that the crew should be located on board the ship. Unmanned ships would however
have difficulties if meeting the detailed requirements on watchkeeping in STCW.
85
More fundamental legal questions arise when the role of the crew in taking
operative decisions, for instance concerning navigation of the vessel, is taken over
by technology. In such a case the technical equipment will act autonomously without
involvement of the crew, at least temporarily. Many of the technical rules do not
indicate who should take a particular decision but only specify which functions
should be performed, and it appears that the application of these rules to autonomous
vessels should not cause major difficulties from a legal point of view. A more
difficult question is whether and, if so, to what extent provisions that explicitly
require human judgment in the decision-making (e.g. certain provisions in
COLREG) could be applied to autonomous vessels.
86
It would also be necessary to examine whether special provisions would be
required as regards classification of unmanned ships.
87 This issue is being considered by the classification societies.
88 Issues of insurability of unmanned craft will
also have to be addressed.
Another set of issues that will have to be considered is the potential civil liability
that may arise in relation to the operation of unmanned ships and related insurance
aspects. It appears that the IMO liability conventions which impose strict liability on
the shipowner (in the Bunkers Convention also on the ship’s operator, manager and
charterer), coupled with an obligation to cover this liability with insurance, could be
applied also to unmanned ships.
Special problems relating to civil liability will, however, arise in respect of
unmanned ships. What would be the legal liability of the shipowner if an accident,
e.g. a collision, occurs as a result of software problems caused by a third party, such
as the manufacturer of the automation system? Should liability be imposed on a
remote controller of an unmanned ship who has caused an incident while actually
being in command of the ship; if so, what should be the basis of the controller’s
liability (i.e. strict liability or liability based on fault) and would he be entitled to
limitation of liability? Should the manufacturer of a defective individual component
or the software designer who has caused or contributed to a maritime accident be
liable under the various treaties? Who should be liable if an accident were caused as
a result of interruption of communications between an onshore located control centre
and the vessel due to radio disturbances?
In some IMO liability conventions there are provisions channelling the liability to
the shipowner, excluding (except in rare cases) certain persons from liability,
85 For a detailed analysis of this issue see Ringbom (2019), pp. 16–21.
86 Ringbom (2019), pp. 12–14.
87 See Section 3.4 of CORE Advokatfirma, Aarhus (Denmark) and the Nordic Association of
Marine Insurers (CEFOR), Oslo (Norway) (2018).
88 DNVGL Class Guideline, Autonomous and remotely operated ships (September 2018); Lloyd’s
Register, LR Code for Unmanned Marine Systems (February 2017). International Association of
Classification Societies (IACS), Position paper on MASS. published in March 2019 on IACS.org.
uk.
280
M. Jacobsson
have difficulties if meeting the detailed requirements on watchkeeping in STCW.
85
More fundamental legal questions arise when the role of the crew in taking
operative decisions, for instance concerning navigation of the vessel, is taken over
by technology. In such a case the technical equipment will act autonomously without
involvement of the crew, at least temporarily. Many of the technical rules do not
indicate who should take a particular decision but only specify which functions
should be performed, and it appears that the application of these rules to autonomous
vessels should not cause major difficulties from a legal point of view. A more
difficult question is whether and, if so, to what extent provisions that explicitly
require human judgment in the decision-making (e.g. certain provisions in
COLREG) could be applied to autonomous vessels.
86
It would also be necessary to examine whether special provisions would be
required as regards classification of unmanned ships.
87 This issue is being considered by the classification societies.
88 Issues of insurability of unmanned craft will
also have to be addressed.
Another set of issues that will have to be considered is the potential civil liability
that may arise in relation to the operation of unmanned ships and related insurance
aspects. It appears that the IMO liability conventions which impose strict liability on
the shipowner (in the Bunkers Convention also on the ship’s operator, manager and
charterer), coupled with an obligation to cover this liability with insurance, could be
applied also to unmanned ships.
Special problems relating to civil liability will, however, arise in respect of
unmanned ships. What would be the legal liability of the shipowner if an accident,
e.g. a collision, occurs as a result of software problems caused by a third party, such
as the manufacturer of the automation system? Should liability be imposed on a
remote controller of an unmanned ship who has caused an incident while actually
being in command of the ship; if so, what should be the basis of the controller’s
liability (i.e. strict liability or liability based on fault) and would he be entitled to
limitation of liability? Should the manufacturer of a defective individual component
or the software designer who has caused or contributed to a maritime accident be
liable under the various treaties? Who should be liable if an accident were caused as
a result of interruption of communications between an onshore located control centre
and the vessel due to radio disturbances?
In some IMO liability conventions there are provisions channelling the liability to
the shipowner, excluding (except in rare cases) certain persons from liability,
85 For a detailed analysis of this issue see Ringbom (2019), pp. 16–21.
86 Ringbom (2019), pp. 12–14.
87 See Section 3.4 of CORE Advokatfirma, Aarhus (Denmark) and the Nordic Association of
Marine Insurers (CEFOR), Oslo (Norway) (2018).
88 DNVGL Class Guideline, Autonomous and remotely operated ships (September 2018); Lloyd’s
Register, LR Code for Unmanned Marine Systems (February 2017). International Association of
Classification Societies (IACS), Position paper on MASS. published in March 2019 on IACS.org.
uk.
280
M. Jacobsson