Weaknesses in the Law Protecting the United Kingdom’s Remarkable Underwater Cultural Heritage: The Need for Modernisation and Reform

Abstract

Despite the United Kingdom (UK) having been regarded as one of the richest hotspots for underwater cultural heritage (UCH), its policy and practice regarding its protection has displayed some areas of weakness. This paper makes a case to review the legal framework and its overall administration in the UK, in order to protect and preserve any remaining UCH before it is further lost or damaged. First, we introduce some of the flaws in the UK’s legal system protecting UCH, demonstrating how it has led to a considerable loss of cultural heritage and underlining how it is in need of modernisation. This includes discussion of issues raised in a number of recent cases, including the proposed Victory (1744) recovery project, the proposed Goodwin Sands dredging licence and various cases relating to the illegal recovery of material. We then map out how policy is implemented in practice and the role played by various institutions involved with its administration, where we find a schism between what policy intends and what it is achieving in practice. This takes us towards a broader discussion on how legislative reform might look, including a more proactive and ambitious approach to the future management and enjoyment of the UK’s impressive UCH. Here we argue the need for better engagement at the global and regional negotiating table, as well as in favour of adopting a unified and consistent policy which aims to be more sustainable, precautionary, proportionate and inclusive.

Winds of Change: Urgent Challenges and Emerging Opportunities in Submerged Prehistory, a Perspective from the North Sea

“…Despite this, Martin and Gane state that there is a schism between what UCH heritage policy intends and what it is achieving in practice [132]. The urgency of their appeal for reform applies to all aspects of underwater cultural heritage, but prehistory is arguably the most vulnerable category.…”

“…Despite such opportunities, shortcomings with legislative frameworks have also been identified that render archaeology, and particularly prehistoric archaeology, vulnerable across large portions of the continental shelf [131]. A recent review of the UK's legislation for protecting underwater cultural heritage provides a thorough and incisive critique of the status quo, while raising concern over the unfolding impacts of Brexit alongside the UK's decision not to ratify the UNESCO convention [132]. In it, they note that there is no "effective legal mechanism for the protection of UCH within the additional contiguous zone permitted for UCH regulation or upon its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf (up to 200 nautical miles)" [132] (p. 79).…”