Presentation on Salvage Law

[Adam Samansky]

I'll be giving a talk on salvage law tonight at the MWDC meeting (see www.mwdc.org for more info on location and time). I will be giving a general intorduction to federal admiralty jurisdiction, salvage and finds law and how some recent federal statutes have made the would-be salvor's analysis of imperiled maritime property more complex than ever before.

To do all this, and to keep things interesting, I will be using the recently-discovered shipwreck of the Portland as a model for analysis.

Hope to see many of you there -

Adam

PS: Feel free to bring questions; just be prepared for the typical legal answer of "well, it depends...."

 

[MSilvia]

I'd love to go, but I'm going to be in a nitrox class tonight.

 

[MASS-Diver]

Wish I could make it. There's a pretty interesting article in this month's "Immersed" on salvage and diving rights (it's mostly international based - like the Estonia) but, relates to US law as well.


My only question about the Portland is when the heck NOAA is going to puts it's divers on her?

 

[Spectre]

Adam. Thanks. It definately was a good talk; even with all the lawyer-ese being tossed about.

It did get me thinking a lot.

Now here is your research project, as alluded to.

1) The u-boats that surrendered at Portsmouth Naval shipyard, and where later used for target practice and scuttled by the us navy. Are they German property or US property. [The answer given was 'depends on the terms of the surrender']

2) If #1 turns out that the terms of surrender caused them to be US property. Then can it possibly be argued that the U-853 falls under the same thing due to it being sunk about the same time the surrender was being signed? [actually, after some digging, I think it was confirmed lost 15 hours or so prior to the signing... ]

 

[Adam Samansky]

The U835 was sunk in combat operations. She was engaged in hostilities against the United States and was sunk by a flag ship of the United States (Navy or CG, I forget). Regardless of the terms of surrender and exactly when that document was signed, I'm pretty sure that the Germans never surrenderd title to that particular ship to the United States. Therefore, she likely remains property of Germany.

Indeed, title to the other U-boats "depends" on the exact terms of their surrender. Was "title" transferred to the United States, or did they merely cease hostilities? Are they prizes of war? The answer to the ultimate question is wholly contingent on who owned the vessels when the went down, the United States or Germany. I'll poke around, but answers to these questions are likely buried in some archive 10 floors below the Pentagon....

Thanks for the kind words!
Adam

 

[Spectre]

After getting myself insanely curious, I decided to pose my questions to Paul Lawton, a local naval historian with a focus in submarines, as well as a lawyer.

Paul gave me permission to post his response, but to make sure that I let everyone know this is not legal opinion as he does not specialize in maritime and salvage law. There are just point of reference comments and one should seak adequate council if wishing to partake in salvage operations of any sort.

First response:

From: Paul Lawton
Warships remain the property of the sovereign nation under whose flag they sailed. A navy can only relinquish ownership of a warship wreck when they execute documents of abandonment, or sell it off for scrap or salvage, etc. Regarding the U-boats that surrendered at Portsmouth after Germany's surrender, under international treaty, all of the Allied nations were to dispose of those warships by a particular date (I forget exactly when) in 1947. Those treaty terms were abrogated to a certain extent by a few nations, particularly the US and USSR. Most in Britain were scuttled, the ones in the US were sunk in navy weapons test (mostly torpedo tests) except for the Type IXD2 U-234 (Kapitanleutnant Friedrich Steinhoff) which was sold to a scrap firm in New York. The reason why the U-505 was allowed to be retained and ended up at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, is because she did not surrender, but was captured, and under international law, could be kept by the capturing naval force. Relative to the U-853 and the question of whether she could have held out until after Germany's surrender,that is a good question, but I think that if she were captured, she would have been treated as the boats that surrendered at Portsmouth, Because she is a navy grave however, she is further protected under international law, and is supposed to be protected by the nation in whose waters she lies. As you know, that has not proven to be of any degree of protection to the 853. An interesting note on the 853 however, is the fact that it appears that the German government (I believe in the early 60s) actually contracted with a salvage firm to raise her. That is a strange twist to the scenario, but I believe the terms of the agreement were contingent. The salvage form has to actually raise her and send back the human skeletal remains and personal effects to the Federal Republic of West Germany for proper disposition, before the wreck would have been abandoned by the FRoWG, and title could have passed to the salvage company. International Admiralty and salvage laws change occasionally, but when it comes to warships, things have pretty much been unchanged.

In a follow up e-mail he stated:

After sending my response I had another thought. I believe that under traditional international law, surrendered warships could be kept and employed by the nation to whom the were surrendered. Regarding the "Major" Allied nation after WWII however, the disposition agreement was a "special" treaty, to keep the remaining powers from gaining too much from the spoils of war. A number of smaller European nations (i.e. France, Norway, etc.) were actually allowed to keep some of the German warships to "build up" their depleted military strengths, as a result of the NAZI aggression. That is just a note of clarification, and I hope, not further confusion!

 

[Adam Samansky]

Jeff:

That is a very well articulated response. I think we got the basic law right, but Mr. Lawton filled in the necessary facts to determinatively answer the question. Thank you (and him) for the clarification!

Adam