Legal Challenges with Unmanned Shipping
Balex Seminar Calonia, Turku, 10 May 2019
Henrik RingbomProfessor II, Scandinavian Institute of Maritime Law, Oslo, Norway
Professor of Maritime Law, Univeristy of Turku
Adjunct Professor (Docent) in Maritime Law and the Law of the Sea,
Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland
Outline
General
1. Many aspects of maritime law
affected
2. Here, mainly international
perspective
3. Terminology/definitions
Different aspects of maritime law
Jurisdictional rules (main target: states)
Technical req. and standards
(main target: flag states)
Private law issues (main target: shipowner and
commercial partners)
Other rules (Criminal, social,
commercial, public law etc.)
Global (UN)
UNCLOS
Global (IMO&ILO)
SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, COLREGS, MLC
Global (IMO,
UNCITRAL, CMI etc.)
Private law conventions on e.g. liability, limitation, arrest,
carriage of goods, salvage, etc.
European Union
Ship safety directives & regulations
Limitations on exemptions
Product liability rules, insurance requirements
Rules on competent jurisdiction
and applicable law
Several issues covered by EU Treaty & legislation
Nordic states Nordic Maritime Codes, Nordic marine insurance terms
National (Finland)
National implementing legislation, discretion of flag state administration
(Trafi)
Finnish Maritime Code 674/1994, other specified acts
on liability, insurance etc.
The entire legislation applies a priori for ships
flying its flag
Law of the sea
Vessels/ships?
UNCLOS
IMO Conventions
National law
Conclusion
Implications
Article 94 (Duties of the flag State)
3. Every State shall take such measures for ships flying its flag as are necessary to ensure safety at sea with regard, inter alia , to:
b) the manning of ships, labour conditions and the training of crews, taking into account the applicable international Instruments;
4. Such measures shall include those necessary to ensure:…
b) that each ship is in the charge of a master and officers who possess appropriate qualifications, in particular in seamanship, navigation, communications and marine engineering, and that the crew is appropriate in qualification and numbers for the type, size, machinery and equipment of the ship;
5. In taking the measures called for in paragraphs 3 and 4 each State is required to conform to generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices and to take any steps which may be necessary to secure their observance.
High Seas
Exclusive
Economic
Zone
Territorial
sea
Land
200 NM
12 NM
24 NM
In the beginning…
The unmanned ship level of autonomy
Remotely operated
Traditional operation
Fully autonomous
More recently
Involveslegalchallenges,requiressomedegreeofregulatoryinterven on
Canbeaccommodated
withintheexis nglegalframework
IMO Conventions - General
General on legal challenges in international conventions
• Various studies of the legal
hurdles
• CMI study (MSC 99/INF.8)
• Danish (MSC 99/INF.XX
• IMO Secretariat (MSC 100/
• Main legal challenges
• Surprisingly few outright conflicts (STCW Part VIII)
• A lot of uncertainties (function-driven requirements)
• Affects how you deal with them
Technical rules
• Usually laid down in the form of
functions to be performed
• SOLAS
• Exemptions, equivalences
• V/14 Safe manning
• COLREGs:
• Lookout (Rule 5)
• Decision-making (Rule 2)
• STCW
• Practical issues (documentation,
PSC, salvage, pilotage?)
• International foundation needed
(possibly in a ‘soft law’ format)
Colregs
Look-out (Rule 5)
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.
Responsibility (Rule 2a)
Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.
What is happening at IMO?
Regulatory Scoping Exercise
Broad discussions at MSC 99 (May
2018) (four degrees of autonomy)
Correspondence group worked on
methodology inter-sessionally over
the summer
LEG 106 in March 2019
Next MSC (101) in May 2019
IMO degrees of autonomy
1) Ship with automated processes and decision support
2) Remotely controlled ship with seafarers on board
3) Remotely controlled ship without seafarers on board
4) Fully autonomous ship
On the nature of the challenge
REMOTE CONTROLLED AUTONOMOUS
UNMANNED
PARTIALLY MANNED 2
3
1
4
Current state of play
Summing up – IMO work on MASS
• Complex regulatory exercise ahead; not going fast.
• Relevance of RSE exercise is uncertain
• Practical concerns (workload), but theory doubts as
well as to the coherence of the approach (too
broadbrushed treatment of gliding scales in
autonomy and manning)
• Level or nature of challenge cannot be established
by looking at existing conventions
• Needed: new instrument, based on goal-based
standards, coupled with guidelines
Summing up
• In general: few direct prohibitions, flag state is key
and has wide discretion if satisfied about safety
• Generally, the key lies in the IMO layer, the other
rules will follow
• Complex regulatory exercise ahead
• Little attention to the need for new rules to date
• Laws can always be changed if there is political
willingness for it, but it takes time
“With the rise of self-
driving vehicles, it's only a matter of time before we get a country song where a guy's truck leaves him too”