There are a number of broader developments and factors in relation to the Convention and the international and domestic management of underwater archaeology which are important to take into account.

• The UK has adopted ‘The Rules’, an Annex to the Convention, which includes the principle that UCH should not be commercially exploited.

• It is already government policy that marine licences must comply with ‘The Rules’.

• A number of other major maritime States who originally had concerns about the Convention have now ratified including Spain, France, and Portugal. The Republic of Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands are all considering ratifying.

• The Convention distinguishes between activities directed at UCH, and those which incidentally affect UCH. The scope is therefore narrower than might be presumed.

• The UK will not automatically be required to protect all wrecks in its territorial seas.

• There are several business sectors in the UK which could gain internationally from full UK participation.

• The 2001 Convention is increasingly becoming established as the principal framework for international law for underwater archaeology.

Should the government choose to move towards ratification, consultation with those members of the maritime community who are concerned about its potential impact on their activities could usefully seek to identify and address any remaining substantiated concerns.

The Review found that the majority of the substantive clauses of the 2001 Convention appear to present no difficulty to the UK, and that the UK has world-leading experience in some particular areas. However, there are some clauses which would require the UK to introduce new measures in policy and administration, and potentially in law, and to reallocate resources:

• Regulation or removal of UCH from salvage law

• Development of reporting/notification mechanisms

• Provision for seized UCH

• Human Remains

• Archaeological Archives

Building the case for ratification

The Review:

• revisited the UK government’s concerns of 2001 in the light of present circumstances;

• considered the legal, policy and administrative implications, were the UK to ratify the Convention;

• provided a clause-by-clause examination of the Convention, identifying any which could cause a difficulty for the UK.

The table below sets out the four issues cited by the Government in 2001 and the corresponding findings of the Impact Review.

British Academy and Honor Frost Foundation key reasons

The British Academy and Honor Frost Foundation Briefing Note explicitly makes the case for UK ratification. Noting that the Impact Review has demonstrated that the UK’s 2001 reservations need no longer be such a concern, the Note sets out 5 key reasons to ratify:

1. Protection for historic wrecks of UK origin around the world, including the wrecks of warships, other state vessels, and ships with which the UK declares a ‘verifiable link’;

2. Increased international recognition of UK interests in wrecks that originated here and easier management of underwater cultural heritage;

3. Reduced costs from streamlining existing ad hoc arrangements and benefits from recognising that UCH is a valuable social and economic resource;

4. Enhanced opportunity for the UK to reinforce its interpretation of the international Law of the Sea and to make its case within the Convention’s own institutions;

5. Increased role and recognition and opportunities for growth of the UK heritage sector internationally, where there is expanding global demand.

In contrast, without ratification, the UK will be unable to influence the development of global standards, and be largely unable to protect wrecks of UK origin outside UK waters, such as RMS Titanic or any of Sir Francis Drake’s vessels which might be discovered.

The broader context

There are a number of developments and factors in relation to the Convention and the international and domestic management of underwater archaeology which are important to take in to account.

These include:

• Since 2008 the UK has adopted ‘The Rules’, an Annex to the Convention which sets out a standard for archaeological investigations, as government policy for UCH. The principle that UCH should not be commercially exploited has thus already been accepted and it is already government policy that marine licences must comply with ‘The Rules’.

• A number of other major maritime States who originally had concerns about the Convention have now ratified including Spain, France, and Portugal. The Republic of Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands are all considering ratifying.

• The Convention distinguishes between activities directed at UCH, and those which incidentally affect UCH. The scope is therefore narrower than might be presumed.

• The UK will not automatically be required to protect all wrecks in its territorial seas.

• There are several business sectors in the UK which could gain internationally from full UK participation.

• The 2001 Convention is increasingly becoming established as the principal framework for international law for underwater archaeology. The UK is a world leader in several aspects of UCH, academically and professionally; ratification would increase opportunities for international influence.

The UK’s maritime heritage is worldwide, deriving from the largest merchant fleet, and the most prolific shipyards. For those lost at sea, wrecks are their last resting places. The ‘verifiable links’ of the Convention offer some protection for UK interests beyond the UK’s own waters, including consultation in respect of discoveries and proposed investigations, and appropriate treatment for human remains and historical evidence. This means the UK must be consulted even where the ‘interest’ arises not merely from proprietary rights, such as ownership or derogation in insurance but where the link is merely cultural in nature such as country of origin of cargo or crew