5.2.4 Are Unmanned Craft ‘Ships’ for the Purpose of International
Conventions?
A fundamental issue relates to the concept of ‘ship’ or ‘vessel’, which in some
conventions (including UNCLOS) is not defined and the definitions that exist vary
from one convention to another.
80 The definitions of ‘ship’ in a number of national
legislations also differ. The question arises as to whether ‘ships’ without any crew on
board can be regarded as ships or vessels within the meaning the international
conventions; is the presence of a master and crew on board a prerequisite for a
craft being a ship? Neither the definition of ‘ship’ in UNCLOS nor the definitions in
other international treaties make this an explicit prerequisite.
If unmanned craft are not ships for the purpose of UNCLOS, the question arises
as to whether the freedoms of the high seas and the rights of innocent passage
through the territorial sea and transit passage through straits for international navigation would apply to them. It could also be maintained that in such a case the
requirements and provisions in international treaties applying to ships, e.g. those
relating to construction, equipment, manning, training and qualifications, seaworthiness, liability and limitation of liability, would not apply to unmanned craft. In
addition, it could be argued that if such craft were not considered to be ships, they
would fall outside the competence of IMO.
81
It is submitted that unmanned craft used commercially are very similar to
conventional craft as regards construction and perform the same functions as
manned ships, e.g. to carry goods and passengers. As mentioned above, significant
problems would arise if unmanned craft were considered to fall outside the concept
of ship. There appears to be no strong reasons for unmanned craft being treated
differently than other ships for the purpose of the international regulatory framework, provided they comply with the necessary safety requirements.
Assuming that unmanned craft were to be considered ‘ships‘ for the purpose of
the international regulatory framework, they would enjoy the same rights under this
framework as manned ships, e.g. navigational freedom and the right of limitation of
liability, and the restrictions of coastal states’ jurisdiction as regards foreign ships
would apply to them.
If unmanned craft were considered to be ‘ships’, they would obviously have to
comply with the requirements laid down in various maritime regulations and rules.
Here problems arise.
80 Loewe (2011).
81 For a discussion of this question see Veal and Tsimplis (2017), pp. 308–314; Daum and
Stellpflug (2017).
278
M. Jacobsson
Conventions?
A fundamental issue relates to the concept of ‘ship’ or ‘vessel’, which in some
conventions (including UNCLOS) is not defined and the definitions that exist vary
from one convention to another.
80 The definitions of ‘ship’ in a number of national
legislations also differ. The question arises as to whether ‘ships’ without any crew on
board can be regarded as ships or vessels within the meaning the international
conventions; is the presence of a master and crew on board a prerequisite for a
craft being a ship? Neither the definition of ‘ship’ in UNCLOS nor the definitions in
other international treaties make this an explicit prerequisite.
If unmanned craft are not ships for the purpose of UNCLOS, the question arises
as to whether the freedoms of the high seas and the rights of innocent passage
through the territorial sea and transit passage through straits for international navigation would apply to them. It could also be maintained that in such a case the
requirements and provisions in international treaties applying to ships, e.g. those
relating to construction, equipment, manning, training and qualifications, seaworthiness, liability and limitation of liability, would not apply to unmanned craft. In
addition, it could be argued that if such craft were not considered to be ships, they
would fall outside the competence of IMO.
81
It is submitted that unmanned craft used commercially are very similar to
conventional craft as regards construction and perform the same functions as
manned ships, e.g. to carry goods and passengers. As mentioned above, significant
problems would arise if unmanned craft were considered to fall outside the concept
of ship. There appears to be no strong reasons for unmanned craft being treated
differently than other ships for the purpose of the international regulatory framework, provided they comply with the necessary safety requirements.
Assuming that unmanned craft were to be considered ‘ships‘ for the purpose of
the international regulatory framework, they would enjoy the same rights under this
framework as manned ships, e.g. navigational freedom and the right of limitation of
liability, and the restrictions of coastal states’ jurisdiction as regards foreign ships
would apply to them.
If unmanned craft were considered to be ‘ships’, they would obviously have to
comply with the requirements laid down in various maritime regulations and rules.
Here problems arise.
80 Loewe (2011).
81 For a discussion of this question see Veal and Tsimplis (2017), pp. 308–314; Daum and
Stellpflug (2017).
278
M. Jacobsson