glen_fitzger wrote:
yeah & they lost all rights on 14 june 2004 they can not touch the ship until or if they get salvage rights again!

Captian_Jack wrote:
Quote:

glen_fitzger wrote:
yeah & they lost all rights on 14 june 2004 they can not touch the ship until or if they get salvage rights again!

This question was addressed in great detail by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in its March 24, 1999 Opinion affirming RMST as salvor-in-possession of the wreck. R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. Haver, 171 F. 3d 943, 959, 967-8 (4th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 74 (1999). The Court noted that Article III of the U. S. Constitution extends the judicial power of federal courts to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The drafters of the Constitution placed maritime law under national control because of its intimate relation to navigation and to interstate and foreign commerce. The body of admiralty referred to in Article III preceded the adoption of the Constitution. It was the well-known and well-developed venerable law of the sea. Nations have applied this body of maritime law for 3,000 years or more. This maritime law preceded the Constitution. The Court of Appeals went on to say that this body of maritime law has the force of law, not from extraterritorial reach of national laws, nor from abdication of its sovereign powers by any nation, but from acceptance by common consent of civilized communities of rules designed to foster amicable and workable commercial relations. Thus, when we say today that a case in admiralty is governed by the general maritime law, we speak through our own national sovereignty and thereby recognize and acquiesce in the time-honored principles of the common law of the seas. The exercise of admiralty subject matter jurisdiction has never been limited to maritime causes of action arising solely in the United States territorial waters. On the contrary, maritime causes arising from matters on the high seas anywhere in the world have traditionally been brought to courts of admiralty, subject only to a discretionary exercise of the doctrine of forum non conveniens [non-convenient forum]. The Court recognized that the law of salvage is part of the law of nations and stated that they expect that whether RMST had returned property from the Titanic to an admiralty court in England or France or Canada, the court would, by applying the same principles, have reached the same conclusions. The need for courts of admiralty to apply the law similarly is fundamentally important to international commerce and to the policies supporting order on the high seas. The Court concluded by saying we believe that the district court has a constructive’...jurisdiction over the wreck of the Titanic by having a portion of it within its jurisdiction and that this constructive in rem jurisdiction continues as long as the salvage operation continues...It represents...a shared sovereignty,’ shared with other nations enforcing the same [law of nations]. Based on this reasoning, the federal courts have determined that it is appropriate for RMST to ask a federal court in the United States to award it salvor-in-possession status over the Titanic.