in respect of these instruments, and as a second step, to analyse possible solutions to
these problems. The intention is that the exercise should be completed in 2021. The
MSC also agreed to the development of interim guidelines for trials involving such
ships.
72 These issues were discussed further at the Committee’s June 2019 session.
73
For the purpose of the scoping exercise, a Working Group set up by the MSC
identified four degrees of autonomy: (1) ships with automated processes and decision support, (2) remotely controlled ships with seafarers on board, (3) remotely
controlled ships without seafarers on board, and (4) fully autonomous ships whose
operating system is able to make decisions and determine actions by itself. The
Working Group established a list of the treaty instruments that would be reviewed
(SOLAS, STCW, COLREG, Convention on Load Lines, Convention for Safe
Containers and SAR).
74
In addition, in April 2018 the IMO Legal Committee decided to include in its
work programme a regulatory scoping exercise and gap analysis of conventions
under its purview with respect to Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships, for the
purpose of establishing the extent to which the international regulatory framework
should be modified to integrate the new and advancing technology of such ships. The
Committee invited delegations to submit concrete proposals for a plan of action.
75 In
March 2019 the Committee approved a framework for the scoping exercise which
should deal with the treaties under its purview.
76
In October 2018 the Marine Environment Protection Committee decided to
consider the matter of a regulatory scoping exercise when significant progress had
been made by the MSC.
77 The Facilitation Committee decided, in April 2019, to
include such a scoping exercise in its work programme.
78
It would fall outside the framework of this chapter to discuss in any detail the
various issues that will have to be considered in the context of the adaptation of
maritime law to unmanned ships. Nevertheless, in order to illustrate the difficulties
that will be encountered, some examples of pertinent questions are given below. The
legal solutions will differ dependent on the level of autonomy of the ship in various
respects, for instance as regards the level of manning, whether the bridge is
unmanned permanently or periodically, the performance of watchkeeping, the organisation and location of any remote control function, and the control over navigational decisions.
79
72 MSC 100/20 paragraphs 5.23 and 5.28.
73 MSC 101/24 section 5.
74 Report of the Working Group (MSC 100/WP.8).
75 LEG 105/14 paragraph 11.11.
76 LEG 106/16 Annex 3.
77 MEPC 73/19 paragraph 2.3.
78 FAL 43/20 paragraph 19.9.
79 See Ringbom (2019), p. 2.
What Challenges Lie Ahead for Maritime Law?
277
these problems. The intention is that the exercise should be completed in 2021. The
MSC also agreed to the development of interim guidelines for trials involving such
ships.
72 These issues were discussed further at the Committee’s June 2019 session.
73
For the purpose of the scoping exercise, a Working Group set up by the MSC
identified four degrees of autonomy: (1) ships with automated processes and decision support, (2) remotely controlled ships with seafarers on board, (3) remotely
controlled ships without seafarers on board, and (4) fully autonomous ships whose
operating system is able to make decisions and determine actions by itself. The
Working Group established a list of the treaty instruments that would be reviewed
(SOLAS, STCW, COLREG, Convention on Load Lines, Convention for Safe
Containers and SAR).
74
In addition, in April 2018 the IMO Legal Committee decided to include in its
work programme a regulatory scoping exercise and gap analysis of conventions
under its purview with respect to Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships, for the
purpose of establishing the extent to which the international regulatory framework
should be modified to integrate the new and advancing technology of such ships. The
Committee invited delegations to submit concrete proposals for a plan of action.
75 In
March 2019 the Committee approved a framework for the scoping exercise which
should deal with the treaties under its purview.
76
In October 2018 the Marine Environment Protection Committee decided to
consider the matter of a regulatory scoping exercise when significant progress had
been made by the MSC.
77 The Facilitation Committee decided, in April 2019, to
include such a scoping exercise in its work programme.
78
It would fall outside the framework of this chapter to discuss in any detail the
various issues that will have to be considered in the context of the adaptation of
maritime law to unmanned ships. Nevertheless, in order to illustrate the difficulties
that will be encountered, some examples of pertinent questions are given below. The
legal solutions will differ dependent on the level of autonomy of the ship in various
respects, for instance as regards the level of manning, whether the bridge is
unmanned permanently or periodically, the performance of watchkeeping, the organisation and location of any remote control function, and the control over navigational decisions.
79
72 MSC 100/20 paragraphs 5.23 and 5.28.
73 MSC 101/24 section 5.
74 Report of the Working Group (MSC 100/WP.8).
75 LEG 105/14 paragraph 11.11.
76 LEG 106/16 Annex 3.
77 MEPC 73/19 paragraph 2.3.
78 FAL 43/20 paragraph 19.9.
79 See Ringbom (2019), p. 2.
What Challenges Lie Ahead for Maritime Law?
277