Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legal Status of Remote Operator in Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) Under International Law: Who Can be a Ship Master?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Revolutionary Approach to International Law

Part of the book series: International Law in Asia ((ILA))

Abstract

This study discusses the legal status of a remote operator of MASS, and the possibility of granting them status as a ship employee or master under international law. This research argues that the status of seafarer or deemed seafarer should be required for R-level MASS, and the status of master or deemed master with the right to command in matters relating to ship operation be conferred for RU- and A-level MASS. The study presents an expanded notion of seafarers by extending the combination of ship and human elements—concerning seafarers in existing international maritime conventions—to deem remote operators of MASS ship employees. Finally, this study suggests that remote operators be regarded as a human element by perpetuating the notion of the master, retaining their status as the final entity of responsibility for the ship, even if the cutting-edge ICT-based commercialisation of MASS is realised.

This is an updated and revised version of the author’s article titled, “Legal Status of the Remote Operator in Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) under Maritime Law” published at Ocean Development and International Law (Vol. 52, No. 4, 2022) under the official permission of INFORMA UK LIMITED and Co-Autor.

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
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Wariishi (2019).

  2. 2.

    Kim et al. (2020); Ringbom (2019).

  3. 3.

    Veal and Tsimplis (2017).

  4. 4.

    IMO Doc (2018a, 2018b).

  5. 5.

    World Maritime University (2019).

  6. 6.

    Felski and Zwolak (2020).

  7. 7.

    IMO Doc (2018c).

  8. 8.

    IMO Doc (2018d).

  9. 9.

    “A Shore Control Centre Operator, who monitors the safe operations of several autonomous ships simultaneously from a cubicle station and controls the vessels by giving high level commands, e.g., updating the voyage plan or the operational envelope of the autonomous system” See MUNIN (2016).

  10. 10.

    Rolls-Royce, op.cit. 1.

  11. 11.

    For example, Veal,Tsimplis, op.cit. 3, 317 ask readers to “[c]onsider the remote controller of an unmanned ship, sat in a shore-side facility behind a computer screen, remotely controlling the unmanned ship”. L Carey defines “operator” as “the person who is responsible for remotely controlling the movements of the autonomous ship and should not be confused with the “operator” as shipowner or bareboat charterer.” See Carey (2017). Ringbom, op.cit.2, 144 refers to a situation where “…the ship is entirely unmanned and all functions need to be performed either remotely by a shore-based crew or autonomously.” Gogarty and Robinson describe a scenario where “a human operator receives visual images from cameras or sensors on-board a UV and steers it by cable (tethered control) or wireless signal (remote control). This form of human/machine interface is referred to as “teleoperated” Control” see Gogarty and Robinson (2012). Pritchett writes “The first primary mode of operation is by way of a remote operator. In this arrangement, electronic sensors aboard a USV will feed information to a human operator who is not located on the vessel. The operator will then evaluate the relayed information and send commands back to the vessel, which will be carried out by the vessel's electronic systems” see Pritchett (2015).

  12. 12.

    IMO Doc (2018c) op. cit. 7. at 4.

  13. 13.

    Ibid.

  14. 14.

    IMO Doc (2018e).

  15. 15.

    Ibid.

  16. 16.

    Yoo and Shan (2019; Pritchett, op. cit. 11. at 203; Hooydonk (2014); Ringbom, op. cit. 2. at 147; Vallejo (2015); Veal, Tsimplis, op. cit. 3. at 317.

  17. 17.

    United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1833 UNTS 397); Article 94(4) reads that “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”.

  18. 18.

    International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (1184 UNTS 278).

  19. 19.

    International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (1050 UNTS 16).

  20. 20.

    Veal, Tsimplis, op. cit. 3. at 315.

  21. 21.

    Yoo, Shan, op. cit. 16. at 566.

  22. 22.

    The Hague Rules as Amended by the 1 Brussels Protocol 1968 (399 UNTS 189), Art 3 [hereinafter, Hague–Visby Rules].

  23. 23.

    Hague–Visby Rules, Art 3(1): “The carrier shall be bound before and at the beginning of the voyage to exercise due diligence to: (a) Make the ship seaworthy; (b) Properly man, equip and supply the ship; (c) Make the holds, refrigerating and cool chambers, and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried, fit and safe for their reception, carriage and preservation”.

  24. 24.

    Todd (2015); Chwedczuk (2016).

  25. 25.

    The Makedonia [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 316; The Star Sea [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 651; Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26; Standard Oil Co of New York v Clan Line Steamers (The Clan Gordon) [1924] AC 100.

  26. 26.

    Soyer (2012) Warranties in Marine Insurance 1st ed. Routledge-Cavendish, London.

  27. 27.

    Wilson (2010) Carriage of Goods by Sea. Pearson Education 7.

  28. 28.

    IMO Doc (2021) MSC.1/Circ.1638. Outcome of the Regulatory Scoping Exercise for the Use of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS); Vojković and Milenković (2020).

  29. 29.

    Carey L, op. cit. 11. at 4; Veal, Tsimplis, op. cit. 3. at 333.

  30. 30.

    CORLEG, Rule (2)(a): “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 precautions which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case”. See Cockcroft and Lameijer (2003).

  31. 31.

    Cartner et al. (2009).

  32. 32.

    The Roseline [1981] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 41, 411. https://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=148063.

  33. 33.

    Fujiwara et al. (2009).

  34. 34.

    Allen and Allen (2020).

  35. 35.

    Mandaraka-Sheppard (2013).

  36. 36.

    Vallejo, op. cit. 16. at 417.

  37. 37.

    Mankabady (1987).

  38. 38.

    Miyoshi et al. (2021).

  39. 39.

    Chae et al. (2020; Yoo, Shan, op. cit. 16, 569.

  40. 40.

    Miyoshi et al., op. cit. 37. at 16.

  41. 41.

    For example, see SOLAS, Reg 2(i): “the master and the members of the crew or other persons employed or engaged in any capacity on board a ship on the business of that ship”; MLC, Article II(1)(f): “a seafarer is defined as any person who is employed or engaged or works in any capacity on board a ship to which the Convention. Applies”; UK Merchant Shipping Act 1995, Section 313(1): “master includes every person (except a pilot) having command or charge of a ship and, in relation to a fishing vessel, means the skipper; seaman includes every person (except masters and pilots) employed or engaged in any capacity on board any ship”. In Section 14 of the (Australian) Navigation Act 2012, Australia defines “seafarer” as any person who is employed or engaged or works in any capacity (including that of master) on board a vessel on the business of the vessel, other than the following: a licensed pilot of the vessel (acting as such a pilot); In the US, under 46 USC § 11,113(d)(4) “The term seafarer means an alien crew member who is employed or engaged in any capacity on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”. Under Article 2(1) of the Seafarer’s Act of Republic of Korea, “The term "seafarer" means a person who is employed to provide labour in a ship to which this Act applies: Provided, That those prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be excluded herefrom.”.

  42. 42.

    IMO Doc (2018c).

  43. 43.

    Ibid.

  44. 44.

    Ibid.

  45. 45.

    Ibid.

  46. 46.

    Veal, Tsimplis, op. cit. 3. at 318.

  47. 47.

    Yoo, Shan, op. cit. 16. at 566.

  48. 48.

    Cartner et al., op. cit. 31. at 145–147.

  49. 49.

    Ibid.

  50. 50.

    Chae et al., op. cit. 39. at 13.

  51. 51.

    Wrobel, Montewka and Kujala analysed that “at least 60 per cent of the accidents have been caused by human errors and the number of accidents will be reduced when autonomous ships are introduced. However, thus far it has not been quantified what percentage of accidents can be prevented by autonomous ships.” See Wróbela et al. (2017) Towards the assessment of potential impact of unmanned vessels on maritime transportation safety. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 165:164–165.

  52. 52.

    Veal, Tsimplis, op. cit. 3. at 317; Vojković, Milenković, op. cit. 28. at 337.

  53. 53.

    Carey, op. cit. 11. at 15–16.

  54. 54.

    Veal, Tsimplis, op. cit. 3. at 317.

  55. 55.

    Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (2952 UNTS 3).

  56. 56.

    Yoo, Shan, op. cit. 16. at 566.

  57. 57.

    Cartner et al., op. cit. 31. at 3.

  58. 58.

    Yoo, Shan, op. cit. 16. at 567.

  59. 59.

    Carey, op. cit. 11. at 6.

  60. 60.

    Jo-Ann et al. (2020).

  61. 61.

    SOLAS, Chap. 5. Reg 34(1): “Prior to proceeding to sea, the master shall ensure that the intended voyage has been planned using the appropriate nautical charts and nautical publications for the area concerned, taking into account the guidelines and recommendations developed by the Organization”.

  62. 62.

    Carey, op. cit. 11. at 15; Cartner et al., op. cit. 31 at 122.

  63. 63.

    Ramos (2019).

  64. 64.

    Baldauf et al. (2019).

  65. 65.

    Ramos et al., op. cit. 63. at 34.

  66. 66.

    ICAO Cir 328 (2011).

  67. 67.

    Vellinga (2019).

  68. 68.

    Hare (1996).

  69. 69.

    Vallejo, op. cit. 16. at 411; Hooydonk V, op. cit. 16. at 406–409.

  70. 70.

    Ringbom H, op. cit. 2. at 162.

References

  • Allen C Sr, Allen C Jr (2020) Farwell's rules of the nautical road. 8th eds, Naval Institute Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldauf M, et al (2019) Merging conventionally navigating ships and MASS-Merging VTS, FOC and SCC? TransNav: Int J Mar Navig Saf Sea Transp 13(3):496

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey L (2017) All hands off deck? The legal barriers to autonomous ships. NUS Law Working Paper 17/06. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3025882

  • Cartner J, et al (2009) The international law of the shipmaster. Informa Law from Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Chae CJ et al (2020) A study on identification of development status of mass technologies and directions of improvement. Appl Sci 10(13):4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chwedczuk M (2016) Analysis of the legal status of unmanned commercial vessels in US admiralty and maritime law. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 47(2):141

    Google Scholar 

  • ICAO Cir 328 (2011) Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). https://www.icao.int/meetings/uas/documents/circular%20328_en.pdf

  • Cockcroft A, Lameijer J (2003) A guide to the collision avoidance rules. Elsevier, p v6

    Google Scholar 

  • Felski A, Zwolak K (2020) The ocean-going autonomous ship—challenges and threats. J Mar Sci Eng 8(1):41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujiwara S et al (2009) Consideration of the ordinary practice of seamen: comparison and verification based on questionnaire. J Jpn Inst Navig 120:189

    Google Scholar 

  • Gogarty B, Robinson I (2012) Unmanned vehicles: a (rebooted) history, background, and current state of the art. J Law Inf Sci 21(1):2

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare J (1996) Port state control: strong medicine to cure a sick industry. Georg J Int Comp Law 26(3):571

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooydonk EV (2014) The law of unmanned merchant shipping–an exploration. J Int Marit Law 20:403

    Google Scholar 

  • IMO Doc (2018a) LEG 105/14. Review of the Status of Conventions and Other Treaty Instruments Emanating from the Legal Committee

    Google Scholar 

  • IMO Doc (2018b) MSC 98/WP.1/Add.1. Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships—Proposal for a Regulatory Scoping Exercise

    Google Scholar 

  • IMO Doc (2018c) MSC 99/22. Regulatory Scoping Exercise for The Use of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS)

    Google Scholar 

  • IMO Doc (2018d) MSC 100/20/Add.1. Framework for The Regulatory Scoping Exercise for the Use of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS).

    Google Scholar 

  • IMO Doc (2018e) MSC 99/INF.3. Analysis of Regulatory Barriers to the use of Autonomous Ships Submitted by Denmark

    Google Scholar 

  • IMO Doc (2018f) MSC 99/INF.8. Regulatory scoping exercise for the use of maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS) Submission by Comité Maritime International Working Group on Unmanned Ships (CMI IWG US)

    Google Scholar 

  • IMO Doc (2021) MSC.1/Circ.1638. Outcome of the regulatory scoping exercise for the use of maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jo-Ann P et al (2020) Legal issues in automated vehicles: critically considering the potential role of consent and interactive digital interfaces. Hum Soc Sci Commun 7(153):7

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim MG et al (2020) Autonomous shipping and its impact on regulations, technologies, and industries. J Int MaritE Saf, Environ Aff, Shipp 4(2):24

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandaraka-Sheppard A (2013) Modern maritime law (Volume 2): managing risks and liabilitie. Informa Law from Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankabady S (1987) The law of collision at sea. Elsevier Science Limited

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyoshi T et al (2021) Study of Principles in COLREGs and interpretations and amendments COLREGs for maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS). Trans Navig 6(1):18

    Google Scholar 

  • MUNIN (2016) Research in maritime autonomous systems project results and technology potentials. https://www.cml.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/cml/de/documents/Sonstiges/MUNIN%20-%20final%20brochure.pdf

  • Pritchett PW (2015) Ghost ships: Why the law should embrace unmanned vessel technology. Tulane Marit Law J 40:199

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramos MA (2019) Collision avoidance on maritime autonomous surface ships: Operators’ tasks and human failure events. Saf Sci 116:34

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringbom H (2019) Regulating autonomous ships-concepts, challenges and precedents. Ocean Dev Int Law 50(2):164

    Google Scholar 

  • Soyer B (2012) Warranties in marine insurance, 1st edn. Routledge-Cavendish, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Todd P (2015) Principles of the carriage of goods by sea. Routledge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vallejo D (2015) Electric currents: pogramming legal status into autonomous unmanned maritime vehicles. Case West Reserv J Int Law 47(1):428

    Google Scholar 

  • Veal R, Tsimplis M (2017) The integration of unmanned ships into the lex maritima. Lloyd's Marit & Commer Law Q:314–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Vellinga NE (2019) Automated driving and its challenges to international traffic law: which way to go? Law Innov Technol 11(2):258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vojković G, Milenković M (2020) Autonomous ships and legal authorities of the ship master. Case Stud Transp Policy 8(2):334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wariishi K (2019) Maritime autonomous surface ships: development trends and prospects-how digitalization drives changes in maritime industry. Mitsui & Co. Global Strategic Studies Institute Monthly Report. https://www.mitsui.com/mgssi/en/report/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2020/01/09/1909t_wariishi_e.pdf

  • Rolls-Royce (2017) Autonomous ships: the next step. Marine Ship Intelligence. https://www.rollsroyce.com/~/media/Files/R/RollsRoyce/documents/%20customers/marine/ship-intel/rr-ship-intel-aawa-8pg.pdf

  • Wilson J (2010) Carriage of Goods by Sea. Pearson Education 7

    Google Scholar 

  • World Maritime University (2019) Transport 2040: autonomous ships: a new paradigm for Norwegian shipping—technology and transformation. World Maritime University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo JH, Shan D (2019) Legal status of an onshore remote controller of maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS) under the Canadian maritime law and IMO international conventions. In: annual conference of the Canadian transport research forum: 566; Pritchett, op. cit. 11. at 203

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law School, Dalian Maritime University, No. 1 Liaoning Road, Dalian, Liaoning, 116026, P.R. China

    Junghwan Choi

Authors
  1. Junghwan Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Junghwan Choi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. YIJUN Institute of International Law, Seoul, Korea (Republic of)

    Eric Yong Joong Lee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Choi, J. (2023). Legal Status of Remote Operator in Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) Under International Law: Who Can be a Ship Master?. In: Lee, E.Y.J. (eds) Revolutionary Approach to International Law. International Law in Asia. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7967-5_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7967-5_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-19-7966-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-19-7967-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation