5.2.5 Legal Issues to Be Considered
The existing regulatory framework for conventional ships has been developed on the
assumption that there is a crew on board. It is suggested, however, that it would not
be meaningful to develop a special regulatory regime for unmanned ships. Consequently, it would be preferable to adjust the existing regulatory framework so as to
make it applicable to such craft. The legal issues that arise will depend on the degree
of autonomy of the vessel.
Many provisions in various treaty instruments, although not explicitly requiring a
master and a crew on board, make no sense with regard to unmanned vessels or at
least give rise to difficulties of interpretation and application, for instance provisions
relating to the role of the master,
82 the manning of vessels and the training of crews.
An important issue in the context of unmanned vessels is therefore how such
provisions in the treaty instruments (e.g. SOLAS and STCW) should be interpreted
and applied.
Under UNCLOS, flag states must ensure that each ship is in the charge of a master
with appropriate qualifications in seamanship, navigation, communications and
marine engineering (art. 94(4)(b)). Could the person who operates a ship remotely
be considered as the master of that vessel and, if so, what qualifications should be
required of such an operator? Would there be any person who could be considered
the master of a fully autonomous unmanned vessel? There are provisions on
manning of vessels in UNCLOS (art. 94(4)(b)) and SOLAS (Annex, Chapter V)
that seem difficult to apply to unmanned vessels.
The question could be raised as to whether Article 94 of UNCLOS would prevent
IMO from regulating autonomous vessels. It is submitted that IMO is entitled to do
so and that pursuant to Article 94, IMO’s endorsement is a condition for the legality
of such regulations.
83
Another issue is how the international uniform standards on construction, equipment and seaworthiness should be applied to unmanned vessels. Problems will arise
in the application to unmanned vessels of the concept of good seamanship and
regulations in COLREG concerning look-out requirements, collision avoidance,
signalling and communications, as well as regarding the duty to render assistance
to persons in danger or distress. The question also arises how to apply the law
relating to pilotage to unmanned ships. With respect to passenger ships without a
crew on board, how would passengers be evacuated in an emergency situation?
84
It should be noted that some treaties, e.g. SOLAS, leave decisions on manning of
vessels to the competent authority of the flag state, and it is not explicitly required
82 See for instance the Hague-Visby Rules that provide for certain duties relating to the cargo to be
performed by the master and the crew; these provisions could hardly be complied with if the ship is
unmanned. See also Carey (2017), p. 213.
83 Ringbom (2019), p. 21.
84 For an analysis of these questions see Veal and Tsimplis (2017), pp. 314–330; Carey (2017),
pp. 203–219; Ringbom (2019), pp. 10–14.
What Challenges Lie Ahead for Maritime Law?
279
The existing regulatory framework for conventional ships has been developed on the
assumption that there is a crew on board. It is suggested, however, that it would not
be meaningful to develop a special regulatory regime for unmanned ships. Consequently, it would be preferable to adjust the existing regulatory framework so as to
make it applicable to such craft. The legal issues that arise will depend on the degree
of autonomy of the vessel.
Many provisions in various treaty instruments, although not explicitly requiring a
master and a crew on board, make no sense with regard to unmanned vessels or at
least give rise to difficulties of interpretation and application, for instance provisions
relating to the role of the master,
82 the manning of vessels and the training of crews.
An important issue in the context of unmanned vessels is therefore how such
provisions in the treaty instruments (e.g. SOLAS and STCW) should be interpreted
and applied.
Under UNCLOS, flag states must ensure that each ship is in the charge of a master
with appropriate qualifications in seamanship, navigation, communications and
marine engineering (art. 94(4)(b)). Could the person who operates a ship remotely
be considered as the master of that vessel and, if so, what qualifications should be
required of such an operator? Would there be any person who could be considered
the master of a fully autonomous unmanned vessel? There are provisions on
manning of vessels in UNCLOS (art. 94(4)(b)) and SOLAS (Annex, Chapter V)
that seem difficult to apply to unmanned vessels.
The question could be raised as to whether Article 94 of UNCLOS would prevent
IMO from regulating autonomous vessels. It is submitted that IMO is entitled to do
so and that pursuant to Article 94, IMO’s endorsement is a condition for the legality
of such regulations.
83
Another issue is how the international uniform standards on construction, equipment and seaworthiness should be applied to unmanned vessels. Problems will arise
in the application to unmanned vessels of the concept of good seamanship and
regulations in COLREG concerning look-out requirements, collision avoidance,
signalling and communications, as well as regarding the duty to render assistance
to persons in danger or distress. The question also arises how to apply the law
relating to pilotage to unmanned ships. With respect to passenger ships without a
crew on board, how would passengers be evacuated in an emergency situation?
84
It should be noted that some treaties, e.g. SOLAS, leave decisions on manning of
vessels to the competent authority of the flag state, and it is not explicitly required
82 See for instance the Hague-Visby Rules that provide for certain duties relating to the cargo to be
performed by the master and the crew; these provisions could hardly be complied with if the ship is
unmanned. See also Carey (2017), p. 213.
83 Ringbom (2019), p. 21.
84 For an analysis of these questions see Veal and Tsimplis (2017), pp. 314–330; Carey (2017),
pp. 203–219; Ringbom (2019), pp. 10–14.
What Challenges Lie Ahead for Maritime Law?
279