New Titanic Treaty

G

Gavin Murphy

Guest
This is an interesting thread. I think if you go to my article from a few years ago posted on ET at https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/item.php/1503.html it will provide you with some of the treaty's provisions and a link to the final text.

It has now been signed by two countries so can be implemented........but this hasn't happened yet.....in time.

Of course it is not binding on other countries, but if they run afoul of its provsions they could be subject to other sanctions.

I hope this helps.
 
Feb 14, 2011
2,447
3
68
Who will establish and enforce the guidelines to 'protect' Titanic', and who will be paying these people?
American tax dollars? British tax dollars?

Unless I'm reading the above incorrectly, it seems to frown upon the tourist dives, where the so called 'unqualified' people visit the wreck.

That may be the only way any of us have at visiting Titanic, pray that avenue is not closed off!!
Will this indeed affect the 'tourist dives'?

I just fear research of the wreck might be prevented due to this new buearocratic red tape...

regards


tarn Stephanos
 

Jon Hollis

Member
Jan 23, 2004
598
0
0
Mike, My pleasure hope all enjoy.Had it for some time but had to sit on it until I got the full version and permission to release it.
 

Scott Newman

Member
Jun 16, 2004
184
0
86
lol Alicia, that's funny...is this a new treaty? I've heard talks about this treaty for awhile, and the date on the pdf even says "April 2003"...so is this treaty only now being made available to the public? How does this agreement affect the Titanic TODAY?
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
533
16
148
"then explain what you believe is unconstitutional about it"

I've been away for a few days, but to me any treaty that attempts to place restrictions on what can and can not be done with a shipwreck that is not in American territorial waters, and which is not a warship etc. is not the business of the Federal government.

We have never needed a treaty provision to maintain all Titanic artifacts together in one collection. RMSTI has been doing that since 1987, and it did so without any efforts on the part of Robert Ballard.
 

Scott Newman

Member
Jun 16, 2004
184
0
86
"We have never needed a treaty provision to maintain all Titanic artifacts together in one collection. RMSTI has been doing that since 1987..."

Eric, if you believe this is the case you should read news reports from May 2002. Take a look at this one for example http://www.savannahmorningnews.com/stories/050202/LOCawrTitanicArtifacts.shtml In this article RMS Titanic was refused the right to sell artifacts by the Supreme Court of Appeals. Let's not kid ourselves, RMS Titanic, Inc.is a FOR PROFIT organization.

Now, RMS Titanic Inc. has said in recent reports that they will "honor" the new treaty and help to "protect" the wreck, but my gut feeling is that it's all about the money for these guys..
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
533
16
148
If it were all about the money, they would have sold them a long time ago. Hearing all the doom/gloom stories of possible artifact sales all these years has increasingly taken the aura of someone holding a sign saying "The End Is Coming And This Time I Really Mean It!" with me.

But while I believe that ethically, artifacts should not be sold, I do not believe it is the legal right of the State to decide what can and can not be done with artifacts recovered by the legitimate salvors of a wreck in international waters.
 

Jon Hollis

Member
Jan 23, 2004
598
0
0
> [Project for the dectectives out there find the location and find out where all the GOLD COINS are. Hvae heard possibly that they were put up as security for a loan to a Casino (Not White Star Casino but try a another colour..) for expedition funding. So where are they now?????]
 

Bill Willard

Member
Mar 24, 2001
272
1
148
There should be a bit of differentitation here.

When one mentions RMSTI and the ability to sell the artifacts, please remember, RMSTI CAN SELL the artifacts to an entity approved by the court, at the time of that approval. Judge Clarke and Judge Smith have always invited proposals from the company for a transfer of guardianship of the artifacts.

This entire issue of "ownership" of the artifacts, while having a negative impression with those of us who are acutely aware of the situation, does have another side.

For example, RMSTI is required to have insurance on the artifacts. Currency was stolen from the Nashville venue, and to my knowledge, it has not been recovered. I believe the insurance was forthcoming with appropriate compensation. But let's look at a different scenario: A plate fell and was broken (or was damaged by whatever means). If the insurance pays, who gets the broken pieces of the plate? The insurance company of course. Then they can auction off the pieces of the REAL TITANIC and make more money possibly than they paid out. So RMSTI had to have a legal definition of the company's relationship and responsibilities. So what does RMSTI do? The insurance won't pay if the company doesn't turn over the pieces, and the company doesn't own the pieces to turn over.... What good then is the insurance?

It has been rumored, and justifiably so, that the current management had different intentions with the artifacts than the previous management. This is where the concern for selling the artifacts came into play. ANY SALE OF THE ARTIFACTS MUST, I REPEAT MUST, BE APPROVED BY JUDGE SMITH. Judge Clarke and Judge Smith set down specific criteria that you all know: to an entity that will keep the collection together and on public display... et al.

I am apalled by the people, including Ballard, who believe the artifacts should go back down to the ocean floor. That's destructive, and eliminates future generations from seeing these pieces as they were recovered. I don't buy the bull story that "we don't need to recover more artifacts, it just happened recently... It's not as if Titanic sank hundreds of years ago". Well friends, my great-great, etc., grandchildren WILL say that the Titanic sank hundreds of years ago. Then they'll ask why more things weren't brought up. Are we so busy stating what WE want here that we fail to think "long term" or "future generations"?

I also have heard that RMSTI "IS A FOR PROFIT" company for soooo long. Yes they are. They have investors who have put hundreds of thousands of dollars into paying for these expeditions. They have put hundreds of thousands of dollars into conserving the artifacts. Ballard went out on our taxpayer money, not his own dollars or even invested money from investors. HE COULD HAVE DONE THAT. Ask him if he ever contacted Geroge Tulloch and asked to be a part of the recovery operation. Ask him. I dare any of you.

If the artifacts are sold to a museum, or other exhibiting entity, at that time the shareholders make back their investment.

I'll agree that RMSTI has it's problems, and there are pending issues which may address some of those problems. But until then, the artifacts are overseen by Judge Smith. She's not going to allow anything improper to happen to those artifacts.

Gee, do I sound like I'm on a soapbox? Sorry.
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Dec 3, 2000
5,337
30
198
Jon, I suggest you rethink the message Posted on Wednesday, 23 June, 2004 - 1:49 am to Alicia before action is taken. It has been reported to the moderator for this thread.