Today's five chapters are sent, ask for recommendation votes!

This pirate treasure, which is extremely valuable and of great archaeological and academic value, really caused an uproar.

According to the "Law of Discovery" currently commonly used in the world, that is, the principle of "whoever catches it, it belongs to whomever it belongs", there is no doubt that the ownership of this batch of pirate treasures belongs to the Chinese lady whose identity is very mysterious.

But in the same way, another kind of bill has begun to quietly circulate in the world, to be precise, a draft on the ownership of shipwrecks unilaterally drafted by the United Nations -- the "Draft UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage".

The draft stipulates that the salvage owner does not have ownership rights to any salvaged items. The Draft proposes the abolition of the Discovery Law and the Rescue Law in the field of historical shipwrecks, and the unified management and protection of all historical shipwrecks, that is, in situ conservation (also known as in situ conservation). In addition, in order to ensure that any commercial salvage is effectively deterred, all signatories are not allowed to enter ports of ships that have recovered shipwrecks, even if the salvaged shipwreck is located in international waters.

Although the Draft is widely regarded as the best law for the protection of historical shipwrecks at present, the vast majority of countries understand that once the Draft is implemented, salvage workers will lose the motivation to search for and salvage historical shipwrecks, and many historical shipwrecks will probably never be known to the world. Therefore, it has been argued that the Draft is a "very extreme approach".

It is precisely for this reason that the draft has not been signed by the vast majority of countries, including the United States, which was the most active in the beginning, has not signed the draft, so it currently exists only on paper.

However, this draft is not without effect, at least the ownership of the famous Titanic. The final solution is based on the draft.

In 1912, the world-class luxury cruise ship "Titanic" sank in the international waters of the Atlantic. In 1985, the oceanographic explorer Robert Brown of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in the United States. For the first time, Ballard has pinpointed the shipwreck. Later, many salvage companies successively salvaged the cultural relics on the wreck and looted them on a large scale. The issue of the ownership of the "Titanic" has also been unresolved. After 15 years of difficult negotiations, the United States, Canada, France and the United Kingdom recently reached an agreement. It is forbidden to salvage the sunken giant ship.

On April 5, 2010, UNESCO announced that the wreck of the Titanic was protected by international law from the date of its sinking for a hundred years in accordance with the Draft UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage. Given that the wreck site is in international waters, no country can claim the site. The international convention enacted in 2001 also clearly stipulates that the convention applies to ships that have sunk for more than 100 years. UNESCO declares: "From now on, it is illegal to destroy, pillage, sell, and disseminate the objects in the Titanic site." ”

This is perhaps the best verdict in the 15 years since the day the draft was born.

However, at present, the legal basis for the judgment on the ownership of shipwrecks and treasures is commonly used in the world. Or the Law of Discovery.

With regard to the Discovery Act, many people used to think that it applied primarily to property such as whales, fish, etc., that is, property that had never been owned by the owner. The trend is that the Law of Discovery is gradually applied to shipwrecks of historical value, because of its age, which also means that the ship has been abandoned by its original owner. Thus, "the case of treasure salvage...... The fact that a shipwreck is involved hundreds of years ago, because it is old and abandoned for a long time, can indicate that the original owner has given up ownership of the property...... This can be adjudicated by invoking the Law of Discovery. In addition, in general, the Law of Discovery can be interpreted simply as "who finds." to whomsoever it goes". Therefore, many ships salvaged in international waters are almost always based on this practice, who finds the wreck site and salvages it. It belongs to whomever it is.

The reason why the U.S. court ruled that the Mercedes and all the items on it should belong to the Spanish government was based on the Discovery Act. Because the Spanish government claims that it has not relinquished ownership of the Mercedes for hundreds of years.

Moreover, in 2001, President Clinton signed a statement on the issue of shipwrecks and cultural relics in international waters: "The U.S. government recognizes that the state-owned ships of the United States or other countries can sink into the sea whenever and wherever they are, and no matter how long it has passed." The right of ownership remains with the country of origin. As a result, Odyssey failed several appeals in federal court and ultimately failed to obtain ownership of the artifacts.

It can be seen that the current legal basis for the determination of the ownership of shipwrecks in international waters, i.e., on the high seas, is mainly the Discovery Law.

But the problem came again, discovered by the Chinese lady. and hired an Odyssey to salvage it, and eventually the Chinese lady sold the ownership of the treasure to an American citizen, who was a notorious pirate. Kidd had already lost his qualifications as a British citizen. In other words, the treasures left behind by Captain Kidd do not belong to any country.

As for the claims of the governments of Central and South America, it is even more child's play, because in the seventeenth century these countries did not exist at all. The first of these countries to go it alone was only in the early nineteenth century, so how could Captain Kidd's treasures belong to these countries?

Besides, although the American citizen had purchased the treasures in installments before the ownership was completely clear, the two men promised to donate the treasures to a charitable foundation in the United States for free, and the charitable foundation promised to immediately build a museum for all to visit while remaining non-profit. In other words, the American citizen who spent a lot of money to buy this treasure is equivalent to donating this treasure to the United States for free. How could the U.S. government and the courts turn their elbows outwards for such a good thing?

No U.S. district court would dare to risk the blame of all Americans to pronounce a verdict on the ownership of this treasure, and if that judge dared to do so, he would be spurned by all Americans!

And even if the district court dares to do this, don't forget, there are appeals courts and Supreme courts in the United States, and these judges will not do such brain-dead things.

Therefore, even though those Central American and South American countries, including the United Kingdom, are calling for and even asking the US courts to make judgments, many courts in the United States are just stubborn and will not accept them! (To be continued......)