e.g. charters, managers and operators of the ship, as well as persons not being
members of the crew who carry out services for the ship. Should such channelling
provisions protect a remote controller, manufacturer or software designer against
liability? If liability were to fall on such a controller, manufacturer and software
designer, the distribution of liability between the shipowner and these persons would
have to be considered. Furthermore, how would the provisions on distribution of
liability in the 1910 Convention on the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating
to Collision Between Vessels be applied in case one of the colliding vessels were
unmanned? Issues of criminal liability will also have to be addressed.
Civil liability and insurance issues are being considered within the International
Group of P&I Associations.
89
It is submitted that the international community should review and update the
international legal framework so as to ensure that it will function properly and safely
in the new technological environment created by the emergence of unmanned
vessels. The conditions laid down in the IMO Assembly Resolutions for amending
existing treaties mentioned above appear to be fulfilled, i.e. that there is a clear and
well-documented compelling need.
90
In such a review distinction should be made between remotely controlled
unmanned ships, on the one hand, and autonomous vessels operating without direct
human supervision and control, on the other hand. As regards remotely operated
ships, for most provisions in the treaty instruments it would probably be sufficient to
make clarifications or modest amendments, whereas more significant amendments or
additions might be required as regards autonomous unmanned ships.
5.2.6 Methods for Adapting the Regulatory Framework
An important question is which methods should be used for adapting the relevant
international treaties to the new shipping environment involving unmanned craft.
91
The traditional solution would be to amend each relevant provision in the abovementioned instruments so as to clarify its applicability to unmanned vessels and
ensure that these provisions make sense when applied to such vessels. Under this
procedure each treaty instrument would have to be examined provision by provision,
which appears to be the purpose of the scoping exercises carried out by the MSC and
the Legal Committee, and agreement would have to be reached within the competent
bodies of IMO on all these amendments. It should be noted that a scoping exercise of
existing conventions will not address issues relevant to unmanned vessels that are
not dealt with in these treaty instruments.
89 See CORE Advokatfirma, Aarhus (Denmark) and the Nordic Association of Marine Insurers
(CEFOR), Oslo (Norway) (2018).
90 See note 8.
91 As regards methods for adapting maritime law to the emergence of unmanned vessels, see
Eder (2018).
What Challenges Lie Ahead for Maritime Law?
281
members of the crew who carry out services for the ship. Should such channelling
provisions protect a remote controller, manufacturer or software designer against
liability? If liability were to fall on such a controller, manufacturer and software
designer, the distribution of liability between the shipowner and these persons would
have to be considered. Furthermore, how would the provisions on distribution of
liability in the 1910 Convention on the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating
to Collision Between Vessels be applied in case one of the colliding vessels were
unmanned? Issues of criminal liability will also have to be addressed.
Civil liability and insurance issues are being considered within the International
Group of P&I Associations.
89
It is submitted that the international community should review and update the
international legal framework so as to ensure that it will function properly and safely
in the new technological environment created by the emergence of unmanned
vessels. The conditions laid down in the IMO Assembly Resolutions for amending
existing treaties mentioned above appear to be fulfilled, i.e. that there is a clear and
well-documented compelling need.
90
In such a review distinction should be made between remotely controlled
unmanned ships, on the one hand, and autonomous vessels operating without direct
human supervision and control, on the other hand. As regards remotely operated
ships, for most provisions in the treaty instruments it would probably be sufficient to
make clarifications or modest amendments, whereas more significant amendments or
additions might be required as regards autonomous unmanned ships.
5.2.6 Methods for Adapting the Regulatory Framework
An important question is which methods should be used for adapting the relevant
international treaties to the new shipping environment involving unmanned craft.
91
The traditional solution would be to amend each relevant provision in the abovementioned instruments so as to clarify its applicability to unmanned vessels and
ensure that these provisions make sense when applied to such vessels. Under this
procedure each treaty instrument would have to be examined provision by provision,
which appears to be the purpose of the scoping exercises carried out by the MSC and
the Legal Committee, and agreement would have to be reached within the competent
bodies of IMO on all these amendments. It should be noted that a scoping exercise of
existing conventions will not address issues relevant to unmanned vessels that are
not dealt with in these treaty instruments.
89 See CORE Advokatfirma, Aarhus (Denmark) and the Nordic Association of Marine Insurers
(CEFOR), Oslo (Norway) (2018).
90 See note 8.
91 As regards methods for adapting maritime law to the emergence of unmanned vessels, see
Eder (2018).
What Challenges Lie Ahead for Maritime Law?
281