The Adventures of Tintin

The Adventures of Tintin is the 2011 film adaptation of the legendary comic book series of the same name (it is now available on Blu-ray). The comics were written and illustrated by Georges Prosper Remi, who went by the pen-name “Hergé” and came out from 1929 to 1976, making it one of the longest-running and most popular European comics ever. The movie as such is rather vague about its setting and even its time period, but it definitely raise one legal question we touched on briefly in our post on lost property almost a year ago: treasure troves and salvage. The former post focused mostly on buried treasure, but The Adventures of Tintin leads us to consider a slightly different subject: sunken treasure. The basic question is this: Even assuming Tintin and Haddock can find the sunken treasure, can they keep it? There are some minor spoilers inside.

I. Admiralty Law and the Law of the Sea

The law regarding maritime transportation is known as “admiralty law,” and it happens to be one of the oldest extant bodies of law in the world, having changed remarkably little in the last several hundred years. This is distinct from the “Law of the Sea“. The former, about which we are concerned, has to do with ships and sailing, both in international waters and on inland bodies of water. This is a species of private international law, also called “conflict of laws,” and has significantly to do with the choice of jurisdiction, i.e. when something happens outside the political boundaries of a state or has to do with a transaction that takes place in more than one state, which set of laws do we use? Admiralty law has its own substantive content as well, and we’ll get to that in a second, but it has historically been one of the most active drivers of conflict of laws, as it has long been the context in which conflict of laws situations arose. The law of the sea, on the other hand, is a species of public international law and deals with the ways in which states can claim territorial interests in the high seas and the ways in which they can claim and exploit maritime resources.

It turns out that both admiralty law and the law of the seas are implicated by efforts to salvage sunken treasure. Admiralty law governs the ability of salvagers to legally become “salvors-in-possession,” thus securing a property interest in the materials they recover. But the law of the sea governs states’ attempts to assert property interests in salvage found within their territorial waters.

II. Admiralty and Salvage

The fundamental rule of admiralty law with respect to salvage is that anyone who saves property from the dangers of the sea, i.e. engages in maritime salvage gains a possessory interest in the salvaged property. So, if you’re out on your thirty-footer and run into trouble, and someone hauls you back to shore, they could very easily wind up owning the boat if you don’t have enough money to pay them a reasonable salvage fee. Thomas H. Belknap, Jr., a partner at Blank Rome in New York, actually has an excellent article on how treasure salvage works. The topic is pretty complicated, actually, so those who really want to get a feel for it should go there.

Briefly though, the basic rule is that a person who salvages property from the water when the owner is identified gains a right of possession. They do not automatically gain title to the property, but they can assert a lien on the property for the value of their voluntary services. See generally Adams v. Unione Mediterranea Di Sicurta, 220 F.3d 659 (5th Cir. 2000). And take a look at the parties in that one, just to give you an idea of how complicated admiralty cases can be. You’d need the better part of an entire whiteboard just to map out the various parties, claims, counter-claims, and cross-claims. But, in short, once a salvor can establish salvor-in-possession status, usually via an in rem action, they are entitled to a salvage award. Depending on what kind of salvage we’re talking about, this can either be satisfied by the owner of the salvaged property, by holding an auction of the salvaged property and giving the proceeds to the salvor-in-possession, or by simply transferring title of the salvaged goods.

For a look at how this stuff works out in practice, consider the wreck of the H.M.S. Titanic. This has actually been the subject of protracted litigation in the Fourth Circuit since the wreck was discovered in 1987, most recently in R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, 435 F.3d 521 (4th Cir. 2006). This is an in rem action wherein the salvors of the wreck of the Titanic, RMST, are attempting to hammer out their salvor-in-possession status and potentially gain title to the thousands of artifacts recovered from the wreck and of the wreck itself. Litigation has gone on for the better part of twenty years at this point. The reason there is a lawsuit about this at all is because various other parties challenged RMST’s exclusive claim to the wreck, as other salvage companies have attempted to gain some rights there as well. Ultimately, the District Court awarded RMST a $110 million salvage award, which can be satisfied either by giving RMST title to the property or holding an auction and selling off the artifacts to willing buyers. Details can be found in a press release from RMST’s parent company, here, discussing the outcome of the litigation.

So what about Tintin? The subject matter here is the wreck of the H.M.S. Unicorn, lost… at some point… somewhere. The movie is fuzzy on the details. Anyhow, should Tintin and Haddock discover the wreck, they’d have to find investors willing to fund an expedition, ideally securing salvage rights in a court of law before they did so. The question then becomes whether anyone could assert any kind of superior salvage rights. It’s possible that a sovereign state could do so—more on that in section II—but it’s unlikely that anyone else could do so. Tintin/Haddock are the only people who know where it is, and if they play their cards right, the first time the public would get wind of the location would be when they file their in rem action to secure their rights.

Two things to be clear about. First, Haddock’s status as the last remaining descendant of Lord Francis is irrelevant. Lord Francis’ didn’t actually own the treasure in question, he was merely transporting it for the Crown, so he didn’t have a property interest in it he could pass on to his heirs. Second, the fact that it was the property of the Crown, which is still around, doesn’t really matter either. Again, if someone salvages property from the sea floor, even if they don’t gain title to it, they do gain a possessory interest and can assert a lien on the property equal to the fair value of their services. The typical salvage award for towing a distressed ship back to dock is something like 10-25% of the value of the ship (which is why most boat owners have salvage contracts ready to go, so they can negotiate a price for the tow rather than get stuck in a salvage situation). But the typical salvage award for property recovered from the sea floor is the entire value of the property, as without the efforts of the salvor, it would remain lost, potentially forever. So Tintin/Haddock would wind up with a lien on everything they recovered equal to its fair market value. With an interest like that, it really doesn’t matter if the Crown (or anyone else) still technically has title, as they’ve got an interest equal to the value of the whole thing. This interest can also be sold, so even though they can’t convey title, they can convey and be paid for the right to possess the property. Ergo, they get paid.

III. The Law of the Sea

Then there’s the question of, if the wreck is located within a state’s territorial waters, that state can claim an interest in the property. The general answer is “Yes,” but a titled interest only. This is significant for two reasons. First, states (and here we mean “governments in general,” not just states of the Union) can control who has permission to engage in salvage activities inside their territorial waters. In Aqua Log, Inc. v. Georgia, 594 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2010), the Eleventh Circuit considered a case where the state of Georgia asserted various interests in vessels which sank in Georgia’s rivers. Specifically, the Georgia statutes in question required that anyone who wanted to engage in salvage activities submit a complete salvage plan, including environmental impact statement, to the state Department of Natural Resources, complete with a $50,000 bond and $10,000 annual permit fee. It turns out that salvage activities can actually be pretty harmful to riverbeds and ocean floors, so this makes some sense. But it also serves as a way of making sure the state gets a “cut” of whatever is found by charging up-front for the right to even try to salvage anything.

Second, Georgia asserted an ownership interest in any logbooks recovered from salvaged vessels. As states are significantly responsible for maintaining waterways, logbooks which might indicate what caused a ship to sink are valuable commodities. In addition, logbooks of older vessels can be significant cultural and historical documents, so there’s some public interest the state owning such things. Either way, the salvor-in-possession would still be entitled to its salvage award, so one might wonder what the fuss is about. The answer is that Georgia invoked the Eleventh Amendment, which restricts the jurisdiction of federal courts over cases involving a state and citizens of another state. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that yes, the Eleventh Amendment applies to in rem actions, but only where the state has actual possession of the res. Because Aqua Log, Inc. was the salvor-in-possession, Georgia could not avoid federal jurisdiction.

While the Eleventh Amendment situation is unique to United States law, aside from that, this would turn out approximately the same way in any country with a modern legal system. Admiralty law is remarkably uniform across jurisdictions, as, again, it’s one of the oldest bodies of law still in force. Even in common law jurisdictions, admiralty law was a separate body of law which drew its authority from the Corpus Juris Civilis, i.e. the sixth-century Code of Justinian. Islamic jurists made some innovations there, but they still significantly relied on the Code of Justinian for the content of their admiralty law. The only place one might really run into trouble is in rogue or failed states which don’t really keep with the rule of law, and there one would only have a problem if the state simply decided to confiscate the salvage.

IV. Conclusion

The movie completely glosses over all of this, operating under the assumption that once Tintin and Haddock know where the wreck is located, their fortunes are made. This is probably correct, as far as it goes, but the legal process for making said fortunes is possibly the most complicated version of “finders keepers” imaginable. But, ultimately, it does tend to work out that way.

This is really just the beginning of our consideration of this subject though, as the law regarding sunken treasure actually comes into play with various superheroes and supervillains too. Think Aquaman, Namor, etc. We’ll take a look at those guys in a later post.

12 Responses to The Adventures of Tintin

  1. Mister Andersen

    Not to mention the small problem of what must surely be an astronomical damages bill

    • Assuming they stuck around in (wherever it was) long enough to get caught. If they left the country, would they be likely to face any real threat of being sued for accidental damages?

  2. Does the size of the body of water matter? As in some very large lakes? What if they share borders with other countries?
    What of the Caspian Sea?

    • Yes, size does matter.

      Territorial waters, an aspect of the law of the sea discussed above, are defined by international treaty, specifically the 1982 UN Convention of the Law of the Sea, at twelve miles from the low-tide line. So any body of water smaller than twenty-four miles across is going to be entirely within some country’s border.

      But for entirely land-locked bodies of water that are bigger than that, the nations which border them usually wind up dividing the thing between them. The US and Canada have done this with the Great Lakes, and debates about the precise demarcation of the Caspian Sea continue to this day. The USSR and Iran had worked that out between them, but with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a bunch of the post-Soviet republics decided they didn’t want to adhere to the old treaty, or simply needed to work out between themselves as independent states where the border was going to be.

      A lot of the issues described above go away if the wreck is in international waters, as no country is going to be able to assert any kind of control over it on the basis of its location.

  3. Hello,

    Since the unicorn appears to be a military ship (at least in the comic) Do not be affected by lawsuits like Odyssey vs. Spain? (a long dispute over ownership of the remains of the frigate Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuestra_Se%C3%B1ora_de_las_Mercedes

    • The procedure would be affected, but the ultimate outcome probably wouldn’t. In the post, we discussed the possibility that the British Crown might have a claim to the Unicorn and its contents (under the assumption that the Unicorn was British), but which sovereign government makes the claim doesn’t really matter. The key is that Tintin and Haddock, and salvors-in-possession, would never be able to get title to the vessel just by finding it. All they’d get is a right of possession. Now if the British/Spanish/Belgian government asserted a claim which was recognized, they’d have title, but they’d still have to buy the salvage back from our heroes. So Tintin and Haddock would still wind up rich.

      But the case you cite, Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, 657 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2011) is interesting for its jurisdictional aspects. The court held that even though the Constitution does give federal courts jurisdiction over admiralty cases like this one, the court could not assert jurisdiction over this vessel, because the US has ratified and Congress has implemented the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which revokes federal jurisdiction over the property of foreign governments. The effect is that the case has to be tried in Spain rather than the US. I’m no expert in Spanish maritime law, but it seems to me that Odyssey will still wind up getting paid, if not quite as much as they would have if the case were tried in the US.

  4. How is salvage law affected by laws that declare shipwrecks as underwater grave sites? For example, the UK seems to have the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. Or what about the Federal Abandoned Shipwrecks Act?

    • The UK Act seems to disallow diving or salvaging a wreck designated as a war grave. At all. So it doesn’t seem to actually affect salvage rights as such, it just makes salvaging or attempting to salvage a designated wreck a crime.

      The Abandoned Shipwrecks Act was an attempt to give states the right to control the salvaging of wrecks within their territorial waters. This was discussed in the post, and states can be prickly about allowing this sort of thing. Basically, you can’t just set out and try to salvage any old wreck you like. You need to 1) be sure that the wreck doesn’t have an actual owner (who can tell you to buzz off), and 2) clear it with the state. If either of those things says no, than salvaging it is going to be illegal.

    • A related case in Finland. The Vrouw Maria, a ship hailing from the Low Countries in 1772, was shipwrecked in what is now the territorial waters of Finland. The salvors claimed salvage rights to the ship. The Finnish National Board of Antiquities claimed that the shipwreck was governed by the Finnish Antiquities Act, which gives the Finnish state the title and lien to all lost-and-found or otherwise non-possessed objects that are more than 100 years old. For the finder (here, the alleged salvor), it gives but a nominal prize.

      The Finnish Supreme Court ruled for the Board of Antiquities, noting that here, in the conflict of the law of the sea and the law on antiquities, the Antiquities Act overrules the Sea Act because of the principle of lex specialis.

  5. How about a curveball? What if the wreck is located, and salvage is removed in secret? Such that the exact vessel is known, but only the salvage team actually knows where the wreck was (and isn’t telling… let’s give it a good movie plot, and say that after retrieving the booty in secret, and selling the artifacts, the ships curse applies and the salvors are eaten by albatrosses.). Does any party or sovereignty get to make a claim? How about if the claim is against a good-faith purchaser for value rather than the original salvor(s)?
    (I didn’t take admiralty law, but there’s a shipwreck on the beach about an hour and a half from my house…and there’s one UNDER my mom’s houseboat on the Columbia Channel just downstream from Portland, OR. As well as, legends say, dozens of chainsaws, power drills, hammers…)

  6. Here’s a related question, possibly with Spoilers.

    So, when the Unicorn is originally scuttled and the elder Captain Haddock makes off with his hat-o-gold, does he have a legal ability to pass on that treasure to his heirs – or is he actually stealing from the Crown and would it turn out that the present Captain Haddock would be liable to return the treasure to the original owners, or that the “crown” would have a cause for action against Haddock if he decided to keep it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>