Reforming the Law of the Sea for the Future of Automated Shipping

Laffey, Callum

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-32356-0_8

Callum Laffey³

331 Accesses

Abstract

Autonomous ships, controlled by a shore-based operator (SBO) or by an artificial intelligence, are in development and it is anticipated will soon be deployed into the world’s seas and oceans. But on deployment, first, Maritime Autonomous Vehicles (MAVs) must be able to access the sea and ocean areas, according to the law of the sea. Access is predicated upon compatibility with maritime safety conventions. The current rules are geared towards ships with personnel onboard, not for autonomous ships. MAVs’ integration into merchant shipping will also require international private law and commercial law to be compatible with autonomous ships. This chapter will indicate the most significant barriers to autonomous ship integration, in the aforementioned areas of law, and highlight priorities in the current regulatory framework that ought to be continued in the regime governing autonomous ships, from the lens of commercial expediency, safety and the prevention of pollution. This chapter will recommend solutions for the International Maritime Organization which are designed to facilitate the adoption of autonomous ships in a merchant setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic

$34.99 /Month

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Buy Now

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 139.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Maritime Security in the Age of Autonomous Ships

Maritime law issues related to the operation of unmanned autonomous cargo ships

Article 29 January 2018

Navigating modern era at sea: legal challenges and opportunities of unmanned and autonomous shipping

Article 26 August 2024

Notes

1.
The phrase is coined by Klein et al. (2020).
2.
The SBO version is the more likely candidate for merchant vessels, at least for the foreseeable future.
3.
Katsivela (2020). Veal and Ringbom (2017).
4.
Wróbel et al. (2017).
5.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 3 (known as “UNCLOS”). See Boyle (2005).
6.
Karlis (2018).
7.
Aramco Arbitration (1963), p. 27 ILR 117. Cited in Lowe (1977), p. 598.
8.
Summarised by De La Fayette (1996) and Lowe (1977), p. 598.
9.
Convention and Statute on the International Regime of Maritime Ports (adopted 2 December 1926, entered into force 26 July 1926) 58 LNTS 285 (known as “Maritime Ports Convention”).
10.
The power to deviate from Articles 2 to 7 of the Statute.
11.
Statute, Art. 2.
12.
Lowe (1977); De La Fayette (1996).
13.
De La Fayette (1996) counts 40. Columbian–Peruvian asylum case (Columbia v Peru) (Judgment) [1950] ICJ 266, 276.
14.
De La Fayette (1996), p. 8.
15.
Ibid.
16.
Ibid, p. 9. Japan, Belgium. Norway, Chile. Canada.
17.
Ibid, p. 17.
18.
Case Concerning Military Aid and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States) (Merits) [1986] ICJ 14.
19.
Ibid, paras 212–213. De La Fayette (1996), p. 2.
20.
UNCLOS, Art. 25. Ibid, p. 3.
21.
Case Concerning Military Aid and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States) (Merits) [1986] ICJ 14. Kate A Hoff (United States) v Mexico (1929) 4 RIAA 44. Erik Molenaar (2015), p. 228.
22.
Veal and Ringbom (2017), p. 103. Jordan (2020), p. 297. Lowe (1977).
23.
De La Fayette (1996); Molenaar (2015); Lowe (1977), p. 621.
24.
De la Fayette (1996).
25.
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (adopted 30 October 1947, entered into force 1 January 1948) 55 UNTS 194 (known as “GATT”), Art. 5(2).
26.
De La Fayette (1996), p. 4.
27.
Molenaar (2015), pp. 237–239; De La Fayette (1996), pp. 19–21.
28.
Veal and Ringbom (2017), p. 103.
29.
Lowe (1977), p. 614.
30.
Adapting the argument of: De La Fayette (1996), p. 22.
31.
UNCLOS, Art. 219 (emphasis added).
32.
UNCLOS, Art. 17.
33.
Daum and Stellpflug (2017).
34.
Veal and Ringbom (2017), p. 102. Veal and Tsimplis (2017), p. 307.
35.
Veal et al. (2019), p. 27.
36.
UNCLOS, Art. 91.
37.
Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, 1973 (adopted 17 February 1978, entered into force 2 October 1983) 1340 UNTS 1983 (known as “MARPOL”), Art. 2(4).
38.
Daum and Stellpflug (2017).
39.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331 (known as “VCLT”).
40.
Van Logchem (2021), p. 30.
41.
Oxford English Dictionary. Simpson (n.d.).
42.
VCLT.
43.
Van Logchem (2021).
44.
UNCLOS, Art. 94(3)(b).
45.
Ibid.
46.
See Ringbom (2019), pp. 161–162.
47.
Van Logchem (2021), p. 39. Admission of a State to the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) [1948] ICJ Rep 57. Territorial Dispute (Libya v Chad) (Merits) [1994] ICJ Rep 6.
48.
Veal et al. (2019), p. 28.
49.
International Maritime Organization, “Interim Guidelines for MASS Trials” (14 June 2019) MSC.1/Circ.1604. Veal et al. (2019), p. 29.
50.
Convention on the International Maritime Organization, as amended (adopted 6 March 1948, entered into force 17 March 1958) 289 UNTS 3, Art. 1(a).
51.
Ringbom (2019), pp. 161–162.
52.
Kraska (2010), p. 64.
53.
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ rep 14.
54.
Veal and Tsimplis (2017).
55.
Dixon et al. (2016), p. 88.
56.
UNCLOS, Art. 19(1).
57.
Ibid, Art. 19(2).
58.
Evans (2018), pp. 645–646.
59.
See: Veal and Tsimplis (2017). Ringbom (2020b).
60.
Tanaka (2015), p. 542.
61.
UNCLOS, Art. 19(2)(h). Hakapää and Molenaar (1999), p. 132.
62.
Tanaka (2015), p. 542, citing Kanehara (1999).
63.
Ringbom (2020b), p. 456.
64.
Schmitt (2017), R 46(10). Klein et al. (2020), p. 732.
65.
UNCLOS, Art. 19(2)(h).
66.
Wróbel et al. (2017).
67.
Which has not been made out yet in relation to MAV.
68.
Serdy (2018), p. 325.
69.
Roscini (2002), pp. 258–259.
70.
Oxford English Dictionary. Simpson (n.d.).
71.
Howse (2020). Gard Rules 2019 (Rule 72).
72.
Van Dyke (1996), p. 384.
73.
UNCLOS, Art. 23.
74.
Jordan (2020), p. 297. See Ringbom (2020b), p. 454; Van Dyke (2002), p. 77.
75.
UNCLOS, Art. 23.
76.
Ibid, Art. 23.
77.
Ibid, Art. 25(1).
78.
Interim Guidelines for MASS Trials (2019), para 1.2.3.
79.
UNCLOS, Art. 21.
80.
Ibid, Art. 21(2).
81.
UNCLOS, Art. 19.
82.
Ibid, Arts. 56 and 57.
83.
Ibid, Art. 56.
84.
Ibid, Arts. 57 and 58. See Sect. 2.2.1.
85.
Stephens and Rothwell (2015), p. 578.
86.
Ringbom (2020b), p. 457.
87.
Klein (2006), p. 317.
88.
Hakapää and Molenaar (1999), p. 145.
89.
Roscini (2002), p. 255. For example, Oman, Iran, Egypt, Guinea, Malaysia.
90.
Oxman (2006), p. 849.
91.
Serdy (2018), p. 326.
92.
“Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development” (Rio De Janeiro 3–14 June 1992) (12 August 1992) UN Doc A/CONF.151/26, Agenda 21, Ch 17.
93.
Van Dyke (2002). Ibid, para 17.22.
94.
Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v Canada) (1941) 3 RIAA 1905.
95.
Pacific Fur Seals Arbitration (1893) 1 Moore’s Int’l Arb Awards 755.
96.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentine v Uruguay) (Judgment) [2010] ICJ 14.
97.
Van Dyke (2005). Van Dyke (2002), p. 88.
98.
UNCLOS, Art. 220(6).
99.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) (Judgment) [2010] ICJ 14, para 164. WTO, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) (16 January 1998) WT/DS26/AB/R and WT/DS48/AB/R (Appellate Body Report), paras 120-25; WTO, EC Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (29 September 2006) WT/DS291/R (Panel Report), para 7.89. Redgwell (2018), p. 685.
100.
Redgwell (2018), pp. 685–686.
101.
Kirk (2015), p. 520. Responsibilities and obligations of States with respect to activities in the Area (Advisory Opinion, 1 February 2011) ITLOS Reports 2011, 10 [131].
102.
Van Dyke (2002), p. 57. Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v Canada) (1941) 3 RIAA 1905; Corfu Channel case (United Kingdom v Albania) (Judgment) [1949] ICJ 4.
103.
Van Dyke (2002).
104.
UNCLOS, Art. 279. Van Dyke (2002), pp. 88–89.
105.
Ibid, Art. 220(6) and (3).
106.
Ibid, Arts. 220 (6), 228(1), 226(1)(c).
107.
Ibid, Art. 220 (7).
108.
UNCLOS, Art. 231.
109.
Ibid, Art. 228.
110.
Andreone (2015), p. 176. Ibid, Art. 220 (5)-(6).
111.
UNCLOS, Art. 211(5).
112.
Ibid, Art. 73.
113.
Ibid.
114.
Klein et al. (2020), p. 727.
115.
Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice (adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945) 1 UNTS 16 (known as “UN Charter”), Art. 51.
116.
Roscini (2002), p. 258.
117.
Van Dyke (2002), p. 89.
118.
UN Charter, Art. 51. Brownlie (1963), Ch 13. Greenwood (2011).
119.
UNCLOS, Art. 90.
120.
Ibid, Art. 86.
121.
Serdy (2018), p. 329.
122.
Veal and Ringbom (2017). UNCLOS, Art. 92.
123.
UNCLOS, Art. 110.
124.
Ibid, Art. 89.
125.
Guilfoyle (2015), p. 203.
126.
Ringbom (2020b).
127.
Veal et al. (2019), p. 28.
128.
UNCLOS, Art. 87(2).
129.
As argued by China in relation to the Subic Sea incident.
130.
UNCLOS, Art. 94(1).
131.
Ibid, Art. 94(3).
132.
Ibid, Art. 94(4)(a).
133.
Ringbom (2020b), p. 443.
134.
UNCLOS, Art. 91(2).
135.
CMI (2018), p. 5. Accessed on 05/01/2021. Brazil and Denmark.
136.
Van Logchem (2021). Daum and Stellpflug (2017).
137.
M/V ‘Saiga’ (No 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) (Judgment, 1 July 1999) ITLOS Reports 1999, 10 [83]. Guilfoyle (2015), p. 215.
138.
Veal et al. (2019), p. 25.
139.
UNCLOS, Art. 94(6).
140.
International Maritime Organization, “IMO Instruments Implementation Code (III Code) (4 December 2013) IMO Res A.1070.
141.
UNCLOS, Art. 94(5).
142.
Ibid, Art. 94(4)(c).
143.
UNCLOS, Art. 94(3).
144.
Veal and Tsimplis (2017), p. 319.
145.
UNCLOS, Art. 94(b).
146.
Merchant Shipping Act 1995, s 313.
147.
Veal et al. (2019), p. 36. from Carey (2017), p. 210.
148.
Guilfoyle (2015), p. 209.
149.
Ibid, Arts. 94, 92, and 97.
150.
(1880) 5 CPD 265, 304 (Cockburn CJ).
151.
The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, as amended (adopted 1 November 1974, entered into force 25 May 1980) 1184 UNTS 276 (known as “SOLAS”), Ch V, Reg 33. UNCLOS, Art. 98.
152.
UNCLOS, Art. 98(1).
153.
Ibid, Art. 98.
154.
Carey (2017), p. 211.
155.
International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, as amended (adopted 27 April 1979, entered into force 22 June 1985) 1405 UNTS 118 (known as “SAR Convention”).
156.
Veal and Ringbom (2017), p. 104. Jordan (2020), pp. 298–299. Veal and Tsimplis (2017), p. 330. Carey (2017), p. 213.
157.
Carey (2017), p. 213.
158.
AAWA (2016), p. 40.
159.
UNCLOS, Art. 94(4)(b). Veal and Ringbom (2017), p. 104.
160.
Ferguson v Hutchinson (1870-71) LR 6 QB 280.
161.
Ibid, 292.
162.
Carey (2017), p. 213.
163.
UNCLOS, Art. 98.
164.
The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, as amended (adopted 1 November 1974, entered into force 25 May 1980) 1184 UNTS 276 (known as “SOLAS”).
165.
The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (adopted 20 October 1972, entered into force 15 July 1977) 1060 UNTS 16 (known as “COLREGS”).
166.
The International Convention on the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, as amended (adopted 7 July 1978, entered into force 28 April 1984) 1361 UNTS 2 (known as “STCW”).
167.
SOLAS, Ch 1, Reg 1.
168.
Van Hooydonk (2014).
169.
NB: part of economic benefit from MAV is reduction in accommodation size to house more cargo: see Katsivela (2020), p. 240.
170.
SOLAS, Ch II-2, Regulation 15-16.
171.
Ibid, Ch II-2, Regulation 15-6, 2.1.1.
172.
Ibid, Ch II-2, Regulation 17.
173.
Ibid, Ch II-1, Reg 5-1.
174.
If the processes are rapid, it stands to reason the acquiring of the information must also be rapid.
175.
Perera and Batalden (2019).
176.
Chae et al. (2020), p. 9.
177.
DNV (2015), p. 13.
178.
Höyhtyä (2019), p. 88.
179.
Roulette (2021); Dellinger (2021).
180.
Kwan and Henley (2021).
181.
SOLAS, Ch 5, Reg 15.
182.
Veal and Tsimplis (2017).
183.
Simpson (n.d.).
184.
SOLAS, Ch II, Reg 38.
185.
Ibid, Ch II-2 Reg 23.
186.
Ibid.
187.
Ibid, Ch IV, Reg 16.
188.
Ibid, Ch V, Reg 23.
189.
Davies (2020).
190.
Davies (2020).
191.
Van Hooydonk (2014). Daum and Stellpflug (2017).
192.
See Van Hooydonk (2014), p. 415.
193.
SOLAS, Ch II-2, Reg 18.
194.
Veal et al. (2019).
195.
Simpson (n.d.).
196.
SOLAS, Ch V, Reg 33.
197.
At Sect. 2.4.1.
198.
SOLAS, Ch IV, Reg 34-1.
199.
Cartner et al. (2009), para 8.8.
200.
Baughen and Tettenborn (2021), p. 21.
201.
Parts C, D, E, and G.
202.
Baughen and Tettenborn (2021).
203.
IMO, “International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (International Safety Management (ISM) Code” (17 November 1993) resolution A.741(18), as amended.
204.
SOLAS, Ch XI, Reg 3.
205.
Ibid, Ch XI, Reg 4.
206.
Ibid, Reg 4. ISM Code, Reg 14.1.
207.
ISM Code, Reg 1.2.3.
208.
Ibid, Reg 4.
209.
Karlis (2018), p. 126.
210.
ISM Code, Reg 5.2.
211.
Katsivela (2020), p. 244.
212.
COLREGs, Rule 1(a).
213.
Ibid, Rule 3(a).
214.
Ibid, Rule 2(2).
215.
Veal et al. (2019).
216.
Perera and Batalden (2019).
217.
Daum and Stellpflug (2017).
218.
COLREGs, Rule 3(f).
219.
[1921] 1 AC 556. Case cited in Carey (2017), p. 209.
220.
Veal and Tsimplis (2017).
221.
COLREGs, Rule 3.
222.
Veal et al. (2019).
223.
See Daum and Stellpflug (2017) who argue MAVs meet Rule 5.
224.
Veal and Tsimplis (2017).
225.
Veal et al. (2019).
226.
Baughen and Tettenborn (2021), p. 22.
227.
STCW, Ch VII/2, para 3-1, para 17.
228.
Ibid, Ch A-VIII/2, Part 5.5 and General 105. Baughen and Tettenborn (2021), p. 18.
229.
Ibid, Ch A-VIII/2.
230.
Ibid, Ch A-VIII/2.
231.
Schelin (2020). Ibid, Ch VIII/2, Section 2.
232.
STCW, Ch A-VIII/2, Part 4, para 10.
233.
Schelin (2020), p. 268.
234.
STCW, Ch A-VIII/2, Part 2, paras 3 and 5.
235.
Ibid, Art. III. Veal and Tsimplis (2017), p. 322.
236.
Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) Regulations 1997 (Reg 3).
237.
See Veal and Tsimplis (2017), p. 323.
238.
Fan et al. (2020), p. 9.
239.
Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (MASS) in the language of the IMO.
240.
Veal and Tsimplis (2017); Carey (2017).
241.
Kraska (2010).
242.
George (2021).
243.
Kenney (2018), in MARPOL Annex I in 1983.
244.
Stemre (2018).
245.
Ringbom (2020a).
246.
Boyle (2005), p. 573. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) [1997] ICJ 7, 140.
247.
Boyle (2005), 573. Citing: Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (Provisional Measures) (1999) ITLOS Nos 3 and 4. Paras 77-79. Judges Laing at 16-19, Treves at para 9.
248.
Allen (2018).
249.
Soyer (2020), p. 171.
250.
Bartlett (2018).
251.
Entered into force 1994.
252.
Van Logchem (2021).
253.
UNCLOS, Art. 313.
254.
VCLT, Art 34.
255.
UNCLOS, Art. 316.
256.
Boyle (2005).
257.
Ringbom (2020a).
258.
Van Logchem (2021).
259.
Ibid, p. 59. Canadian MLA response to the CMI.
260.
CMI (2018). Eleven MLAs said inconsistencies in UNCLOS could be resolved by the IMO. Argentina, Britain and Germany said Article 94 could be clarified by the IMO. China, Finland and Spain said it would need a framework convention which could be done by the IMO.
261.
Bork et al. (2008).
262.
Ibid, p. 319. Katsivela (2020).
263.
See Soyer (2020).
264.
Ibid, p. 168.
265.
Stemre (2018).
266.
Kojima and Vereshchetin (2013).
267.
Ibid.
268.
Although it was frustrated by COVID.
269.
Eder (2019).
270.
Agreement relating the Implementation of Part XI of the Convention on the Law of the Sea (1994). Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (adopted 28 July 1994, entered into force 16 November 1994) 1836 UNTS 3.
271.
Boyle (2005), p. 565.
272.
Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (adopted 4 August 1995, entered into force 11 December 2001) 2167 UNTS 3.
273.
Eder (2019).
274.
International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code) (21 November 2014) resolution MSC.385(94).
275.
Ibid, 55.
276.
Ibid.
277.
Stemre (2018).
278.
International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading (adopted 25 August 1924, entered into force 02 June 1931) UKTS 021/2004: CM 6259 (known as “Hague Rules”).
279.
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971, s 1. Protocol to amend the International Convention for the unification of certain rules of law relating to bills of lading, signed at Brussels on 25 August 1924 (adopted 23 February 1968, entered into force 26 June 1977) 1412 UNTS 127 (known as the “Visby Protocol”, combining with the Hague Rules to create the Hague-Visby Rules).
280.
Hague-Visby Rules, Art. III(3)(b).
281.
Maxine Footwear Co v Canadian Government Merchant Marine [1959] AC 589.
282.
Hague-Visby Rules, Art. IV.
283.
Ibid, Art. IV(2).
284.
The Eurasian Dream [2002] EWHC 118 (Comm); [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 719.
285.
A fire caused by the vessel’s unseaworthiness prevented the reliance of the fire exemption: Maxine Footwear Co v Canadian Government Merchant Marine [1959] AC 589. See Karlis (2018).
286.
Baughen (2021), p. 83.
287.
Oxford English Dictionary, Simpson (n.d.).
288.
Stevens (2020), p. 250.
289.
The Hongkong Fir [1962] 2 QB 26, 55 (Sellers LJ) as cited in Carey (2017), p. 204.
290.
It is hoped science and engineering will explore this technology in more depth, so it may be known how safe this technology is in practice.
291.
The Star Sea [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 360. The Eurasian Dream [2002] EWHC 118 (Comm); [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 719. The Hongkong Fir [1962] 2 QB 26.
292.
The Makedonia [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 316.
293.
The Hongkong Fir [1962] 2 QB 26.
294.
Steel v The State Line Steamship Company (1877) 3 AC 72.
295.
See Stevens (2020), p. 248 citing The Clan Gordon [1924] AC 100, 120-121 (Lord Atkinson).
296.
The Eurasian Dream [2002] EWHC 118 (Comm); [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 719.
297.
Stevens (2020), p. 248.
298.
Carey (2017), p. 205.
299.
Steel v The State Line Steamship Company (1877) 3 AC 72.
300.
The Eurasian Dream [2002] EWHC 118 (Comm); [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 719.
301.
Wróbel et al. (2017).
302.
Karlis (2018).
303.
Stevens (2020), p. 244.
304.
Quoted in Stevens (2020), p. 247.
305.
The CMA CGM Libra [2020] EWCA Civ 293; [2020] All ER (Comm) 1072.
306.
The Muncaster Castle [1961] AC 807.
307.
The Happy Ranger [2006] EWHC 122 (Comm); [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 649. Baughen (2021), pp. 84–85.
308.
Baughen (2021), p. 85. The Muncaster Castle [1961] AC 807.
309.
Hague-Visby Rules, Art. 2(4)(a).
310.
[1895] 2 QB 550.
311.
The Albacora [1966] 2 Llyod’s Rep 53. Carey (2017), p. 205.
312.
Volcafe Ltd v Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA [2016] EWCA Civ 1103, [72] (Flaux J). Ibid.
313.
Carey (2017), p. 213.
314.
Baughen (2021), p. 86.
315.
Hague-Visby Rules, Art. 3(3).
316.
Baughen (2021), p. 89.
317.
Ibid.
318.
Hague-Visby Rules, Art. 3(3).
319.
Ibid, Art. IV(6).
320.
Ibid.
321.
United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (adopted 31 March 1978, entered into force 1 November 1992) 1695 UNTS 3 (known as the “Hamburg Rules”).
322.
Hamburg Rules, Art. 1(6).
323.
Ibid, Art. 1.
324.
Hamburg Rules, Art. 5.
325.
Ibid, Art. 4.
326.
Ibid, Art. 5.
327.
Ibid, Art. 7(2).
328.
Ibid, Art. 8(2).
329.
Ibid, Art. 13.
330.
Ibid.
331.
Ibid, Art. 14.
332.
Hamburg Rules, Art. 14(2).
333.
Ibid, Art. 14.
334.
The Houston City [1956] AC 266.
335.
The Stork [1955] 2 QB 68.
336.
The Marinicki [2003] EWHC 1894 (Admlty).
337.
(1881) 6 PD 68, 72.
338.
Carey (2017), p. 203.
339.
Ogden v Graham (1861) 121 ER 901.
340.
The Ellie and The Frixos [2008] EWCA Civ 584. The Madeline [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 224. The Derby [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 325.
341.
Rio Tinto v Seed Shipping (1926) 24 LL Rep 316.
342.
Hain Steamship v Tate & Lyle [1936] 2 All ER 597.
343.
The MJ Sur [2018] EWHC 1673 (Comm) [87], (Carr J). Ibid.
344.
Hain Steamship v Tate & Lyle [1936] 2 All ER 597. The Antares [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 424. Suisse Atlantique v NC [1967] 1 AC 361. Photo Production Ltd v Securior Transport [1980] AC 827. The MJ Sur [2018] EWHC 1673 (Comm).
345.
See Sect. 2.4.3.
346.
Scaramanga v Stamp (1880) 5 CPD 295.
347.
See Baughen (2021).
348.
Veal and Tsimplis (2017).
349.
Marine Insurance Act 1906, ss 17 and 33.
350.
Insurance Act 2015, s 10.
351.
Marine Insurance Act 1906, s 39(3).
352.
Oliverson v Loughman (1815) 105 ER 862.
353.
Wang (2020).
354.
Steel v The State Line Steamship Company (1877) 3 AC 72.
355.
Cantiere Meccanico Brindisino v Janson [1912] 3 KB 452.
356.
Marine Insurance Act 1906, s 18; Insurance Act 2015, s 3.
357.
Insurance Act 2015, s 3.
358.
Ibid, s 7.
359.
Ibid, s 8.
360.
Ibid, s 3.
361.
See for more detailed study: MacDonald Eggers (2021).
362.
Howse (2020).
363.
Jankowicz (2021).
364.
Gard Rules 2019 (Rule 1.1), cited in Howse (2020), p. 198.
365.
Howse (2020).
366.
Ibid, p. 194.
367.
Gard Rules 2019 (Rule 8).
368.
See Viljanen (2020).
369.
Howse (2020), p. 195.
370.
Cartner et al. (2009), Ch 1.
371.
Gold (2004).
372.
Cartner et al. (2009), Ch 1. Merchant Shipping Act 1995, s 98.
373.
See reasoning in Morse v Slue (1672) 1 Ventris 238; 86 ER 159.
374.
Cartner et al. (2009), Ch 8.
375.
Vojković and Milenković (2020).
376.
Cartner et al. (2009), Ch 8.
377.
This could fall to the port agent.
378.
Cartner et al. (2009), Ch 13.
379.
Ibid, Ch 5. Based on UNCLOS, Arts. 98–100, 108–109.
380.
UNCLOS, Art. 100.
381.
See Best Management Practices – BMP5 (2018).
382.
Merchant Shipping Act, s 105.
383.
Cartner et al. (2009), para 9.1.4.
384.
See Sect 4.4.
385.
International Convention relating to the arrest of seagoing ships (adopted 10 May 1952, entered into force 24 February 1956) 439 UNTS 193 (known as the “Arrest Convention”).
386.
Arrest Convention, Arts. 1 and 8.
387.
Ibid, Art. 1.
388.
Ibid, Art. 1(1)(b).
389.
Zanella (2020).
390.
Soyer and Tettenborn (2021), pp. 69–70.
391.
Nairobi International Convention on the removal of wrecks (adopted 18 May 2007, entered into force 2015) UKTS 030/2016: CM 9315 (known as the “Nairobi Convention”).
392.
In whose waters the wreck is located.
393.
Nairobi Convention, Art. 5.
394.
Ibid, Arts. 9–10.
395.
Ibid, Art. 1.
396.
Ibid.
397.
That is, ‘shore-based operator’.
398.
Baughen and Tettenborn (2021), p. 18.
399.
See Baughen (2019).
400.
The Rama [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 281.
401.
Merchant Shipping Act 1995, s 41. For example, The Ever Success [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 823. Baughen and Tettenborn (2021), 18.
402.
International Convention on Salvage (adopted 28 April 1989, entered into force 14 July 1996) 1953 UNTS 165 (known as the “Salvage Convention”).
403.
Ibid, Art. 6.
404.
Ibid, Art. 1.
405.
Salvage Convention, Arts. 6 and 7.
406.
Ibid, Art. 16.
407.
Soyer and Tettenborn (2021), p. 67.
408.
Ibid, p. 67.
409.
Song (2020).
410.
Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (adopted 17 November 1976, entered into force 1 December 1986) 1456 UNTS 221 (known as “LLMC”).
411.
Ibid, Art. 1(2).
412.
Ibid, Art. 2.
413.
Ibid, Art. 1.
414.
Baughen (2021), p. 90.
415.
Cartner et al. (2009), para 14.2.1.
416.
Although the use of equivalents may be used by the flag state.

References

Books and Journals

Allen C (2018) Determining the legal status of unmanned maritime vehicles: formalism vs functionalism. J Mar Law Com 49:477–514
Google Scholar
Andreone G (2015) The exclusive economic zone. In: Rothwell D et al. (eds) The Oxford handbook of the law of the sea. OUP, pp. 159–180
Google Scholar
Bartlett M (2018) Game of drones: unmanned maritime vehicles and the law of the sea. Auckland Univ Law Rev 24:66–91
Google Scholar
Baughen S (2019) Maritime liens. In: Greenberg D (ed) Westlaw Insight
Google Scholar
Baughen S (2021) Unmanned vessels and international conventions for the carriage of goods by sea. In: Soyer B, Tettenborn A (eds) Artificial intelligence and autonomous shipping: developing the international legal framework. Bloombury, London, pp 81–98
Google Scholar
Baughen S, Tettenborn A (2021) International regulation of shipping and unmanned vessels. In: Soyer B, Tettenborn A (eds) Artificial intelligence and autonomous shipping: developing the international legal framework. Bloombury, London, pp 7–24
Google Scholar
Bork K et al (2008) The legal regulation of floats and gliders—in quest of a new regime? Ocean Dev Int Law 39:298–328
Article Google Scholar
Boyle A (2005) Further development of the law of the sea convention: mechanism for change. ICLQ 54:563–584
Article Google Scholar
Brownlie I (1963) International law and the use of force by states. OUP, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Carey L (2017) All hands off deck? The legal barriers to autonomous ships. JIML 23:202–219
Google Scholar
Cartner J et al (2009) International law of the shipmaster. Informa, London
Google Scholar
Chae CJ et al (2020) A study on identification of development status of MASS technologies and directions of improvement. Appl Sci 10:4564–4582
Article Google Scholar
Daum O, Stellpflug T (2017) The implications of international law on unmanned merchant vessels. JIML 23:363–374
Google Scholar
Davies M (2020) Pilotage of autonomous and remotely-controlled ships. In: Ringbom H et al (eds) Autonomous ships and the law. Routledge, London, pp 279–294
Chapter Google Scholar
De La Fayette L (1996) Access to ports in international law. Int J Mar Coast Law 11:1–22
Article Google Scholar
Dixon M et al. (2016) Cases & materials on international law, 6th edn. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Eder B (2019) Unmanned vessels: challenges ahead. LMCLQ 45:47–56
Google Scholar
Evans M (2018) The law of the sea. In: Evans M (ed) International law, 5th edn. OUP, Oxford, pp 635–670
Chapter Google Scholar
Fan C et al (2020) A framework to identify factors influencing navigational risk for maritime autonomous surface ships. Ocean Eng 202:article 107188
Article Google Scholar
Gold E (2004) From privilege to peril—the shipmaster’s current legal rights and responsibilities. WMU J MA 3:51–66
Google Scholar
Greenwood C (2011) Self-defence. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck institute of public international law. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Guilfoyle D (2015) The high seas. In: Rothwell D et al. (eds) The oxford handbook of the law of the sea. OUP, pp. 203–225
Google Scholar
Hakapää K, Molenaar E (1999) Innocent passage—past and present. Marine Policy 23:131–145
Article Google Scholar
Howse T (2020) P&I perspectives. In: Ringbom H et al (eds) Autonomous ships and the law. Routledge, London, pp 193–206
Chapter Google Scholar
Höyhtyä M (2019) Connectivity manager: ensuring robust connections for autonomous ships. 2019 2nd ICoIAS, 86–90
Google Scholar
Jordan S (2020) Captain, my captain: a look at autonomous ships and how they should operate under admiralty law. Indiana Int Comp Law Rev 30:283–317
Article Google Scholar
Kanehara A (1999) The Japanese legal system concerning innocent passage of foreign vessels (1990–1998). Jap Ann Int Law 42:90–110
Google Scholar
Karlis T (2018) Maritime law issues related to the operation of unmanned autonomous cargo ships. WMU J MA 17:119–128
Google Scholar
Katsivela M (2020) Unmanned vessels and regulatory concerns. JIML 26:239–252
Google Scholar
Kenney F (2018) Global regulation of ships: the future of development and implementation at the International Maritime Organization. Tul Mar Law J 42:259–268
Google Scholar
Kirk E (2015) Science and the international regulation of marine pollution. In: Rothwell D et al. (eds) The Oxford handbook of the law of the sea. OUP, pp. 516–534
Google Scholar
Klein N (2006) Legal limitations on ensuring Australia’s maritime security. Melb J Int Law 7:306–338
Google Scholar
Klein N et al (2020) Maritime autonomous vehicles: new frontiers in the law of the sea. ICLQ 69:719–734
Article Google Scholar
Kojima C, Vereshchetin V (2013) Implementation agreements. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck institute of public international law. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Kraska J (2010) The law of unmanned naval systems in war and peace. Subsea Vehicl 5:44–64
Google Scholar
Lowe AV (1977) The right of entry into maritime ports in international law. San Diego Law Rev 14:597–622
Google Scholar
Macdonald Eggers P (2021) Maritime autonomous surface ships: marine insurance response to risks. In: Soyer B, Tettenborn A (eds) Artificial intelligence and autonomous shipping: developing the international legal framework. Bloombury, London, pp 139–160
Google Scholar
Molenaar E (2015) Port and coastal states. In: Rothwell D et al (eds) The Oxford handbook of the law of the sea. OUP, Oxford, pp 228–303
Google Scholar
Oxman B (2006) The territorial temptation: a siren song at sea. Am J Int Law 100:830–851
Article Google Scholar
Perera L, Batalden BM (2019) Possible COLREGs Failures Under Digital Helmsman of Autonomous Ships. Oceans 2019 - Marseille 1–7
Google Scholar
Proelss A et al (2020) United Nations Convention on the law of the sea: a commentary. Bloomsbury Collections, Munchen
Google Scholar
Redgwell C (2018) International environmental law. In: Evans M (ed) International law, 5th edn. OUP, Oxford, pp 675–716
Google Scholar
Ringbom H (2019) Regulating autonomous ships—concepts, challenges and precedents. Ocean Dev Int Law 40:141–169
Article Google Scholar
Ringbom H (2020a) Developments, challenges, and prospects at the IMO. In: Ringbom H et al (eds) Autonomous ships and the law. Routledge, London, pp 56–68
Chapter Google Scholar
Ringbom H (2020b) Legalizing autonomous ships. Ocean Yearb 34:429–460
Article Google Scholar
Roscini M (2002) The navigational rights of nuclear ships. Leiden J Int Law 15:251–265
Article Google Scholar
Schelin J (2020) Manning of unmanned ships. In: Ringbom H et al (eds) Autonomous ships and the law. Routledge, London, pp 261–278
Chapter Google Scholar
Schmitt M (2017) Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the international law applicable to cyber operations. CUP, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Serdy A (2018) Public international law aspects of shipping regulation. In: Baatz Y et al (eds) Maritime law, 4th edn. Routledge, Oxford
Google Scholar
Simpson J (n.d.) Oxford English Dictionary. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Song M (2020) Moving forward by looking back. In: Ringbom H et al (eds) Autonomous ships and the law. Routledge, London, pp 222–239
Chapter Google Scholar
Soyer B (2020) The future of autonomous shipping - the regulatory challenge. In: Soyer B, Tettenborn A (eds) Artificial intelligence and autonomous shipping: developing the international legal framework. Bloombury, London, pp 163–183
Google Scholar
Soyer B, Tettenborn A (2021) Autonomous ships and private law issues. In: Soyer B, Tettenborn A (eds) Artificial intelligence and autonomous shipping: developing the international legal framework. Bloombury, London, pp 63–80
Chapter Google Scholar
Stemre T (2018) The IMO, the polar regions, and global ocean governance: newly accessible maritime environments. In: Attard D et al (eds) The IMLI treatise on global governance: volume III: the IMO and global governance. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Stephens T, Rothwell D (2015) Marine scientific research. In: Rothwell D et al. (eds) The Oxford handbook of the law of the sea. OUP, pp. 559–581
Google Scholar
Stevens F (2020) Seaworthiness and good seamanship in the age of autonomous vessels. In: Ringbom H et al (eds) Autonomous ships and the law. Routledge, London, pp 243–260
Chapter Google Scholar
Tanaka Y (2015) Navigational rights and freedoms. In: Rothwell D et al. (eds) The Oxford handbook of the law of the sea. OUP, pp. 536–559
Google Scholar
Van Dyke J (1996) Applying the precautionary principle to ocean shipments of radioactive materials. Ocean Dev Int Law 27:379–397
Article Google Scholar
Van Dyke J (2002) The legal regime governing sea transport of ultrahazardous radioactive materials. Ocean Dev Int Law 33:77–108
Article Google Scholar
Van Dyke J (2005) The disappearing right to navigational freedom in the exclusive economic zone. Marine Policy 29:107–121
Article Google Scholar
Van Hooydonk E (2014) The law of unmanned merchant shipping—an exploration. JIML 6:403–423
Google Scholar
Van Logchem Y (2021) International law of the sea and autonomous cargo ‘Vessels’. In: Soyer B, Tettenborn A (eds) Artificial intelligence and autonomous shipping: developing the international legal framework. Bloombury, London, pp 25–62
Google Scholar
Veal R, Ringbom H (2017) Unmanned ships and the international regulatory framework. JIML 23:100–118
Google Scholar
Veal R, Tsimplis M (2017) The integration of unmanned ships into the lex maritima. LMCLQ 43:303–335
Google Scholar
Veal R et al (2019) The legal status and operation of unmanned maritime vehicles. Ocean Dev Int Law 50:23–48
Article Google Scholar
Viljanen M (2020) Insuring autonomous vessels. In: Ringbom H et al (eds) Autonomous ships and the law. Routledge, London, pp 207–221
Chapter Google Scholar
Vojković G, Milenković M (2020) Autonomous ships and legal authorities of the ship master. Case Stud Transp Policy 8:333–340
Article Google Scholar
Wang F (2020) The warranty of seaworthiness and cyber risk of unmanned ships. JBL 4:311–325
Google Scholar
Wróbel K et al (2017) Towards the assessment of potential impact of unmanned vessels on maritime transportation safety. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf 165:155–169
Article Google Scholar
Zanella TV (2020) The environmental impacts of the ‘Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships’ (MASS). Veredas do Direito 17:367–384
Google Scholar

Websites

AAWA (2016) Remote and Autonomous Ships: The next steps. https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/customers/marine/ship-intel/aawa-whitepaper-210616.pdf. Accessed on 7 August 2022
CMI (2018) Summary of responses. https://comitemaritime.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Summary-of-Responses-to-the-CMI-Questionnaire.docx. Accessed on 7 August 2022
Dellinger AJ (2021) Elon Musk’s Starlink Is Quietly Expanding, But Speeds Are Getting Worse. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ajdellinger/2021/12/23/elon-musks-starlink-is-quietly-expanding-but-speeds-are-getting-worse/?sh=ded4fc424197. Accessed on 7 August 2022
DNV (2015) Ship Connectivity. https://www.dnv.com/Publications/ship-connectivity-28107. Accessed on 7 August 2022
George R (2021) Wind … or worse: was pilot error to blame for the Suez blockage? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/03/wind-or-worse-was-pilot-error-to-blame-for-the-suez-blockage. Accessed on 7 August 2021
Jankowicz M (2021) Ever Given insurers say Egypt’s $600 million claim is still too much, as authorities continue to impound the ship. https://www.businessinsider.com/even-given-insurers-egypts-600-million-claim-still-too-big-2021-5?r=US&IR=T. Accessed on 7 August 2022
Kwan R, Henley J (2021) China berates US after ‘close encounters’ with Elon Musk satellites. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/dec/28/china-complains-to-un-after-space-station-is-forced-to-move-to-avoid-starlink-satellites. Accessed on 7 August 2022
Roulette J (2021) SpaceX moves to beam Starlink internet into trucks, boats, and aircraft. https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/8/22319761/spacex-starlink-fcc-internet-cars-boats-aircraft. Accessed on 7 August 2022

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

University of Exeter, Law School, Exeter, UK
Callum Laffey

Authors

Callum Laffey
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Callum Laffey .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

School of Law, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, UK
Kyriaki Noussia
Law School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Matthew Channon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Laffey, C. (2023). Reforming the Law of the Sea for the Future of Automated Shipping. In: Noussia, K., Channon, M. (eds) The Regulation of Automated and Autonomous Transport. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32356-0_8

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32356-0_8
Published: 13 August 2023
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-32355-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-32356-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics