are there any treaties specifically concerning this matter that would affect the ruling? |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:04 am ] |
Post subject: | |
No idea, there have to be some as salvage rights is a pretty old concept gating from at least greek times. |
Author: | Corolinth [ Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:46 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Spain lost their claim to it when they let it sit at the bottom of the **** ocean for 200 years. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:16 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Elmarnieh wrote: No idea, there have to be some as salvage rights is a pretty old concept gating from at least greek times. That's what makes me wonder if there is some treaty specifically pertaining to this situation. |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:28 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Likely one that was drafted in the last 20 years that for some reason overthrew the last 800+ of western common naval law. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Dec 24, 2009 5:56 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Elmarnieh wrote: Likely one that was drafted in the last 20 years that for some reason overthrew the last 800+ of western common naval law. There's nothing wrong with changing the law. Precedent and common law address the question of how we are going to do things not whether we should do them that way. They're not a sacred cow. That said, if there is no such treaty, ignoring that precedent is very disturbing. That's also not to say that of a treaty exists it's necessarily a good one. It would have to be weighed against the 800 years you cite on the merits of each. |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:44 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
The premise of the old system is this: If you want to expend the time and resources to maybe recover something and you have the skill to get the goods back into service faster than anyone else - its yours. Basically whatever hit the ocean floor (or was found adrift although there you usually owed 20% to the originator or they paid you a % of value for the safe return) became natural resources. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:17 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Elmarnieh wrote: The premise of the old system is this: If you want to expend the time and resources to maybe recover something and you have the skill to get the goods back into service faster than anyone else - its yours. Basically whatever hit the ocean floor (or was found adrift although there you usually owed 20% to the originator or they paid you a % of value for the safe return) became natural resources. Whish is fine, if that's still the system. However if there are treaties that make specific exceptions, tehy should be followed. If there aren't, this looks like a baseless violation of precedent. |
Author: | Micheal [ Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:52 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
If the Mercedes made it back to Spain's territorial waters they may have a case. Somehow I doubt that though. |
Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:13 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I say give it back to Peru, if we're all up in arms about giving it to the nation that used to own it... |
Author: | Müs [ Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:36 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
They should put it back where they found it. Somewhere at the bottom of the ocean. |
Author: | shuyung [ Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:04 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
The crux of the matter is whether it falls under maritime salvage law, or the law of finds. Ownership of salvage is, under certain conditions, retained by the original party. This does not mean that the salvaged property is returned to them. The salvor is entitled to reimbursement, and retain possession of the property until such time as a settlement is hammered out. If property is ruled abandoned, then it becomes subject to the law of finds, best summed up by the age-old phrase "finder's keepers, loser's weepers". So is it salvaged property, or abandoned property? Well, that comes down to whether Spain or Peru had ever attempted recovery on their own, when was the last time they had done so, and other considerations. On the face of it, it seems to be abandoned, absent evidence to the contrary. Certainly both Spain and Peru should have the necessary resources to have attempted recovery. If they have not done so, then the property should be ruled abandoned. |
Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:09 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
It's never been that cut and dry, nobody would get to keep the salvage off a US Nuke sub, unless it was a foreign military that could not be prevented from doing so. Still, I think the hunters should be able to keep the spoils in this case. |
Author: | shuyung [ Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:52 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Like I said, there are a number of considerations. There was a case where a WWII military plane off the coast of Florida was recovered by a private effort, and the US DOD attempted to lay claim to it. It was ruled as an abandoned property (due mainly to it being in only 100 ft. of water within a mile of shore) by the courts. This was mid-90's or so, if I am recalling correctly, so obviously it was not state of the art or anything. However, even if ownership had been ruled to still reside with the US DOD, the salvors would have been entitled to suitable reward. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Dec 29, 2009 3:03 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Arathain Kelvar wrote: It's never been that cut and dry, nobody would get to keep the salvage off a US Nuke sub, unless it was a foreign military that could not be prevented from doing so. Still, I think the hunters should be able to keep the spoils in this case. I seem to recall an incident similar to this... |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |