DCN May Edition 2019

Visco ; Colin Biggers & Paisley
not necessarily depend upon the extent
to which any crewman may or not be
on-board”.
The practical difficulties involved in
amending each and every convention
to have proper regard to safety when it
comes to unmanned ships are evident. Sir
Bernard Eder said an alternative may be
to create “some overarching instrument
along the lines perhaps of the Polar Code”,
and new definitions for generic words
such as “master” could be considered.
While the focus of legal reform inevitably
must be on safety, Sir Bernard Eder said
it should not be overlooked that legal
liability conventions also may need to be
considered. Due diligence is something the
courts will have to give consideration to
in relation to questions of seaworthiness.
Whether an owner has complied with its
duties of due diligence in, for example, the
carriage of goods liability regimes will be
challenging in the context of MASS.
Other industry leaders offered their
views at the CMI Assembly during
a workshop entitled The Challenging
Convergence of Modern Technology,
Cybercrime and Marine Insurance. Robert
Veal from Southampton University
questioned whether a more significant
role for product or manufacturers’
liability insurers concerning autonomous
technology is necessary.
International maritime lawyer Dr
Lina Wiedenbach questioned whether
the present fault-based liability regime
in the Collision Regulations may have to
be reassessed in the light of autonomous
vessels. She queried whether there might
have to be a shift from considering
negligence in navigation to negligence in
management.
Dr Wiedenbach suggested that vicarious
LEVELS OF AUTONOMY
Yara Birkeland is a fully autonomous and electric cargo solution
liability principles for independent
contractors should be applied to operators
of MASS; and that it might be necessary
to extend the circle of persons for whose
fault ship owners might be liable, creating a
regime of strict liability for MASS.
MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE
FRAMEWORK
In December 2018, the MSC approved
the framework and methodology for the
regulatory scoping exercise, which it had
agreed to undertake in 2017. In effect,
for each instrument related to maritime
safety and security and for each degree of
autonomy provisions are to be identified
which apply to MASS and prevent MASS
operation, or; apply to MASS and do not
prevent MASS operations and require
no action, or; apply to MASS and do not
prevent MASS operations but may need
to be amended or clarified, and/or may
contain gaps, or; have no application to
MASS operation.
It was also decided that once the first
step has been completed, the second step
The Maritime Safety Committee has identified four degrees of autonomy. They
are defined as follows:
DEGREE 1: Ships with automated processes and decision support - seafarers are
on board to operate and control ship port systems and functions. Some operations
may be automated and at times be unsupervised but with seafarers on board ready
to take control.
DEGREE 2: Remotely controlled ship with seafarers on-board - the ship is controlled
and operated from another location. Seafarers are available on-board to take
control and to operate the ship board systems and functions.
DEGREE 3: Remotely controlled ship without seafarers on-board - the ship is
controlled and operated from another location. There are no seafarers on-board.
DEGREE 4: Fully autonomous ship - the operating system of the ship is able to make
decisions and determine actions by itself.
will be to analyse and determine the most
appropriate way of addressing MASS,
taking into account the human element,
technology and operational factors. The
analysis will identify the need for:
• Equivalences as provided for by
the instruments or developing
interpretations, and/or;
Amending existing instruments, and/or;
Developing new instruments, or;
• None of the above as the result of the
analysis.
The instruments to be covered in the
MSC scoping exercise for MASS includes:
SOLAS, COLREG, Load Lines (loading
and stability), STCW, STCW-F (training
of seafarers and fishers), SAR, Tonnage
Convention, CSC (safe containers) and STP
(special trade passenger ships).
ARE AUSTRALIA’S LAWS FIT FOR
PURPOSE?
The challenges for MASS do not only
involve international regulatory bodies.
The problems come much closer to home,
when consideration is given to local
legislation dealing with safety, manning,
and operation of ships.
While the definitions of “ships”
and “vessels” in both federal and state
legislation may be broad enough to
encompass autonomous vessels, the
more difficult question is whether the
laws that are in force in national or state
legislation relating to the operation,
manning or safety features of such vessels
are fit for purpose. Clearly at the time of
enactment most such provisions did not
have unmanned or autonomous ships in
contemplation, let alone partly manned
or partly autonomous. There is still much
work to be done by regulators.
thedcn.com.au May 2019 55