Shipwrecked Sovereignty

• Published date: 01 June 2015
• Author: Joshua Chambers-Letson,Yves Winter
• DOI: 10.1177/0090591714555577
• Date: 01 June 2015
• Subject Matter: Articles

Political Theory

2015, Vol. 43(3) 287 –311

© 2014 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0090591714555577

ptx.sagepub.com

Article

Shipwrecked

Sovereignty:

Neoliberalism and

a Disputed Sunken

Treasure

Yves Winter1 and Joshua Chambers-Letson2

Abstract

In 2007, a private corporation specializing in deep-sea salvage retrieved a

treasure-laden shipwreck in international waters southwest of the Iberian

Peninsula. The wreck was that of a Spanish warship that sunk during the

Napoleonic wars. Following the discovery, a legal dispute arose in U.S. federal

courts, between the corporate salvors, the Kingdom of Spain, and other

litigants. At issue in the legal proceedings was the status of the shipwreck

and whether it was protected by sovereign immunity. At the heart of this

case are differing political imaginations concerning the authority of states and

the role of corporations in the contemporary global order. Through a close

reading of court documents and the narratives in which the courts’ rulings

are embedded, we demonstrate that the case is symptomatic of the tension

in neoliberal sovereignty between two overlapping and at times competing

political rationalities: the neoliberal logic of capital and commerce and the

logic of sovereign prerogative.

Keywords

neoliberalism, sovereignty, globalization, shipwreck, privatization

1McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

2Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Yves Winter, McGill University, 414 Leacock Building, 855 Rue Sherbrooke Ouest, Montreal,

Quebec H3A 2T7, Canada.

Email: yves.winter@mcgill.ca

555577PTXXXX10.1177/0090591714555577Political TheoryWinter and Chambers-Letson

research-article2014

288 Political Theory 43(3)

In March 2007, Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc., a Florida-based shipwreck

salvage company, discovered a shipwreck in international waters off the

Straits of Gibraltar, at a depth of 1,100 meters. Odyssey conducted a survey

of the site and proceeded to recover what is believed to be the most valuable

treasure ever excavated from a shipwreck: nearly 600,000 silver coins, hun-

dreds of gold coins, and other precious artifacts, together valued at approxi-

mately half a billion U.S. dollars. Shortly after the discovery, Odyssey filed a

claim in a U.S. Federal Court against the “Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel,

its apparel, tackle, appurtenances and cargo.”1 As is customary in such cases,

Odyssey demanded possessory rights over the treasure it recovered or, alter-

natively, a salvage award for its services. For the purposes of establishing

jurisdiction, Odyssey deposited with the court a small bronze block recov-

ered from the site. The bronze block is central to the legal fiction of what is

known as constructive in rem jurisdiction—constructive, because the object

over which the court exercises its authority is not physically in its

possession.

In response to Odyssey’s legal action, two states and twenty-five individu-

als followed with their own claims against the Unidentified Shipwrecked

Vessel. The Kingdom of Spain filed a motion to dismiss. Spain argued that

the vessel was the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes, a Spanish Royal Navy

frigate that sank in combat in 1804. Not having abandoned its sovereign

claim to the vessel, Spain insisted that the ship was entitled to sovereign

immunity from all claims in the United States.2

The case, which was recently decided in favor of Spain after being on the

docket of U.S. courts for five years, raises a number of important questions

about sovereignty. We propose to think about this case not only as a legal

event but as a performance that sustains, articulates, and authorizes particular

forms and discourses of sovereignty in the current historical moment. At the

heart of this case are differing political imaginations that offer contending

normative visions concerning the authority of states and the role of corpora-

tions in the contemporary legal and political global order. In this article, we

theorize two key issues: First, we interpret Odyssey’s quest for ownership

over the treasure as a manifestation of the contradictions inherent in the con-

temporary international order. More specifically, we argue that the case is

symptomatic of the friction between two overlapping and at times conflicting

political rationalities: the neoliberal logic of capital and commerce, and the

logic of sovereign prerogative. Second, we read the case as a performance of

sovereignty by the U.S. courts. We understand this performance as demon-

strating the state’s anxiety about its ability to claim and manage traditional

emblems of sovereignty (warships, sailors, coins, sea battles) and their repre-

sentation against the challenge of a corporation like Odyssey. At issue in the