The notions of ?preferential right' and ?interest' of sates in the protection of the underwater cultural heritage

• Author: Mariano J. Aznar
• Position: Professor of Public International Law, Universitat Jaume I
• Pages: 222-258

www.reei.org

REEI, núm. 38, diciembre 2019

DOI: 10.17103/reei.38.07

THE NOTIONS OF ‘PREFERENTIAL RIGHT’

AND ‘INTEREST’ OF SATES

IN THE PROTECTION OF

THE UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGE

LAS NOCIONES DE “DERECHO PREFERENTE” E

“INTERÉS” EN LA PROTECCIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO

CULTURAL SUBACUÁTICO

MARIANO J. AZNAR*

Summary: I. INTRODUCTION. II. PREFERENTIAL RIGHTS: 1. UCH IN LOSC: A) THE

DRAFTING OF ARTICLE 149 LOSC; B) A TEXTUAL INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE

149 LOSC; 2. UCH BEYOND LOSC: A) DEFINING UCH; B) THE MANAGEMENT OF

UCH IN THE AREA; C) THE SUBJECTS OF THE PREFERENTIAL RIGHTS; D)

REMAINING OPEN QUESTIONS. III. INTEREST: 1. THE NOTION OF INTEREST…: A)

…IN INTERNATIONAL LAW…; B) …AND IN INTERNATIONAL HERITAGE LAW; 2.

INTEREST AND THE PROTECTION OF UCH; A) DETERMINING INTERESTS AND

IDENTIFYING THE INTERESTED SUBJECTS; B) IDENTIFYING INTERESTED

SUBJECTS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE LEGAL CAPACITIES; C) CONSEQUENCES OF

THE EXISTENCE OF THESE INTERESTS. IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS.

ABSTRACT: The notions of preferential right and interest of states are not alien to general international law

or the law of the sea and, as hypothesis, there is a subtle and plausible trend to prefer the later b efore the

former when addressing the legal regime of global commons. Considering the underwater cultural heritage

(UCH) as a possible component among these commons, this article discusses how to build up a legal regime

protecting UCH progressively abandoning the presence of rights and its substitution by the notion of

interest. A quest for the holders of this interest and their id entification in casu through the revisited notion

of verifiable link, the content and extent of their legal capacities and the responsibilities these stakeholders

may have ⎯particularly states⎯, and the legal regime governing all these issues are the purpose of these

pages. This article will discuss first the notion of preferential right as used in international law and the law

of the sea, in general, followed by the study of the presence and projection of that notion in current

international legal texts governing UCH. The same scheme of analysis will be followed when addressing

the notion of legal interest and its performance as an operative concept both at the general level of

international law and the law of the sea and, later, how this notion may be creating a new legal and political

canvas for the protection of UCH.

Fecha de recepción del trabajo: 20 de o ctubre de 201 9. Fecha de aceptación de la versión final: 20 de

noviembre de 2019.

* Professor of Public International Law, Universitat Jaume I (email: maznar@uji.es). This article was

prepared within R+D Project DER 2016-74841-R ("Instrumentos jurídicos en defensa de la integridad de

los bienes arqueológicos"). The author would like to thank Francesco Francioni and Craig Forrest for their

most valuable comments on an earlier draft of this article. The views expressed, however, are solely those

of the author, as are any errors. All websites were last accessed on 20 November 2019 .

[38] REVISTA ELECTRÓNICA DE ESTUDIOS INTERNACIONALES (2019)

- 2 -

DOI: 10.17103/reei.38.07

RESUMEN: Las nociones de derechos preferentes e intereses de los estados no son ajenas al derecho

internacional g eneral o al derecho del mar y, como hipótesis, existe una tendencia sutil y plau sible de

preferir los últimos a los primeros al abordar el régimen jurídico de los bienes comunes g lobales.

Considerando el patrimonio cultural subacu ático (PCS) entre estos bienes comunes, este artículo analiza

cómo construir un régimen jurídico que proteja el PCS abandonando p rogresivamente la presencia de

derechos y su sustitución por la noción de interés. Una búsqueda de los titulares de este interés y su

identificación in casu a través de la noción revisada de vínculo verificable, el contenido y el alcance de sus

capacidades jurídicas y las responsabilidades que los actores interesad os puedan tener (particularmente

los Estados), y el régimen jurídico que rige todos estos temas son el propósito de estas páginas. Este

artículo discutirá primero la noción de derecho preferente como se usa en el derecho internacional y el

derecho del mar, en general, seguido por el estudio de la presencia y proyección de esa noción en los

instrumentos jurídicos internacionales actuales que rigen el PCS. Se seguirá el mismo esquema de análisis

cuando se aborde la noción del interés jurídico y su desempeño como un concepto operativo tanto a nivel

general del derecho internacional como en el derecho del mar para, más adelante, estudiar cómo esta

noción puede estar creando una nueva estructura de análisis para la protección del PCS.

KEYWORDS: preferential right, interest, law of the sea, underwater cultural heritage

PALABRAS CLAVE: derechos preferentes, interés, derecho del mar, patrimonio cultural subacuático

I. INTRODUCTION

As in any other legal system, international law has a threefold function: to protect, rank

and solve the contradicting interests among its subjects. In the particular case of the law

governing underwater cultural heritage (UCH) ⎯mainly the 1982 UN Law of the Sea

Convention and the 2001 UNESCO Convention⎯,

1

different variables may operate:

because of its location, coastal state(s) may have an interest; due to its cultural value, not

only its crafters but humankind may also have an interest in its protection; giving its still

economic value, some stakeholders may claim some right upon it or be interested in its

legal regime. UCH (particularly some wrecks) may also pose a danger to navigation or to

the marine environment. Flag states may claim some title upon their sunken state vessels.

Last but not least, along with its material value, an immaterial significance may also be

vested in an underwater site as a venerated place or as maritime grave.

As cultural objects, UCH is governed by the law of cultural heritage; as objects located

at sea, both law of the sea and maritime law may be also applicable.

2

The continuing

interaction between international and domestic laws, and between hard and soft rules

make this question an always multifaceted object of legal analysis. Law governing UCH

is therefore complex, multi-layered and sometimes contradictory. It also has some lacunas

1

Convention on the Law of the Sea (adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994),

1833 UNTS 397 (hereinafter ‘LOSC’) and Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural

Heritage (adopted 2 Nov ember 2001, entered into force 2 January 2009), 2562 UNTS 1 (hereinafter

‘UNESCO Convention’ or ‘the Convention’).

2

This paper will address maritime cultural heritage only, thus leaving aside underwater heritage located in

inland waters like rivers, lakes and wetlands. The term underwater instead of maritime or submarine is

used because its general acceptance as a term of art and its inclusion in recent international and domestic

legal texts.

The notions of ‘preferential right’ and ‘interest’ of sates in the protection of the underwater cultural

heritage

- 3 -

DOI: 10.17103/reei.38.07

which neither current international nor domestic rules are capable to properly filling-in.

Recourse to analogy, fairness, progressive interpretation and legal reasoning may be then

necessary.

Furthermore, that law must accommodate quite different interests which have been

modulated throughout the last decades: from a predominantly private-interest approach

to a more public regime where stakeholders involved are numerous and different,

3

and

from the political and legal environment presiding in the second half of the 20th Century

to current challenges that appear in the new millennium, including new (or renewed)

threats to UCH

4

.

This paper analyses the content and applicability to UCH of the notions of preferential

rights and interest of states involved, embodied in current international law governing

that heritage. These concepts are not alien to general international law or the law of the

sea and, as hypothesis, there is a subtle and plausible trend to prefer the later before the

former and, even, to build up a legal regime protecting UCH progressively abandoning

the presence of rights and its substitution by the notion of interest. A quest for the holders

of this interest and their identification in casu through the revisited notion of verifiable

link, the content and extent of the legal capacities and the responsibilities these

stakeholders may have ⎯particularly states⎯, and the legal regime governing all these

issues are the purpose of these pages.

This article will discuss first the notion of preferential right as used in international law

and the law of the sea, in general, followed by the study of the presence and projection of

that notion in current international legal texts governing UCH. The same scheme of

analysis will be followed when addressing the notion of legal interest and its performance

as an operative concept both at the general level of international law and the law of the

sea and, later, how this notion may be creating a new legal and political canvas for the

protection of UCH.

II. PREFERENTIAL RIGHTS

In very broad terms, a preferential right implies the preeminent legal position of a subject

of law with regard the existence or performance of a specific subjective right in relation

with other subjects and their competing, albeit opposing subjective or collective rights. It

means a vantage position as defined by law, either customary or conventional.

The notion of preferential rights is not alien to international law, particularly in the law

of the sea but mainly limited to fisheries rights: its legitimacy was partially accepted

3

Among others, these stakeholders may include states, peoples, international organisations vested by states

with cultural or maritime interests, private persons (both individuals and companies), the international

community of states and humankind.

4

For the latter, see R. GRENIER, D. NUTLEY & I. COCHRAN (eds.), Underwater Cultural Heritage at

Risk: Managing Natural and Human Impacts, UNESCO, Paris, 2006.