Introduction
Cyprus, an island nation situated in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, counts among the states that elected not to adopt the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage (henceforth: the 2001 UNESCO Convention), although recognizing its merits. With a coastline of 648 km, Cyprus’ seafloor holds an abundance of underwater cultural heritage. Despite that wealth, one searches in vain for a comprehensive study on the legal protection of its underwater cultural heritage. Instead, sporadic references to some of its provisions can be traced throughout the scholarly research surrounding the legal protection of underwater cultural heritageFootnote 1 and maritime archaeology.Footnote 2 Against this background, this article stands as the first thorough effort to reflect on Cyprus’ legal protection of its underwater cultural heritage.
This article is set out in the following way. First, it briefly describes the development of the island’s maritime archaeology. What follows next is a short review of the legal protection provided at an international level. The focus then turns to the Cypriot safeguarding scheme for underwater cultural heritage. In so doing, this article sets the scene by identifying first the common principles of the regulatory regime, before exploring the legal protection afforded by Cyprus to underwater cultural heritage in each specific maritime zone. Thereafter, this study takes a dive to explain the relevant Cypriot judicial proceedings and cooperation practices related to the protection of underwater cultural heritage. The remainder of this article directs its gaze on the reasons why the Cypriot regulatory regime would benefit from possible ratification of the 2001 UNESCO Convention by discussing some of its challenges, stressing that such a decision carries with it certain limitations. This article concludes by suggesting that, even though Cyprus is a non-signatory party to the 2001 UNESCO Convention, over the last decade it has adopted concrete measures and has applied in practice most of the principles of the Convention’s annex. However, gaps and challenges do remain, which should prompt the Republic of Cyprus to reconsider its position.
Historical Background
Early efforts to explore Cyprus’ rich underwater cultural heritage go back, roughly, to the late 1930s when the first initiatives to investigate the island’s maritime past were undertaken.Footnote 3 However, the watershed moment for the history of Cypriot maritime archaeology came in 1967 when the accidental discovery of a Kyrenia ship, a Greek wooden vessel dating back at least 2,300 years, was instrumental in developing maritime archaeology.Footnote 4 In the ensuing years, Cyprus became a center of maritime archaeology in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea.Footnote 5
Political events intervened in 1974, which interrupted that blossoming. Following a military coup d’état attempting to achieve a union with Greece, Türkiye invaded the island—and still occupies one-third of it today. Yet excavations south of the island continued.Footnote 6 Heralded as the second most important underwater cultural heritage discovery that “signals the birth of Cypriot underwater archaeology” carried out “solely by Cypriot organizations,”Footnote 7 the Mazotos Wreck was identified in 2006. Lying 14 nautical miles southwest of the city of Larnaca and 1.5 nautical miles from the coast, the wreck relates to the remains of a ship from the 4th century BC, loaded with Chian amphoras.Footnote 8
In contrast to the south of the island, the Turkish-controlled northern part of Cyprus yields a different story. Almost a decade after the military events of 1974, the occupied part declared its independence as the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (henceforth: TRNC). No state in the world apart from Türkiye recognizes this secessionist entity.Footnote 9 The safeguarding of underwater cultural heritage in the north remains limited, in no small part because of the island’s political realities. A more detailed analysis of this dimension is given later in this article.
The International Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage
This section briefly sketches out the international framework for the protection of underwater cultural heritage. In so doing it firstly analyzes the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (henceforth: LOSC 1982) and then the 2001 UNESCO Convention.
The Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage Under the LOSC 1982
LOSC 1982 touches on the protection of underwater cultural heritage superficially only. Despite being known as the “Constitution of Oceans,” it contains only two provisions regarding the protection of underwater cultural heritage: Articles 149 and 303. This comes as no surprise since, during its long negotiations, safeguarding underwater cultural heritage was far from a priority.Footnote 10
Article 303 (1) sets out the general duty to protect underwater cultural heritage in all maritime zones—the Territorial Sea (henceforth: TS),Footnote 11 the Contiguous Zone (henceforth: CZ),Footnote 12 the Exclusive Economic Zone (henceforth: EEZ),Footnote 13 the Continental Shelf (henceforth: CS),Footnote 14 the High Seas,Footnote 15 and the AreaFootnote 16—whereas the subsequent paragraph extends states’ control over underwater cultural heritage located in the CZ.Footnote 17 More problematically, Article 303 (3) leaves open the door for the laws of salvage and finds, which can be applied to underwater cultural heritage.Footnote 18 Having right at their core economic interests, salvors’ and finders’ willingness to “rescue” underwater cultural heritage is mostly driven by commercial incentives instead of any interest in its historical, archaeological, and/or cultural importance.Footnote 19 Paragraph 4 encourages the conclusion of bilateral or multilateral agreements for the protection of underwater cultural heritage.Footnote 20 Being applicable farther than any maritime zone, Article 149 establishes the general duty of states to safeguard underwater cultural heritage in their Area.Footnote 21 During its travaux préparatoires Cyprus, along with Greece and Türkiye, held the position that underwater cultural heritage constitutes common cultural heritage. Yet they insisted that special regard should be given “to the State of historical origin.”Footnote 22
It suffices for the time being to note that Cyprus belongs to the long list of states that are parties to the LOSC 1982. These regulations entered the Cypriot legal framework with the adoption of the Law Concerning the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (No. 203/1988).
The Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage Under the 2001 UNESCO Convention
Due to LOSC 1982’s inadequacy in dealing with safeguarding underwater cultural heritage in a thorough manner, the first international treaty specifically addressing its protection was created,Footnote 23 the 2001 UNESCO Convention, which came into force in 2009. As of October 12, 2024, the Convention counts 77 state parties.Footnote 24
The primary aim of the 2001 UNESCO Convention is to preserve underwater cultural heritage “for the benefit of humanity” (Article 2 (3) of the 2001 UNESCO Convention). The Convention provides the first definition of underwater cultural heritage (Article 1 of the 2001 UNESCO Convention) and favors its in-situ preservation (Article 2 (5) and Rule 1 of the Annex of the 2001 UNESCO Convention). In addition, the international treaty seeks to put an end to the commercialization of underwater cultural heritage (Article 2 (7) and Rule 2 of the Annex of the 2001 UNESCO Convention), calling for states to cooperate for its protection (Articles 2 (2) and 6 of the 2001 UNESCO Convention). The whole regulatory framework grounds its protective scheme on the maritime zones established by LOSC 1982.Footnote 25 An annex of best archaeological practices composed of 36 Rules is an integral part of the Convention (Article 33 of the 2001 UNESCO Convention).
During the Convention’s travaux préparatoires, Cyprus was represented in some of the meetings by a delegation composed of one person.Footnote 26 The Republic seems to have watched with interest and has generally been supportive of the process of drafting an international treaty on the protection of underwater cultural heritage.Footnote 27 Throughout the Convention’s negotiations, it seems that Cyprus neither took the floor nor made any intervention expressing any objections. Absent specific records for countries voting in favor, Cyprus counts neither among those states that abstained nor among those that voted against the adoption of the Convention.Footnote 28 There are two principal ways in which this silence might be read. One interpretation is that Cyprus was satisfied with the final form of the 2001 UNESCO Convention. Alternatively, such a stance might be read as denoting the absence of any fundamental objections.
Unlike other countries that have made publicly available the reasons why they have chosen a different path, this is not the case for Cyprus. The author’s efforts to gain more information about Cyprus’ stance during the Convention’s negotiations, in which it neither voted against nor abstained, were in vain. Due to the sensitive character of this information, details were not shared.Footnote 29 Equally, no information is to be found on why Cyprus has not yet adopted the 2001 UNESCO Convention. The author is therefore left to imagine why the situation remains so today. Despite recognizing the Convention’s merits—that later became evident with the adoption of its Annex into its domestic legislation—the following three parameters might have contributed to such a stance. The first reason why this original interest has faded away might relate to concerns over sovereignty. Even before the international adoption of the 2001 UNESCO Convention, let alone the amendment of the Cypriot Antiquities Law (Ch. 31) and the adoption of the Regulations for the Protection of Maritime Antiquities (No. 218/2016) (henceforth: 2016 Regulations),Footnote 30 Cyprus exerted control over its underwater cultural heritage in the CS.Footnote 31 Cyprus today claims ownership of antiquities in all its maritime zones, yet the 2001 UNESCO Convention does not refer to ownership of underwater cultural heritage. Such a stance is further supported by the island’s overall position during the LOSC’s 1982 negotiations, which prioritized the interests of states of historical origin.
The second reason, since the principle of cooperation constitutes the heart of the international regulatory scheme established by the 2001 UNESCO Convention, the contested waters of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea as well as the continuing occupation of the island leave little to no fertile ground for the effective application of the Convention. A third reason relates to the island’s perception that a strong and adequate regulatory framework is in place for the protection of underwater cultural heritage.Footnote 32 However, the discussion later in this article shows that this position is untenable.
Legal Principles of the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage in Cyprus
This section outlines the definition and four principles that run through Cyprus’ protection of underwater cultural heritage. This leads to the next section, which analyses the specific protection that is granted in each maritime zone, following the jurisdictional paradigms of LOSC 1982 and the 2001 UNESCO Convention.
Definition of Underwater Cultural Heritage
“Antiquity” means “any object, whether movable or part of immovable property, and is considered to be a work of architecture, sculpture, graphic art, painting, or generally any form of art which has through human effort been produced, sculptured, inscribed or painted or generally made in any manner whatsoever and from any material prior to the last 100 years and was found, discovered, excavated or recovered in Cyprus, including its maritime zones, and includes any such object or part thereof which has at a later date been added, reconstructed, readjusted or replaced subsequently” (Article 2 (1) of the Antiquities Law (Ch. 31)).
This definition of antiquity sets no significance criterion—“any.” On the contrary, it introduces a chronological one—“prior to the last 100 years.” The general reference to Cyprus’ “maritime zones” indicates that the definition should be applied in all its maritime zones. A unique point of interest of the Antiquities Law is that it contains an additional definition for “maritime antiquity”: “an antiquity that was found, discovered, or excavated in the maritime zones of Cyprus” (Article 2 of the Antiquities Law (Ch. 31)). Regrettably, this definition does not add much. To ascertain its meaning, a cross-reference to the definition of antiquity is necessary. That choice of wording is unfortunate. When juxtaposed with the definition of the 2001 UNESCO Convention, it seems that there has been no genuine attempt to incorporate elements that acquired protection with the 2001 UNESCO Convention, let alone go beyond its text and embrace elements that the latter’s definition leaves unprotected.
Chief among these absences is the fact that the definition of “antiquity” fails to recognize the legal protection of human remains. When incorporating the Annex of the 2001 UNESCO Convention into the Cypriot legal system through the adoption of the 2016 Regulations, human remains were intentionally omitted. Paleontological and prehistoric materials, as well as archaeological sites where human existence is not explicitly visible, are excluded from the provided definition of antiquity: the requirement for human involvement (“through human effort”) in the definition of antiquity leads to this conclusion. Wrecks lying beneath the waves for less than a century are also excluded from the safeguarding scheme. In certain instances, this arbitrary definition proves problematic. For instance, the Maritime Archaeology Sea Trust Database lists at least four wrecks originating from the United Kingdom that sank around Cyprus between 1940 and 1946.Footnote 33
State Ownership of Underwater Cultural Heritage
Constitutional considerations underpin the legal protection of cultural heritage in Cyprus. Article 23 (1) of the Cypriot Constitution protects the right to property. Yet it reserves “[t]he right of the Republic to underground water, minerals and antiquities.” Much like other source countries,Footnote 34 Cyprus vests its ownership to the state (Article 3 of the Antiquities Law (Ch. 31)). As far as underwater cultural heritage is concerned, Article 18A of the same legislative piece embraces the state’s ownership of underwater cultural heritage found in the Cypriot EEZ or the CS. It comes as no surprise that this blanket assertion of ownership of known or unknown underwater cultural heritage leaves little to no room for the interests of other states and the private sector.
In Situ Preservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage
Article 4 (1) of the 2016 Regulations introduces the general principle of in situ preservation of underwater cultural heritage. Being applicable in the Cypriot EEZ and/or CS, Article 18D (6) of the Antiquities Law (Ch. 31) confirms maritime antiquities’ preservation at the place where they are identified. Aligning with the 2001 UNESCO Convention and its Annex, in situ preservation constitutes the first choice for protecting underwater cultural heritage. This is not to suggest that underwater cultural heritage is doomed to remain in the depths of the sea for eternity in every individual case, as certain considerations might favor its extraction from the sea. This is only allowed after obtaining a special license from Cyprus’ Director of the Department of Antiquities. What the parameters for this are remains unknown, as the relevant pieces of legislation do not go far enough to clearly demarcate them. That might be a deliberate decision; by opting for general wording, they leave considerable leeway for Cyprus to determine these considerations on a case-by-case basis.
Non-Commercial Exploitation of Underwater Cultural Heritage
The commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage constitutes no concern for the island of Cyprus; Article 26 of the Antiquities Law (Ch. 31) laconically states that “[n]o one shall trade in antiquities.” Anyone found guilty of trading in antiquities faces up to five years imprisonment or a fine of up to 45,000 euros. Cyprus conforms with the strict requirement of Article 4 of the 2001 UNESCO Convention and Rule 5 of its Annex, which positions underwater cultural heritage outside the realm of commerce. The sale or auction of cultural objects certainly falls within its purview, and the Antiquities Law (Ch. 31) offers further guidance. Its Article 37 prohibits the commercial exploitation or use of any photographs, film, or visual material depicting antiquities, ancient monuments, or archaeological sites unless permission is granted from Cyprus’ Director of the Department of Antiquities. Any potential violation of this could result in up to six months imprisonment and/or a penalty not exceeding 10,000 euros. The 2016 Regulations confirm the spirit of previous provisions, with Article 5 (1) establishing the prohibition of commercial trade in underwater cultural heritage. Albeit not defining what commercialization is, the wording does explain what does not count as commercial trade. In line with the Annex of the 2001 UNESCO Convention, professional archaeological services or other necessary services are not deemed commercial activities (Article 5 (2) of the 2016 Regulations). Other than that, these provisions elaborate no further on the meaning of the term “commercial trade.” Just like the previous provisions, this clause seems to cover the sale or auction of underwater cultural heritage. Cyprus’ stance against the trafficking of cultural heritage is further evidenced by its participation in both the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (henceforth: 1970 UNESCO Convention)Footnote 35 and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (henceforth: 1995 UNIDROIT Convention).Footnote 36
The Law of Salvage and the Law of Finds
Unlike in some other countries, the law of salvage is not an alien concept for Cyprus. In instances where a ship or its cargo is recovered from the country’s maritime zones, Article 24 of the Wrecks Law (Ch. 298) sets forth the right for the salvor to have a reasonable reward. For a successful salvage claim, four cumulative requirements need to be satisfied: 1) the involvement of maritime property such as a ship or its cargo, 2) the existence of a danger, 3) the voluntary character of the rescue, and 4) its success.Footnote 37 In determining the amount of reasonable reward, Article 34 of the same piece of legislation sets out six exhaustive parameters that Cypriot Courts should take into account: 1) whether the effort to save property was successful, 2) the time employed, 3) the value of salved property, 4) the salvor’s degree of labor and skill as well as the relevant danger, 5) the extent of damage, and 6) the salvor’s enterprise and promptitude in offering assistance.
However, Cyprus fundamentally departs from certain common law countries, most notably the US. By adopting a narrower reading of the law of salvage, the island does not recognize its application to historic shipwrecks or other underwater cultural heritage. In a review of the relevant case law of the Supreme Court of Cyprus, the author was unable to identify a single case that attempted to apply the law of salvage to historic wrecks or other underwater cultural heritage. In fact, all of the cases concerned attempts to salvage ships or their cargo that were in a perilous situation. Cyprus is firmly in line with other countries around the world, which do not recognize the application of the law of salvage to underwater cultural heritage, by adopting a stricter approach than the one envisaged by the 2001 UNESCO Convention, let alone LOSC 1982. Being applicable to abandoned wrecks, the law of finds portrays a comparable picture. As already alluded to above, Cyprus claims ownership of underwater cultural heritage in all its maritime zones. This clause leaves little to no room for private ownership. In one instance, the Supreme Court of Cyprus—albeit not dealing with underwater cultural heritage but involving a floating abandoned wreck—held that there is no authority for any finder or salvor of an abandoned ship in the High Seas or Cypriot TS to acquire its ownership.Footnote 38 Such an approach further supports the argument against private ownership of abandoned wrecks, let alone underwater cultural heritage.
The Legal Protection of Cypriot Underwater Cultural Heritage in Accordance with Each Maritime Zone
Having established the main principles of Cypriot law regarding the protection of underwater cultural heritage, the analysis that follows charts the protection that is provided in each maritime zone according to the jurisdictional zones enshrined in the LOSC 1982 and the 2001 UNESCO Convention.
Territorial Sea
Cyprus’ TS stretches out 12 nautical miles. Prior to the 2014 legislative amendments, underwater cultural heritage already enjoyed protection within the reach of the TS. However, underwater cultural heritage has not always been safeguarded. A look at the 1935 British colonial version of Antiquities Law reveals that it was only concerned with the protection of antiquities found on land (Article 2 of the Antiquities Law of 1935). The situation changed following Cyprus’ 1960 independence from the UK when the 1964 Amendment of Antiquities Law extended the meaning of land to include territorial waters (Article 3 (b) of Law No. 48/1964). Nine years later, Cyprus further amended its definition of antiquity to cover antiquities located within the TS (Article 2 of Law No. 32/1973). Since then, the provisions of the Antiquities Law (Ch. 31) apply to Cyprus’ TS. The distinct treatment of the TS in comparison with other maritime zones is evident in Article 14 of the Antiquities Law (Ch. 31), which prohibits unlicensed excavations for antiquities on land, including Cyprus’ territorial waters. Potential violations could result in up to five years imprisonment and/or a 45,000 euro penalty.
In 2021, after the Director of the Department of Antiquities’ recommendation to the Council of Ministers, the Mazotos Wreck was registered as an “ancient monument” (Regulations 50/2021). Destruction, damage, or alteration of an “ancient monument” entails up to three years imprisonment or a fine of 45,000 euros (Article 10 (1) of the Antiquities Law (Ch. 31)). The 2001 UNESCO Convention goes one step further by asking states to inform other countries about sunken state shipwrecks and aircraft found in their own TS (Article 7 (3) of the 2001 UNESCO Convention). Cyprus lacks any such information and notification obligation. It appears, instead, that it is incumbent upon Cyprus’ discretion to decide whether such a vessel has been found within the Cypriot TS or not. State practice offers ample examples of bilateral agreements where state vessels have been located in the TS of another state.Footnote 39 Practices like these might be employed as guidelines in the future.
A final note needs to be made about the UK’s Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Following Cyprus’ 1960 independence, the UK retained these two sovereign areas covering around 259 km2 to use them as military bases. According to Section 3 of Annex A of the 1960 Treaty Concerning the Establishment of the Republic, the island is prohibited from claiming jurisdiction over waters within 3 nautical miles of the Sovereign Base Areas. Opinions on the zones’ legal status are divided. Certain scholars argue that the UK exercises nothing less than full sovereignty there, while some other quarters consider that the Base’s maritime zone has only a sui generis status.Footnote 40 The inability to speak with one voice means that the issue is open to debate. Excavations have already taken place at Dreamer’s Bay in Akrotiri Sovereign Base Area with the permission of the UK’s Sovereign Base Areas Administration and Cyprus’ Department of Antiquities, revealing the remains of a port going back to the Roman and early Byzantine period.Footnote 41 Although Sovereign Base Areas authority retains “stewardship responsibilities” over these objects, their ownership belongs “to the Republic.”Footnote 42 Cyprus’ ownership of these port remains at Dreamer’s Bay suggests that underwater cultural heritage found in the adjacent zone of 3 nautical miles would equally belong to Cyprus. Yet a detailed analysis of underwater cultural heritage’s legal status in the UK’s Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia requires a separate study in its own right.
Contiguous Zone
Cyprus is among the states that have established a CZ. Article 303 (2) of the LOSC 1982 was incorporated into the Cypriot legal order through the Contiguous Zone Law (No. 63 (I)/2004). Its Article 4 (c) establishes that the Republic has the power to “control traffic of objects of an archaeological and historical nature found in this zone.” The wording “archaeological and historical nature” remains undefined. The term “and” indicates that both elements are required for the provision to apply. Any removal of underwater cultural heritage from the Cypriot CZ is assessed as if committed in violation of the provisions related to TS (Article 4 (c) of the Contiguous Zone Law (No. 63 (I)/2004)). It comes as no surprise that the same penalties of up to five years imprisonment and/or 45,000 euros apply. Cyprus’ Council of Ministers further maintains the power to issue regulations to increase the effectiveness of this piece of legislation with “preventive measures aiming for the control, the avoidance or prevention of traffic of objects of an archaeological and historical nature found in this zone and to the licensing procedures for their removal” (Article 5 (2) (b) of the Contiguous Zone Law (No. 63 (I)/2004)). Any of these three possible scenarios offers the Republic the power to impose such regulations. Surpassing Articles 33 and 303 (2) of the LOSC 1982, Cyprus seems to enjoy both legislative and enforcement powers in its CZ.
Exclusive Economic Zone and/or Continental Shelf
Prior to the 2014 amendments, Cyprus maintained a provision that applied to underwater cultural heritage in its CS. In opposition to the Law of the Sea codification’s efforts favoring the view that underwater cultural heritage does not qualify as a “natural resource,”Footnote 43 Cyprus had a different vision. The Republic instead interpreted maritime antiquities as falling within the purview of “non-living resources.”Footnote 44 As a result, underwater cultural heritage could only be removed from the Cypriot CS with the Republic’s consent.Footnote 45
Following the amendments introduced in 2014 due to incidents of looting underwater cultural heritage seawards the Cypriot TS,Footnote 46 Antiquities Law (Ch. 31) protects underwater cultural heritage in “Part IIIA: Antiquities in the EEZ and/or the CS of the Republic” (Articles 18A–18D). Article 18A confirms that antiquities located in the EEZ or the CS—whether known or unknown—are the property of the state. This provision runs counter to what the 2001 UNESCO Convention generally prescribes. Instead of regulating ownership, the 2001 UNESCO Convention establishes a complex cooperative system of reporting, notification, and protection between interested states.Footnote 47 The procedural scheme established by Articles 9 and 10 of the 2001 UNESCO Convention is completely alien to the Cypriot regulatory framework. Cyprus’ legislative system simply asserts ownership of underwater cultural heritage found in its ΕΕΖ and/or CS. Cyprus seldom takes an interest in protecting other states’ interests in underwater cultural heritage found within its EEZ and/or CS. Nor are any procedures currently available to take such interests into account.
Any person discovering antiquities in Cyprus’ EEZ and/or CS is obliged to provide the Director of the Department of Antiquities with all the relevant information (Article 18B (1) of Antiquities Law). No indication is to be found about what kind of “information” needs to be submitted, except the maritime antiquities’ location. The clause’s wording (“including”) suggests that only indicative geographic coordinates of discovered underwater cultural heritage are required. Absent any permission, the removal of antiquities is strictly prohibited. Offenders are subject to the maximum penalty of 100,000 euros and/or up to three years’ imprisonment (Article 18B (2)). The idea behind these strict penalties is to deter potential wrongdoers.Footnote 48 To further enhance the protection afforded to underwater cultural heritage, Article 18C (1) provides the possibility of establishing a maritime antiquities protection zone in the EEZ and/or the CS where maritime antiquities of historic, archaeological, or artistic significance exist or are suspected to exist. By employing disjunctive wording (“or”), the provision suggests that these terms come as alternatives, and thus, fulfilling any of these criteria is sufficient to establish such a zone. Suspicions that underwater cultural heritage might reside in the Cypriot EEZ and/or CS justify the application of this provision. In such a case, installing artificial islands and structures, anchoring vessels, fishing, diving, and drilling activities using explosives, introducing harmful substances into the marine environment, and any other activity that might cause damage to underwater cultural heritage within these zones is prohibited (Article 18C (2) of the Antiquities Law). Violation once again risks up to three years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to 100,000 euros. Just like the previous clause, these strict penalties are justified based on deterrence. It is reasonable to expect that analogous maritime antiquities protection zones will be established in the foreseeable future to protect underwater cultural heritage sites within Cyprus’ EEZ and/or CS.
The Antiquities Law’s last provision establishes the procedure for obtaining a license for surveys or excavations related to underwater cultural heritage within its EEZ and/or CS (Article 18D of the Antiquities Law). Paragraph 1 sets out the general rule that no one is allowed to survey or make excavations for underwater cultural heritage without permission and that Cyprus is solely responsible for granting such licenses. Requests for such permissions must be submitted at least two months in advance of a planned excavation or survey (Article 18D (2) of the Antiquities Law (Ch. 31)). The criteria that Cyprus’ Director of the Department of Antiquities considers in granting such licenses include whether the applicants have the necessary credentials to carry out the work appropriately, as well as future scientific publication of their findings (Article 18D (3) (a) and (c) of the Antiquities Law (Ch. 31)). The provision’s requirements seem to be exhaustive. Further, the Director is entitled to impose certain terms on aspiring licensees, such as a license’s duration or the geographic area where a survey or an excavation can take place (Article 18D (4) (a) and (c) of the Antiquities Law (Ch. 31)). These terms are indicative (“may refer”). The Director assesses discretely on a case-by-case basis. Paragraph 6 of the same provision lays down the presumption of in situ preservation unless otherwise permitted by the Director of the Department of Antiquities. No information is provided about what considerations might necessitate ex-situ protection. Penalties of up to three years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to 100,000 euros apply for the same reasons of deterrence (Article 18D (10) of Antiquities Law (Ch. 31)).
Sporadic references to underwater cultural heritage located in the Cypriot EEZ and/or CS can be found in several other instruments that relate to energy resource exploration. Among the factors that have to be considered when considering such authorizations is the protection of “national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value” (Article 13(1)(h) of the Hydrocarbons (Prospection, Exploration and Exploitation) Law No. 4 (I)/2007). When establishing a pipeline or cable, the Director of the Department of Antiquities must be consulted, to check for the existence of antiquities within Cyprus’ EEZ and/or CS (Article 6(4)(b) of the Submarine Pipelines Regulations 2014 (No. 578/2014) and Article 6(4)(b) of the Submarine Cables Regulations 2014 (No. 579/2014)). Albeit not explicitly framed as underwater cultural heritage impact assessment, as in other states,Footnote 49 these provisions do recognize how submarine pipelines and cables might threaten the protection of underwater cultural heritage. Clauses like these are welcome since discoveries of underwater cultural heritage within Cyprus’ EEZ and/or CS are not so rare as one may surmise. A recent study undertaken in close collaboration with the Cyprus Department of Antiquities has shown that, during energy resources exploration activities since 2011, offshore oil and gas companies accidentally identified “three new shipwreck sites and one amphorae alley”Footnote 50 within the reach of the Cypriot EEZ. Operating in Drilling Block 12 of Cyprus’ EEZ, Noble Energy International Ltd is an interesting example that illustrates how the protection of underwater cultural heritage has been considered by energy companies.Footnote 51 No specific standards for offshore oil and gas operations related to underwater cultural heritage have yet been adopted by the Republic.Footnote 52
Area
Cyprus is only bound by Article 149 of the LOSC 1982 for the protection of underwater cultural heritage within the Area. This obligation entered the domestic legal order along with its deficiencies with the Cypriot Law Concerning the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (No. 203/1988). Unlike Articles 11 and 12 of the 2001 UNESCO Convention, which sets out an analogous reporting, notification, and protection procedure for underwater cultural heritage found in the Area, the Cypriot regulatory scheme lacks any further details.
Domestic Jurisprudence
At the time of writing this article, the Cypriot Courts have, so far, had the opportunity to deal with the legal protection of underwater cultural heritage twice.Footnote 53 An analysis of these cases follows.
Civil Application No. 16/2016, Odyssey Retriever Inc, 1 C.L.R. 540, Supreme Court of Cyprus, February 23, 2016
The first time the Cypriot judiciary examined the protection of underwater cultural heritage was in 2016 when this case arose between the Republic of Cyprus and the US commercial company Odyssey Retriever Inc. At the center of the dispute was the company’s suspected search for antiquities in the Republic’s EEZ and/or CS. In December 2015 a ship named Odyssey Explorer, flying a Panamanian flag, moved suspiciously along the Cypriot-Lebanese delimitation line.Footnote 54 According to news articles, in doing so, the vessel identified 12 wrecks. Most notably the largest wreck is alleged to be an Ottoman merchant ship that sank to a depth of around 2 km in 1630, on its route from Egypt to Constantinople (today Istanbul), carrying a cosmopolitan cargo originating from 14 cultures and civilizations that range from Chinese porcelain to Italian painted jugs and Indian peppercorns.Footnote 55 When the Odyssey Explorer docked at the harbor of Limassol, it concealed the existence of antiquities onboard from the Customs Authorities, claiming that it had nothing to declare, in violation of Customs Code Law (No. 94 (I)/2004).Footnote 56
After receiving an application from the police, Limassol District Court’s judge issued a search warrant on 23 December 2015 to ascertain whether the police’s suspicions about antiquities being on board were valid. The next day the search warrant was executed. The Cypriot authorities’ inspection of the vessel brought to light 57 well-hidden containers containing around 588 antiquities. Ironically, in a statement beforehand, the company had declared that “Odyssey was neither working in Cypriot waters nor recovering ancient artefacts.”Footnote 57 The objects were subsequently seized (Customs Code Law (No. 94 (I)/2004)).Footnote 58 Shortly after this confiscation of antiquities, the Odyssey Explorer sailed from Limassol with Beirut as its destination.Footnote 59
Asking the Supreme Court of Cyprus to exercise its first instance jurisdiction by permitting an application for the prerogative writ of certiorari, Odyssey Retriever Inc. attempted to annul the search warrant.Footnote 60 The company raised the following objections: 1) the search warrant was insufficiently justified, 2) the fact that the police’s oath and the Limassol District Court judge’s decree were both prepared and signed the same day suggested that the conclusions were not the result of the judge’s own opinion, and 3) in the absence of reasonable suspicions, the search warrant was issued in violation of Article 27 of the Criminal Procedure Law (Ch. 155). Given that antiquities were found on board, Odyssey Retriever Inc. further argued that the Cypriot police would not be able to determine whether this underwater cultural heritage had been retrieved from the Cypriot EEZ and/or CS or from the maritime zones of another state.Footnote 61 Hence, once confiscation had taken place, one of the pressing issues for the Cypriot authorities was to determine the cargo’s provenience. A collaborative investigation was undertaken by Cyprus’ Department of Antiquities with the Lebanese authorities and INTERPOL, which concluded that the seized antiquities did not in fact originate from Cyprus. This finding left open the possibility that the objects had been extracted from Lebanon’s EEZ and/or CS where the Odyssey Explorer had carried out research activities.Footnote 62 It nonetheless remains unknown why Lebanon, a state party to the LOSC 1982, which had accepted the 2001 UNESCO Convention, took no measures when it became aware of the incident.Footnote 63 A plausible explanation might be that the Odyssey Explorer had already sailed from Lebanese waters and reached the port of Limassol by then.
On hearing the above contentions, the Supreme Court of Cyprus dismissed them in their entirety, based on both procedural and substantive grounds. The Court suggested that, at a procedural level, there had been a considerable delay of almost five weeks on the company’s side in requesting the discretionary remedy of the prerogative writ of certiorari without any reasonable explanation or justification.Footnote 64 As for substance, the Supreme Court affirmed that mere possibility was enough for Article 27 of the Criminal Procedure Law (Ch. 155) to apply. Following a thorough examination of the content of the policeman’s oath, the Supreme Court reached the conclusion that it was sufficient to evince reasonable suspicion.Footnote 65 The Court was equally negative in its response to the allegation that the conclusions were not the outcome of the judge’s own opinion.Footnote 66
Civil Appeal No. 59/16, Regarding the Application of Odyssey Retriever Inc, Supreme Court of Cyprus, May 3, 2017
Frustrated by the unfavorable ruling, Odyssey Retriever Inc. filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of Cyprus. While exercising its first instance jurisdiction, the Supreme Court wrongly dismissed the case the company argued, for the procedural reason of delay as well as for the same substantive reasons previously raised.Footnote 67 On appeal, the Supreme Court of Cyprus remained unconvinced by the arguments presented. It confirmed that the search warrant was valid and sufficient as it contained the signature of Limassol’s District Court judge, the date and time of publication, and demonstrated the judge’s satisfaction that there was reasonable cause to justify its issue (Article 28 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Law (Ch. 155)).Footnote 68 Upholding the first instance ruling, the Supreme Court indicated that the existence of reasonable suspicion was enough for the provision to be applied.Footnote 69 The procedural objection of the company’s delay in applying for the prerogative writ of certiorari met the same fate.Footnote 70
In the meantime, a great deal of controversy surrounded the treatment of the seized underwater cultural heritage. News reports suggested that Cyprus was ready to auction the confiscated antiquities,Footnote 71 although the Cypriot Department of Antiquities dismissed those allegations a few days later. In a press release, the Department noted that “[a]ll the antiquities found on the ship were photographed … and their conservation was undertaken by a specialist conservator … Cypriot authorities will not … be auctioning the objects … since this does not only contravene the ethical code but it is also prohibited by the Antiquities Law of Cyprus.”Footnote 72 The American company’s accusations had no solid foundation since both Article 26 of the Antiquities Law (Ch. 31) and Article 5 of the 2016 Regulations strictly prohibit the commercialization of Cypriot underwater cultural heritage. The case attracted UNESCO’s attention too. The International Committee for Underwater Cultural Heritage (ICUCH), along with the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), expressed their concerns over the original removal of underwater cultural heritage from Lebanese waters and dispatched letters to the governments of Cyprus, Lebanon, and Panama, as well as several non-governmental organizations.Footnote 73
Email correspondence between the author and the Cypriot Department of Antiquities confirms that further judicial proceedings before the District Court of Limassol are pending between the Cypriot Department of Antiquities and Odyssey Retriever Inc.Footnote 74 The local press has recently covered the content of the ongoing litigation in some detail. The company is reportedly demanding the release of the seized underwater cultural heritage and financial compensation of up to 2 million euros.Footnote 75 During the proceedings, Cyprus’ Department of Antiquities has attempted to prove that the incident falls within the purview of illicit trafficking of underwater cultural heritage according to the relevant international legal framework. Nonetheless, the exact legal basis that the Republic is employing is unclear from the news accounts. Testifying before the District Court of Limassol on behalf of Odyssey Retriever Inc., Dr Sean Kingsley argued that the antiquities had not been extracted from Lebanon’s EEZ with the intention of sale. Instead, he claimed, the company intended to display the artifacts in museums.Footnote 76 With some recent statements, the Lebanese Minister of Culture, Mohammad Wissam El-Mortada, has added another layer of complexity to the ongoing case. He suggested that the company had been commissioned by the Lebanese Ministry of Public Works and Transport to identify and recover the remains of an airplane that crashed in 1957 but, instead of locating the airplane, the company had come across the maritime antiquities and decided to transfer them to Cyprus. He continued by asserting that Lebanon will officially request the antiquities’ return from the Cypriot authorities.Footnote 77 The outcome of the case remains to be seen.
Cooperation Practices
To further enhance the protection of underwater cultural heritage, Cyprus has participated in the past in several trilateral schemes with most of the littoral states of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, such as Egypt, Greece, Israel, and Lebanon. For instance, the Cyprus-Israel-Greece 3rd Trilateral Nicosia Summit Declaration of January 28, 2016, expressed all three states’ readiness “to cooperate for the protection of underwater cultural heritage and to promote such cooperation with neighboring countries in the Eastern Mediterranean.”Footnote 78 The terminology changed slightly in the Declaration published after the 2018 Summit, which expresses the three states’ willingness “to join efforts for the protection of underwater cultural heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean from illicit excavations and damage … and to develop a framework of close consultation and cooperation on this issue.”Footnote 79 Yet it omits to provide any information about how this will be accomplished.
The references to the protection of underwater cultural heritage in the trilateral scheme established between Cyprus, Egypt, and Greece are comparatively more detailed. The Joint Elounda Declaration of 2018 makes a step forward by suggesting that protection of underwater cultural heritage from illicit excavations can be achieved “through the elaboration of an Agreement.”Footnote 80 Other than specifying the means to achieve this, no further information is provided. The Trilateral Summit of 2020 confirms the three states’ determination to draft an agreement, differing with an added sentence on the promotion of “know-how exchanges and training seminars.”Footnote 81 Less dense connotations in both references and content about the protection of underwater cultural heritage can be seen in the 2016 Athens Trilateral Political Consultation between the Foreign Affairs Ministries of Greece, Cyprus, and Lebanon, in which all three states expressed their commitment to cooperate to safeguard underwater cultural heritage.Footnote 82 News reports document that Cyprus and Lebanon agreed to commence negotiations to conclude a special agreement on “the protection of underwater cultural heritage from illegal excavations.”Footnote 83 The ongoing Odyssey Retriever Inc. case might be seen as the impetus behind Cyprus and Lebanon’s initiative. To the author’s best knowledge, no such agreements have been adopted.Footnote 84 Such instruments could draw inspiration from existing practices such as the 2001 Siracusa Declaration on the Submarine Cultural Heritage of the Mediterranean Sea.
Despite Cyprus’ active involvement in cooperation schemes aiming to protect underwater cultural heritage, its legal foundations are not well established. Cyprus is bound by its implementing Law Concerning the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (No. 203/1988), which incorporates in toto the wording of Article 303 (4) LOSC 1982. Strikingly, Cyprus has not embraced most of the 2001 UNESCO Convention’s cooperative provisions. It is particularly unfortunate that, despite being already obliged by Article 303 (4) LOSC 1982, the Republic has not made such commitments more explicit, taking into account Recital 10 of the Preamble as well as Articles 2 (2) and 6 of the 2001 UNESCO Convention.
Challenges for Cyprus’ Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage
While Cyprus has taken some important steps to enhance the protection of underwater cultural heritage, this section proposes why Cyprus should reconsider its stance and ratify the Convention. Contra to the 2023 periodic report submitted for the 1970 UNESCO Convention, this conclusion flows from certain challenges that the Cypriot legal regime has had to tackle. The current article emphasizes just two non-exhaustive but important ones: 1) Cypriot interests in wrecks with a Cypriot element found in foreign waters, and 2) the illicit trafficking of underwater cultural heritage. The paragraphs that follow discuss these in more detail.
Cypriot Interests over Wrecks Located in Other States’ Maritime Zones
Even though evincing a strong interest in the protection of its underwater cultural heritage, Cyprus does not seem as concerned with protecting underwater cultural heritage located in other states’ maritime zones to which the island maintains a verifiable link of cultural, historical, or archaeological character. Far from being a hypothesis, consider the case of the Austro-Hungarian wreck Napried. During his appointment as American Consul in Ottoman Cyprus between 1865 and 1877, Luigi Palma Di Cesnola smuggled around 35,000 Cypriot antiquities off the island.Footnote 85 In recognition of his Cypriot “contribution,” Cesnola became the first Director of New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art (The Met). In 1872 Cesnola commissioned Napried to carry a considerable number of Cypriot antiquities from Beirut, ranging from coins to jewelry and ceramic vases.Footnote 86 Yet its planned journey to Boston ended almost before it even started. The ship sank just a day after it departed from Beirut, plunging its cargo of Cypriot antiquities to the depths of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Its exact resting place remains unknown, but the wreck is thought to have sunk in what are now Lebanese or Syrian waters.Footnote 87
Considering that Napried may be identified within Lebanese or Syrian waters in the foreseeable future, it is rather questionable as to what extent Cyprus can have a say in protecting the wreck according to its existing legal framework.Footnote 88 Consider the hypothesis that Napried is lying in Lebanese waters. As a party to the 2001 UNESCO Convention, Lebanon is required to notify the flag state and “other States with a verifiable link, especially a cultural, historical or archaeological link” about cultural heritage found in its TS (Article 7 (3) of the 2001 UNESCO Convention). Such an obligation would only arise if Napried was determined to be a foreign state vessel, however. Broader interests must be considered if Napried is identified within Lebanon’s EEZ or CS. Articles 9 and 10 of the 2001 UNESCO Convention establish the consultation and coordination procedure in instances where a state maintains a verifiable link. Unlike the 2001 UNESCO Convention, however, LOSC 1982 does not consider any such interests, apart from Article 149, which regulates the Area. Syria, a non-state party to the 2001 UNESCO Convention, exemplifies well this point as, in its case, none of these obligations arise where underwater cultural heritage is concerned. Possible ratification of the 2001 UNESCO Convention might thus provide a more solid basis for Cyprus’ participation and consultation in instances where underwater cultural heritage is located in another state’s maritime zones with which the island maintains a verifiable link of cultural, historical, or archaeological character. Yet the 2001 UNESCO Convention does not engage with, let alone resolve, the question of who owns Napried.Footnote 89 Nothing prevents Lebanon and/or Syria (depending on Napried’s location) and Cyprus from concluding a special agreement pursuant to Article 303 (4) LOSC 1982 and Article 6 of the 2001 UNESCO Convention regarding protecting the wreck.
Illicit Trafficking of Underwater Cultural Heritage
Taking place in 2017, the 6th Session of the Meeting of State Parties to the 2001 UNESCO Convention characterized “the seizure by Cyprus of pillaged archaeological material looted from underwater sites in the Eastern Mediterranean by a salvage company” as an illustration of the existing “surveillance gap” of the protection of underwater cultural heritage.Footnote 90 Potentially, ratifying the 2001 UNESCO Convention would bring into the Cypriot legal order the rather overlooked Articles 14, 15, 16, and 18 with respect to the enforcement of the 2001 UNESCO Convention, and would fill certain gaps in its national legislation. Article 14 of the 2001 UNESCO Convention is an extremely important provision that prohibits the import, handling, or possession of underwater cultural heritage, regardless of where and by whom this was retrieved. It only requires removal to have taken place contrary to the aims of the 2001 UNESCO Convention for, as outlined in its Annex, commercial salvage operations to neatly fall under its purview.Footnote 91
This provision is particularly germane considering the ongoing litigation by Odyssey Retriever Inc. In trying to avoid jurisdiction, the company has attempted to benefit from the fragmented legal seascape of the protection of underwater cultural heritage that reigns in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. The company has argued that the Cypriot authorities would be unable to determine the provenience of underwater cultural heritage and, consequently, they are in no position to substantiate the existence of any offense. In its various statements, Odyssey Retriever Inc. has consistently held the position that it “was neither working in Cypriot waters nor recovering ancient artefacts.”Footnote 92 However, the company remains completely silent about its actions within Lebanese maritime zones. When proceedings commenced, it suggested that the removal of underwater cultural heritage could have taken place within the reach of another state’s maritime zones, further blurring the details of the location where the looting of underwater cultural heritage took place.Footnote 93 The ship’s arrival in Limassol, as well as the alleged research activities occurring in the Cypriot EEZ and/or CS, granted jurisdiction to the Cypriot Courts. Cyprus could not exercise any other jurisdiction since Odyssey Explorer Inc. did not wave a Cypriot flag, nor were any of its crew members Cypriot nationals. One might argue that this gap is remedied by the 1970 UNESCO Convention and/or the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention. Without exact knowledge of underwater cultural heritage’s provenience though, these international instruments do not seem capable of resolving instances where the location where the maritime antiquities were found remains unknown,Footnote 94 or when such antiquities were removed from international waters and brought into Cypriot jurisdiction.
Article 15 of the 2001 UNESCO Convention complements the previous provision by calling on state parties to prohibit the use of their territories for activities related to underwater cultural heritage contrary to the Convention. Why the potential of this provision might be limited in the case of Cyprus is set out in the next section. Article 16 of the Convention further sanctions nationals and vessels flying the state party’s flag who deal with underwater cultural heritage in a way other than that which the Convention dictates. With Cyprus’ important position in the ship registration industry, Article 16 might prove beneficial since it renders the location of illicit actions irrelevant. Article 18 lays down a detailed procedure for the seizure and dispersal of underwater cultural heritage extracted contrary to the 2001 UNESCO Convention. Article 18 (2) asserts that all measures should be taken to record, protect, and stabilize seized underwater cultural heritage, while the next paragraph adds that special attention should be given to notifying any state with “a cultural, historical or archaeological link.” The seizure of artifacts from Odyssey Retriever Inc. took place in accordance with Customs Code Law (No. 94 (I)/2004). From the evidence gathered, it appears that Cyprus and Lebanon are working closely on identifying seized underwater cultural heritage’s provenience and ensuring its preservation, as the 2001 UNESCO Convention requires.
Limitations for Cyprus’ Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage
This section identifies and reviews two factors that might limit the effectiveness of Cyprus’ protection of underwater cultural heritage. Both twist around the political realities of the island. The first of these constitutes the continuing occupation of the northern part of the island since 1974 while the second pertains to the contested nature of the waters of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Each of these limitations is considered in turn.
Continuing Occupation of the Northern Part of the Island
By not exercising de facto control over the northern part of the island since 1974, Cyprus is in no position to prohibit the use of its occupied territory, including its maritime ports, regarding activities concerning underwater cultural heritage that do not conform with the 2001 UNESCO Convention (Article 15 of the 2001 UNESCO Convention). Türkiye instead exercises effective control over the northern part of the island.Footnote 95
Work-related to underwater cultural heritage within the “TRNC” remains limited. A few academic articles and news reports offer a glimpse into its underwater cultural heritage. In the aftermath of the 1974 Turkish Invasion, the Kyrenia ship extracted some years earlier still resides in the city’s medieval castle.Footnote 96 Harpster documents at least three important incidents related to underwater cultural heritage since 1989, ranging from a tourist’s attempt to smuggle a marble statue of Artemis from the ancient city Salamis’ seabed to the documentation of six 16th-century cannons close to the shore of Salamis as well as a coastal survey in Gallinoporni village.Footnote 97
Maritime archaeological work’s limited character remains so since international humanitarian law claims applicability. The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (henceforth: 1954 Hague Convention), ratified by both parties, is applicable in instances of military occupation. This deems that, absent any measures from the Cypriot competent national authorities, the occupying power shall take the necessary measures for its preservation.Footnote 98 Article I of the First Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention further prohibits the export of cultural heritage and sets out the procedure for its return. Unlike other cases of Cypriot movable cultural objects that have ended up abroad and been returned via judicial proceedings or diplomatic means,Footnote 99 to the author’s best knowledge, no export of underwater cultural heritage from the occupied northern part of the island has so far surfaced.
The international archaeological embargo on underwater cultural heritage is subject to criticism from scholarly quarters. Designed to respond only to short-term situations of occupation, Harpster argues that this embargo, imposed by the 1954 Hague Convention, has frozen work on underwater cultural heritage in the area.Footnote 100 There may be a kernel of truth in this assertion. The cultural heritage of the ocean floor remains the dramatis personae of the ongoing, albeit frozen, Cyprus conflict. However, this approach seems to downplay the potential of how underwater cultural heritage might be deployed. Under the cloak of rescue excavations, underwater cultural heritage might be instrumentalized in a manner to legitimize the continuing presence of the occupying forces or to manipulate and even eradicate historical and/or cultural narratives. Consider the case of the Kyrenia ship. Residing today in Kyrenia city’s castle, the ship lacks any sign of its Greek origins, yet no attempt has been made by the occupying forces “to refashion the ship as ‘Turkish’ or ‘Cypriot’.”Footnote 101 The argument of removal for protection in cases of military occupation from the vantage point of underwater cultural heritage weakens even more given that in situ protection constitutes the first option for its preservation according to internationally agreed best practices. A possible option for Cyprus to deal with the situation of occupation might be to follow the example of Argentina. When ratifying the 2001 UNESCO Convention, Argentina reiterated that it does not recognize in any way the occupation of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, South Georgia, and the South Sandwich Islands, recalling the relevant General Assembly resolutions urging for “a peaceful, fair and definitive solution to the dispute.”Footnote 102 However, from a merely practical point of view, it remains doubtful if anything has been resolved here.
Contested Waters of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea
Like some other seascapes around the world, the Eastern Mediterranean Sea is one where heated contestation continues. Overlapping claims for maritime zones from littoral states in the region, such as Cyprus, Türkiye, Greece, Egypt, and Libya, coupled with increasing competition over natural resources, complicate the picture.Footnote 103 Because of the Republic of Cyprus’ non-recognition by Türkiye as well as its continuing occupation, the “TRNC’s” declaration of independence and its maritime rights add greatly to this complexity.Footnote 104 Yet the potential for discovering underwater cultural heritage off the island’s west coast is not beyond imagination.
Cyprus’ possible ratification of the 2001 UNESCO Convention is not expected to calm the stormy waters of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. At the heart of the Convention lies the principle of nations cooperating to protect underwater cultural heritage.Footnote 105 The Convention was only designed to flourish and thrive in situations where cooperation between states exists. The absence of cooperative measures, let alone Turkish non-recognition of the Republic of Cyprus, renders it nearly unfeasible that any genuine consultation could take place. On the contrary, if underwater cultural heritage is discovered in these disputed waters, this will add another layer of rivalry on top of the others over the question of who owns the underwater cultural heritage.
A look at national legislative instruments makes that difficulty even more visible. The Cypriot regulatory framework claims that underwater cultural heritage located within its maritime zones belongs to the state (Articles 3 and 18A of the Antiquities Law (Ch. 31)). Similarly, Turkish legislation asserts ownership of cultural property found “under the ground or under water.”Footnote 106 Literally interpreted, it follows that the Turkish legislation can be applied in all maritime zones. Just as in the case of the South China Sea,Footnote 107 underwater cultural heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea might fall prey to efforts to consolidate sovereign claims through the use of underwater archaeological evidence. Furthermore, because of Türkiye’s non-participation in LOSC 1982, the difficulty becomes even more pronounced in this instance. Since underwater cultural heritage is afforded protection based on maritime zones, Turkish objections, which fundamentally have to do with islands’ maritime zones, spill over into the entire protection of underwater cultural heritage.Footnote 108 For as long as disputes prevail, let alone escalate, it is highly unlikely that the legal order envisioned by the 2001 UNESCO Convention will be effectively applied in practice in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea.
Concluding Remarks
Over the last decade, Cyprus has taken laudable steps to safeguard the underwater cultural heritage surrounding its shores. These include the 2014 amendments of Antiquities Law (Ch. 31) and, even more importantly, the 2016 Regulations on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, which faithfully transpose almost all the provisions of the Annex of the 2001 UNESCO Convention into national law. This brief overview of the most significant provisions of the legislative seascape reveals that, in practice, Cyprus applies several of the main principles of the 2001 UNESCO Convention concerning the protection of underwater cultural heritage, ranging from its non-commercial exploitation to its in situ preservation. Cyprus has joined an increasing number of states, demonstrating that, through its Annex, the 2001 UNESCO Convention is slowly but steadily influencing domestic legislation in this way, setting national and even regional standards.Footnote 109 The ongoing judicial proceedings before the Cypriot Courts illustrate the vulnerability of underwater cultural heritage, but at the same time reveal the willingness of the Republic—a non-state party to the 2001 UNESCO Convention—to punish incidents that contravene its principles.
This is not to say that there is no room to improve the legislative framework. The fact that Cyprus has adopted the text from the Annex of the 2001 UNESCO Convention almost in its entirety does not mean that no blind spots remain, nor that the Annex’s incorporation is an alternative to ratifying the 2001 UNESCO Convention. In fact, the path mapped out by Cyprus instead shows that the Annex is an integral part of, and not a substitute for, ratification of the Convention. Throughout this article, two main challenges have been emphasized. These are the lack of provisions in respect of Cypriot interests over underwater cultural heritage located in other states’ maritime zones and the illicit trafficking of underwater cultural heritage. Even if the country does ratify the 2001 UNESCO Convention, that would not resolve these challenges. Cyprus’ continuing occupation, as well as the contested character of its surrounding waters, constitute two important limitations that the island still needs to confront in protecting its underwater cultural heritage.
Unfortunately, the Republic has no plans to accept or ratify the 2001 UNESCO Convention any time soon.Footnote 110 However, the new regulatory regime adopted by Cyprus in the last decade constitutes a sound basis for its future ratification of the Convention. To further align its domestic law with the Convention, certain details would need to change if Cyprus decides to ratify the Convention. This article has advanced important reasons why the island should revisit its stance. It is hoped that this article has contributed to fostering a more critical dialogue towards this direction.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. All errors remain, solely, my own.
Open access
