1

ABSTRACT

Maritime law is in many ways a traditional area of law, were traditions are not easily
discarded. Even so, maritime law has over the years proved itself flex- ible and able to adapt
to new phenomena. Recent technological developments indicate that the concept of unmanned
cargo vessels could be a reality in the near future. This paper aims to tackle the followqing
objectives. Firstly, is the unmanned ship, with no captain or crew on board, still a ship?
Numerous con- ventions dealing with private or public maritime law are applicable to
seagoing vessels, and either apply their own definitions or do not provide any definition.
National maritime laws give an equally heterogeneous picture. It may be con- cluded with a
considerable degree of certainty that having a crew on board, in- cluding a master, is not
generally regarded as an essential part of the notion of a ship in the regulatory definitions of
the ship.
This paper aims to give an overview of the seaworthi- ness understanding. To begin
with, is the unmanned ship, with no captain or crew on board, still a seaworthy ship? By way
of methodology, this research’s scope embraces the concept of seaworthiness under the
Carriage of Goods Con- ventions and our Spanish Maritime Navigation Act. A particular
focus is given to the human element as a significant aspect of seaworthiness. This part will
come to the conclusion that the current legal framework considers the ship’s crew as a
prerequisite to qualify a ship as seaworthy, but is still necessary a “ship’s crew” on board the
ship?
Finally, we will briefly look at how the unmanned vessel will affect private maritime law,
including transportation of goods at sea, chartering of vessels and marine insurance. Issues
concerning liability will have to be considered and dealt with in a number of areas, including
the aforementioned concept of seaworthi- ness for the carriage of goods by sea, the concept of
duty of care with respect to collisions, salvage operations, limitations of liability for maritime
claims or the particular provisions concerning the liability of the master.
A systematized study of the unmanned ship’s incidence on legal issues (apart from
operational ones) is necessary, but it will mean that, as in extraordi- nary cases takes place,

the Law will be ahead of the technology.

2
 INTRODUCTION

The technology steps are going forward by leaps and bounds in recent decades in all
sectors of the world trade, and the maritime industry is no stranger to this progress. Electronic
transport documents, automated port terminals, electronic communications, the advances in
sensor technology, data analysis, the increasing complexity of predictive algorithms and the
wide bandwidth are changing the way maritime transport works.
The impact of technological changes on maritime operations - especially on transport -
should be analysed under the prism of current international Conventions and their foreseeable
accommodation. The use of autonomous or unmanned vessels in the not too distant future
seems inevitable. Autonomous vessels are generating increasing interest in the shipping
industry, both due to novelty and promising commercial benefits. Maritime industry is
pushing in that direction (it is expected that in 2022 there will already be unmanned ships
sailing). But previously, there are important challenges and legal issues that must be analysed
with extreme caution. If the ship is the core element of maritime navigation, its
automatization (and the eventual disappearance of the crew on board) may bring with it great
consequences that require an adequate and thoughtful response from maritime law. To the
extent that the new technology shall be commercially beneficial, its use will prevail and it will
be necessary to develop a new legal regime or modify the existing regulation.
Recently, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Legal Committee
(administrative nature), 105th session, held on 23 - 25 April 2018, agreed to include on its
agenda a new work programme item on maritime autonomous ships, with a target completion
year of 2020. The aim is to carry out an analysis of existing liability and compensation
treaties and other instruments.

3
 This will complement a scoping exercise to be carried out by the Maritime Safety
Committee (MSC) on autonomous vessels . The Committee noted information provided by
the Comité Maritime International (CMI) on the work of its International Working Group
(IWG) on unmanned ships (private nature), which has been set up to study the current
international legal framework and considered what amendments and/or adaptions and/or
clarifications may be required in relation to unmanned ships . The list of instruments to be
covered includes, among others, those covering safety (SOLAS); collision regulations
(COLREG; training of seafarers (STCW); search and rescue (SAR); MARPOL, SUA, or
SALVAGE.A systematized study of its incidence on the legal issues (apart from in operational
ones) is necessary, and it will entail that the law will make an attempt to go ahead of the
technology, something rather infrequent and slightly risky

UNMANNED CRAFT (SHIP OR VESSEL)

The generic term “unmanned craft (ship or vessel)” refers to the way in which it can
be controlled: remotely or autonomously . Some of today’s unmanned craft are remote
controlled by a shore - based operator. This operator is further assisted by the live streaming
of visual, audio and infrared images of the craft’s vicinity which is facilitated by cameras and
aural sensors fitted to the craft’s structure. These crafts are known as “remote controlled
unmanned crafts” . On the other hand, some unmanned crafts are pre - programmed by shore -
side programmers and thereafter use a combination of GPS positioning, sonar radars,
equipped with high - resolution cameras, radars, LIDAR sensors, advanced satellite
communication systems and computer software and control algorithms to perform a
predetermined nautical course without any human interaction whatsoever. These are known as
“autonomous unmanned craft”. Some authors recognize six levels of autonomy (this is a
simplification for analytical clarity

4
 Human on board; (1) Operated (seafarers are on board to operate and control shipboard
systems and functions, while some operations may be automated); (2) Directed and (3)
Delegated (the ship is controlled and operated from another location, but seafarers are on
board); (4) Monitored (the ship is controlled and operated from another location, so there are
no seafarers on board); and (5) Fully autonomous (the operating system of the ship is able to
make decisions and determine actions by itself)( 10). As will be seen, the distinction between
remote controlled operation and autonomous operation has a deep bearing on the relevant
unmanned ship´s ability to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements.

LITERATURE REVIEW

THREATS AND CHALLENGES TO MARITIME AUTONOMOUS SURFACE

SHIPS (MASS): ROLE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES : MASS will be the

future of shipping industry. Technology has proven that machines and high tech systems can
replace men presence onboard at sea, which isconsidered a devastating development in the
human race. MASS is also being widely accepted in the world and has also proven itself as
the future for sustainable shipping. With this great advancement, shipping industry may also
face bigger challenges related to maritime security.In maritime security the major threat
includes, terrorism, piracy, cyber threats and armed robbery. Considering all these, IMO has
formulated many regulations for implementation. The fear of transformation of ship into a
weapon was always there. However, with the arrival of MASS, this fear has increased and
may also be a threat tomaritime security. Furthermore, the ultra-technological variations will
have definiteconsequences in the implementation scheme too. The notion of independent,
unmanned vessels upsets the complete maritime regulatory setup and interrupts the
fundamental ideas of law.

1. World Maritime University dissertations, https://commons.wmu.se/all_dissertations

5
 THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL STATUS OF THE UNMANNED MARITIME
VEHICLES: Unmanned maritime vehicles have broad application in both military and
civilian aspects. The legal status this concept, however, is still unclear, thus making them a
controversial and ‘sensitive area’. Defining the international legal status of unmanned
maritime vehicles is a prerequisite to their protection and regulation. Based on an analysis of
the international legal status that regulates different types of unmanned maritime vehicle, this
paper discusses the legal implications of the craft in different situations, from the perspective
of the law of the sea. The paper concludes by suggesting that, coastal States should promote
the principle of safeguarding national security and interests, as well taking cognisance of
existing international conventions, such as the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea and the 1972 International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, plus
related domestic laws and regulations, in order to deal appropriately with foreign unmanned
maritime vehicles.

UNCREWED AUTONOMOUS MARINE VESSELS TEST THE LIMITS OF

MARITIME SAFETY FRAMEWORKS : Uncrewed and autonomous marine vessels
(UMVs) challenge the underlying paradigm of maritime laws and regulations. Yet UMVs are
considered essential for safer, more efficient, and more effective maritime futures. There is a
fundamental challenge facing industry and regulators about how to develop and support the
nascent UMV industry while maintaining the safety and risk management principles and
processes in legacy laws and regulations predicated on the conventional crewed vessel. This
paper, drawing upon case studies of developer and operator experiences with Australia’s
maritime safety framework, argues for an “intent-based”, flexible, and collaborative approach
based on developers’ and operators’ experiences. The case studies show that ad hoc and
bespoke regulatory pathways, utilising exemptions and discretions under Australian national
laws, although problematic in terms of regulatory consistency and capacity to deal with scale,
did allow for the trialling and deployment of two small UMVs.

1. Marine policy volume 11,3, March 2020, 103830.

2. WMU journal of Maritime a airs, volume 22, pages 317 -344 (2023.)

6
ff
 More importantly, the ad hoc approach facilitated information exchange between industry
and regulators that is generating reforms and changes at the national level. Although focused
on Australia, the findings are significant for maritime futures. It reveals a dialectical approach
whereby maritime nations pragmatically work through the risks, standards, and processes that
balance safety with facilitating local UMV industries, and in turn, this creates a body of
knowledge to inform international reform processes. It also shows the importance of
documenting and reflecting on the regulatory journeys of UMV pioneers as essential for safer,
more efficient, and effective maritime industries that leverage the potential benefits of
automation.

CMI INTERNATIONAL WORKING GROUP POSITION PAPER ON

UNMANNED SHIPS AND THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK:Unmanned ships are those which are capable of controlled movement on
the water in the absence of any onboard crew. Instead, control is performed in essentially two
ways.1 It can be performed by remote-control, whereby a shore- based remote controller uses
a laptop computer and joystick to control the unmanned ship’s movement and signalling using
radio and satellite communications. In doing so the controller is aided by the streaming of the
ship’s vicinity effected by cameras and aural sensors fitted to the ship’s hull / chassis. On the
other hand, the ship may be “controlled” autonomously. This involves the ship being pre-
programmed before deployment (or before setting sail), and, thereafter, performs a
predetermined nautical course without any human interaction whatsoever. This control, as
well as a degree of collision avoidance capability, is affected with the use of highly
sophisticated software technology, control algorithms and sonar radar. There are other control
methods between these two modes of operation although, as will be seen, it is this binary
distinction which is relevant from the point of view of regulatory compliance.

1.paul.obrien@eda.europa.eu. This study refers to the levels of autonomy established by the SARUMS Group.
These are (0) Human on board; (1) Operated; (2) Directed; (3) Delegated; (4) Monitored and (5) Autonomous.

7
 It is also important to note that both of these modes of operation may be used
consecutively on the same voyage, depending on the ship’s operational itinerary. For the
purposes of this paper “unmanned” refers to both “remote controlled operation” as well as
“autonomous operation”. These will be referred to individually where a distinction is drawn.
Autonomous ships may be either supervised or unsupervised by a shore-based remote
controller. This distinction will be drawn where relevant.

Legal Challenges for Unmanned Ships in International Law of the

Sea:As a result of the modern technological developments of our time, remotely controlled
and autonomous vessels will soon become a reality, leading to major challenges for the legal
framework to adapt. Kongsberg Gruppen in collaboration with Yara will have the world’s first
fully electric and autonomous container ship with zero emissions operating along the coast of
Norway within 2020. Other companies are following, as the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) have started discussions on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships
(MASS)1 to understand the magnitude of the issue, and how these may be addressed in IMO
instruments.The transition to this new era of unmanned shipping challenges more than the
technology. Unmanned vessels will have to find its place in the existing international legal
framework, aframework that currently assumes the presence of an onboard crew.This thesis
looks into the question as to what degree shipowners of unmanned ships can comply with the
current regulatory framework, and as part of this determine applicability of the framework.
With a focus on bridge-crew, two larger questions are attempted answered: (1) To what degree
can certain bridge crew functions be transferred to shore, and (2) to what extent can the
current technology replace the bridge crew in the decision-making process

1.<http://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/pressbriefings/pages/08-msc-99-mass-scoping.aspx> 2 Levander, Oskar,

Autonomous Ships on the High Seas (Published in IEEE Spectrum, Volume 54, Issue 2, February 2017), p 28 https://
ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7833502/ accessed 14 June 2018 3 Levander, (2017), p 28

8
 UNMANNED CRAFT A “SHIP” UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL
CONVENTIONS
At first glance, the main difference between a ship in a traditional sense and
an unmanned vessel lies in the lack of crew on board in the latter. Therefore, the study
of this element - the human presence on board - will be the key in order to determine if
this is an essential aspect in the classification of the maritime unmanned vehicle as
“ship”. In the following paragraphs, we will declare (without specific order) some of
the most important maritime Conventions and the impact of the unmanned vessels on
its dispositions.

SHIP’S DEFINITIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL MARITIME

CONVENTIONS
Most of the international Conventions dedicate some of their articles to define
the term “ship” or “vessel”, in many cases with the purpose to set their material (as
well as possibly their geographic) scope of application. The definitions differ
depending the nature of the Convention, whether in the field of public or private
maritime law. The scope of the definitions depends on the purpose of the legal
instrument studied and, therefore, will vary, as we will see, with respect to the material
scope of each Convention.It is important to mention the notorious fact that the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (hereinafter UNCLOS) - the most
important maritime Convention - does not define the term “ship” or “vessel”, despite
the numerous references throughout of its provisions (more than 250) (14).

1.G. WALKER, J. NOYES, “Definitions for the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention”, in California Western
International Law Journal, Vol. 33 (2002), No. 2, Art. 4, pp. 217 - 218.
2.As a curiosity, UNCLOS does define what will be considered “pirate ship”. See art. 103.

9
 The UNCLOS text - in English version - uses both expressions interchangeably
throughout the text (to the contrary, Spanish language versions use only one word
-buque). However, as far as concerns UNCLOS, there is no difference between the two
English words(15). This lack of a definition has to be considered along with the fact
that very important institutions or instruments, such as those that regulate the
nationality of ships(16), their legal status or their flag, are systematically rooted in the
provisions of the UNCLOS (17).After an analysis, which does not intend to be
exhaustive, of the ship’s definitions admitted by international Conventions, we have
not identified, neither in those related to maritime public law (among others, COLREG
(18)MARPOL (19); LC (20); CCRS (21); WRECKREMOVAL (22); INTERVENTIO
(23);or SUA(24)), nor in those whose scope of application is closer to contractual/
extracontractual liability rules (BUNKERS (25); SALVAGE/89 (26 ; CLC (27); HNS
(28); or the carriage of goods by sea Conventions (29)) important references to the
master, crew or to the very fact on the government in the navigation of the vessel (one
of the most differentiating element between traditional and autonomous vessels).There
are also numerous private maritime law international Conventions related to, or simply
focused on the vessel that do not provide any definition thereof at all. Among them,
e.g., Collision Convention (30); LLMC/76 (31); Arrest Conventions 52/99 (32); or
MLM/26/93 (33)
1. 1.

1.1(14) International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001.For the
purposes of this Convention, and in a very wider formulation, “ship” means any seagoing vessel and
seaborne craft, of any type whatsoever.
2.Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976

10
 SEAWORTHINESS IN UNMANNED CARGO SHIPS AND ITS
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
The obligations of the carrier - regardless of the mode of transportation of the
cargo - may be summarized in the following: carriage of goods from origin to
destination - by sea, air, road or rail - and their custody. The Hague - Visby Rules (as
other rules on the contract of maritime carriage) break down these two generic
obligations into specific ones: the carrier shall properly and carefully load, handle,
stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge the goods carried (art. 3.2).These
subcategories are not independent or autonomous in themselves, but are embedded in
the generic carriage obligation, despite which the Convention addresses these duties
individually in light of their practical importance (4 As a general observation, it is
common ground that seaworthiness is the ability of a ship to sail on the sea, and more
specifically the sufficiency of the ship to face the perils of the sea and other incidental
risks to which of necessityshe must be exposed in the course of a voyage.In other
words, the carrier shall ensure that the ship is in an adequate seaworthy state to receive
the cargo on board and to transport it safely to its destination, taking into account the
foreseeable circumstances of the voyage planned, its phases and the nature of the cargo
contracted. However, the term seaworthiness does not include only the physical state of
the ship but also encompasses other factors. Art. 3.2 HVR states that “the carrier shall
be bound (before and at the beginning of the voyage (45)) to exercise due diligence,
additionally to make the ship seaworthy, to properly man, equip and supply the ship”.

1.N.K. KAMPANTAIS, Seaworthiness in autonomous unmanned cargo ships, available on https://

www.researchgate.net/publication/311452364_Seaworthiness_in_autonomous_unmanned_cargo_ships, p.
42.
2.J.L. GABALDÓN GARCÍA, Curso de Derecho Marítimo Internacional, Madrid, 2012, p. 464.

11
 The seaworthiness of the ship is, from an international perspective on the contract
of carriage of goods by sea, the main obligation of the carrier before and at the
beginning of the voyage. Its study in a paper on autonomous or unmanned ships, as we
will see, is embodied of capital importance, given that the absence of crew on board
has a considerable impact on the specific obligation to “properly man and equip” the
ship, as a subcategory within the generic obligation of seaworthiness. So much so, that
it will be argued by many authors that an unmanned ship is a non - equipped craft,
which may imply its unseaworthiness, giving rise to contractual breaches at the
beginning of the contract. Based on the fact that the human element is one the main
differences between a traditional vessel and an unmanned/autonomous ship, it seems
essential to focus on the carrier’s obligation regarding the ship’s equipment. Its
obligation is not only limited to equipping the ship in a sufficient number of crew
members, but it also has the duty to guarantee the professional competence of the crew.
In order to delve into the key element of this study, it is important to focus on the
second aspect of the seaworthiness, namely the ship’s crew onboard the ship.In
accordance with the HVR, the ship must be “properly manned” (or equipped), which
means that the manning will be an essential element for navigation. However, two
elements must be distinguished: Firstly, the reference to the numerical sufficiency of
the crew (in order to achieve this, the carrier has the duty to employ an adequate
number of crew members for a proper navigation); and secondly, is related to the
professional competence of the crew members and the master of the ship on board (in
other words,

12
 the crew has to be sufficiently trained and prepared to manage the ship during the
maritime voyage). Therefore, “due diligence” cannot be considered if the crew is not
adequate enough for that particular ship and voyage, or because it is not competent in
terms of training and experience (49). However, and despite the aforementioned, it is
important to emphasize that the manned obligation is extended in time and not only
limited before and at the beginning of the voyage due to the continuing obligation of
custody of the cargo (art. 3.2 RHV). The consequence of crew incompetence is
unseaworthiness (50). In other words, it is the crew (in)competence, rather than their
number on board, the determinant element on the unseaworthiness of the ship
(51)Focusing on unmanned ships, and adopting the previous arguments, if the shore -
based controller is competent and trained to operate the vessel and her equipment
competently and safely (holding valid certificates in accordance with the requirements
of the law of the flag state), that fact will not constitute a breach of the seaworthiness
obligation even if there is not human presence on board. It could be argued that in
conventional manned shipping the master and the crew are onboard the vessel while in
the autonomous shipping context the shore personnel have to be considered as a master
and crew. Accordingly, the sufficiency and competency have to be judged - under an
analogous legal reasoning - in respect to the shore personnel (52)

1. If a carrier exercises due diligence prior to the voyage to make the vessel seaworthy and to
properly man, equip, and supply it, then the carrier will not be liable for loss or damage to cargo resulting
from: errors of navigation or management of the vessel; perils of the sea; acts of God; acts of public
enemies; inherent defects, qualities, or vices of the cargo; insufficient packaging; seizure under process of
law; loss resulting from any act or omission of the shipper or owner of the cargo; or the saving or attempt
to save life or property at sea, or from any subsequent delays encountered in rendering such service.

2.M. ALBA FERNÁNDEZ, Régimen jurídico privado del capitán del buque, Vitoria, 2006, p.
395; W. TETLEY, Marine Cargo Claims, vol. 1, 4 ed., Toronto, 2008, p. 385.

13
 THE LEGAL CHALLENGES OF UNMANNED SHIPS IN THE
MARITIME CONTRACTING
The sea navigation of un (manned) ships does not mean that the liability
-contractual or extracontractual - ceases to exist (un (liability)). The fact that no one
firmly holds the wheel, does not imply that the legal consequences, in terms of liability
disappear because of the fact that there is a shore - based operator of the ship in a
monitoring room holding a joystick and using a desktop computer. It is therefore
necessary, even more than in the field of public law, to consider the legal consequences
that the commercial operations of the unmanned vessels may cause, and more
specifically, in the field of maritime contracting institutions. Let’s see some examples.

Regarding the use of charterparties, we do not appreciate any relevant

impediments to following operating and playing their role in the maritime traffic of
goods under contracts of carriage in case of unmanned ships voyages. However, those
contracts shall must modify the wording of some of its current clauses, in particular
those relating to the distribution of competences, costs and responsibility between the
carrier and the charterer on the recruitment, functions and replacement of the master
and the other members of the crew(53). Under the bareboat or demise charter, the shore
- based controller of the ship will be hired by the charterer (as is currently the case with
the master or the crew members); while under a time charter the shipowner is the one
which will make available to the charterer the shore - controller of the unmanned
vessel and the charterer will be able to continue giving instructions to the operator on
some aspects of the voyage. In a very close situation, in the voyage charters, the shore -
based operator will be supplied by the owner of the ship.The impact of unmanned
vessels in the contract of carriage of goods does not also seem to substantially alter the

14
current legal regime. One of the elements that, doubtless, shall be no longer used with
the arrival of the unmanned vessels will be the paper bill of lading. Nowadays, the bill
of lading (which includes the description of the goods taken on board) shall be signed -
after receiving the goods into his charge - by the carrier or by the carrier’s agent who is
acting on its behalf with sufficient powers or by the master (on behalf of the carrier
mentioned in the bill (54)), on demand of the shipper, issue to the shipper a bill of
lading (art. 3.3 HVR and art. 249 Spanish MNA). In the Rotterdam Rules the master is
pushed more into the background and his/her possible intervention in the issue of a
transport document (the term “bill of lading” as a transport document despair as well)
is no longer even mentioned (55). One of the consequences the fact that the master
disappears from the scene in the event of unmanned ships is the increase in the use, if
not exclusively, of electronic forms.There also is the possibility that the agents of the
carrier, acting on behalf of the carrier (place here the shore - based controller) may
benefit from the same exonerations and limitations of liability as the International
Conventions provide for the carrier (art. 4bis HVR, art. 10.2 HR and art. 4 RR or,
contractually, by using a Himalaya clause). However, if the unmanned vessel is
controlled or supervised by a third - party provider of nautical services other than an
agent or servant of the carrier, several legal difficulties could arise.To sum up, the
introduction of unmanned vessels does not seem to have a significant impact on
International Conventions on the liability of the carrier. Although the rules on liability
should be modified in order to adequate the operation of unmanned vessels, this issue
will not be the most urgent nor the most complex.

15
 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
The limitation of the liability of shipowners is governed by the LLMC
Convention of 1976. The formulation of which appears to be likewise neutral in respect
of the presence or otherwise of a master or a crew on board (56). If a claim subject to
limitation is made against any person for whose act, neglect or default the shipowner is
responsible, such person shall be entitled (e.g. shore - based vessel controller) to avail
himself of the limitation of liability provided for in this Convention. However, the
LLMC Convention may not govern employment -related claims by a controller who is
a servant of the shipowner (art. 1.4 LLMC). In other words, if a claim subject to
limitation is made against a controller of an unmanned vessel, whose acts, omissions or
negligence the shipowner is responsible, they may invoke the right of limitation of
liability in same terms that they do nowadays under a traditional or manned vessel.
However, the rules of this Convention shall not apply to claims by servants of the
shipowner whose duties Are connected with the ship (57), including claims of their
employees or other persons entitled to make such claim (art. 3.e). The existing Law has
solutions to attribute liability in case the vessel that causes damages to third parties is
unmanned.

16
 COLLISION
The 1910 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with
respect to collisions between vessels governs the liability for collisions on the basis of
the errors of ships (arts. 3 and 4), and not the errors of the master and the other crew
members (even though these are of course the cause of the collision). Although the use
of unmanned vessels may reduce the human errors as a cause of ship’s collision, it is
inevitable that this kind of accidents shall continue to occur in the near future. The
rules on liability caused to third parties by maritime collision (diff. COLREG on rules
over prevention of collisions) do not seem to be affected by the arrival of the
unmanned vehicles. Despite the Convention does not contain a definition of ships,
there are certain rules that may have an impact on its application. Where a collision
occurs between sea - going vessels or between sea - going vessels and vessels of inland
navigation, the compensation due for damages caused to the vessels, or to any things or
persons on board thereof, shall be settled in accordance with the provisions of the
Convention (art. 1). Moreover, if the collision is caused by the fault of one of the
vessels, liability attaches to the one (the ship, not the person managing the craft) which
has committed the fault(58). This consideration would allow affirming that the
navigation of an unmanned vessel would not alter the legal regime of responsibility
applicable to the rest of ships,

1.Under the LLMC Convention of 1957, the persons to whom this provision applies were, in
addition to the master and crew (those references have now disappeared): (b) servants of the owner
not on board the ship whose duties are connected with the ship. The reference to the servants not on
board the ships (nowadays shore - based vessel operators) differs from that in art. 1(b) LLMC 1957
Convention where in reference is made to servants for whose act, neglect or default the owner is
responsible provided such act, neglect or default being, however, limited to those that occur in the
navigation or management of the ship.

2. Art. 3Collision Convention.

17
 that would continue being based on the fault regime; since the subject responsible
for the collision is the “ship” itself (at no time is mentioned in these precepts to the
master or any other member of the crew (59)). Under the common law personification
doctrine, the vessel is a legal entity distinct from its owner (and this “legal fiction”
remains essential where a single tort or breach of contract often entitles a claimant to
both an in personam claim against the responsible party and an in rem claim against the
vessel itself).If we transfer these assumptions to the use of an unmanned vessel and its
collision was caused by a shore - based operator, nothing shall change with respect to
the current liability system based on proved fault. Should the collision be caused by the
error of a shore - based controller nothing will change regarding liability. Shipowners
will be held liable for the acts caused by fault of a shore -based operator of an
unmanned vessel. Collision law also appears to be able to stand up well against the
arrival of unmanned ships(60)

SALVAGE
Salvage operation means any act or activity undertaken to assist a vessel or
any other property in danger. As it may be assumed, due to the risks of the sea, that
unmanned ships will come into danger, although the technology will progress in
maritime safety, the salvage rules will also continue to be useful (69)Likewise, the
unmanned ships will be able to carry out salvage operations regarding other vessels,
both unmanned or manned, as long as the technology permits. However, certain
institutions of the salvage operations will lose their relevance (or will become purely
academic),

18
 especially (a) those related to the master’s authority to conclude or sign contracts
salvage agreements on behalf of the owners of the vessel and the cargo interests (art.
6.2); (b) all those duties to render assistance to any person in distress at sea (also, art 98
Montego Bay Convention) - so far as he can do so without serious danger to his vessel
and persons thereon - (art. 10.1 SALVAGE); (c) those related with the right of the
master and crew to a share of the salvage fee also lose their relevance (art 15.2
SALVAGE)(70)(c) those rules on salvage of persons on board on the occasion of the
accident (art. 16 SALVAGE)(71); or, (d) to work with the salvor to prevent or limit
environmental damage (although this latter obligation continues to rest on the owner of
the ship) (art. 8.2 SALVAGE).

ARREST OF SHIPS, LIENS AND MORTGAGES

“Arrest of a ship” means any detention or restriction on removal of a ship by

order of a Court to secure a maritime claim - generally as an interim measure - in order

to secure a maritime credit (art. 1 Arrest Convention) that has not been satisfied (73).
Once again, nothing in the international Conventions will affect whether the ship is
manned or unmanned (which will affect the existence of the maritime credits
themselves). The arrest of ships on the grounds of unpaid debts can continue
unhindered.However, as previously mentioned, an arrest by reason of arrears in the pay
of the crew will no longer have any object with the implementation of the unmanned
vessels (with the exception of shore - based controller’s disbursements that could be
incardinated in art. 1.1.o Arrest Convention 1999). But there does not seem to arise a
pressing need to amend any of the international ship arrest conventions. A similar
conclusion to those previously mentioned on arrest of ships can be reproduced here
regarding the international rules of liens and mortgages/hypothèques on ships.

19
Maritime liens for debts and other sums due to the master or crew members for wages
and master’s disbursements in respect of their employment on the ship (art. 4.1 (a)
MLM 93) will become obsolete, unless such debts due to the shore - based operator of
the unmanned vessel or to the pilots who assist the entering or exit in the ports. Those
including costs of repatriation and social insurance contributions payable on their
behalf appear to be irrelevant to the employment of shore - based vessel controllers(74)

ADVANTAGES:
- the absence of crew on board will considerably reduce the risks of “traditional”
piracy (while, however, the “computer” piracy can be extended);
- the use of unmanned vehicles would decrease the human error risk and the
resulting associated accidents, which, according to widely accepted estimates,
represents approximately 80% of all fatalities that occur on a ship during sea
navigation (there are about 900 fatalities per year occurring in shipping);
- the development of this technology will give rise to new business activities and
new labour challenges (shore - based controllers, engineers, programmers, etc.);
- significant reduction of total operating expenses, especially in seafarer’s costs
(accounting for 44% of total operating cost for a large container ship) and important
increase on safety on board (representing a significant part of the shipowner’s as well
current costs);
- offsetting the expected shortage of seafarers in the future (there is an expected
shortfall of approximately 21,700 officers this year);
- reduction of collisions (due to the technological improvements that presumably
will reduce this type of accidents);
- reduction of salvage operations (at least as far as the human factor is
concerned);

20
 DISADVANTAGES
- the lack of reaction and experience - given that there will be no human presence
on the ship - with the same intuitive feeling in each of the possible situations and
unknown safety risks that occur during navigation as if it were on board the ship,
relying solely on the technological measures installed in the vessel. the ship. Current
machines are unable to replicate the human element of professional seafarers;
- vulnerability to computer hackers hijacking control of the ship. The computer
systems or the software could break down resulting in loss of ships and/or casualties
during navigation. The computer malfunction can take place resulting in the loss of
control in the vessel;
- as a parallel to the creation of new business models and labour relations, there
will be a reduction of seafarer jobs (officers, sailors, masters, etc.). It does not seem,
however, that the development of the autonomous vessel has a real impact, as the
current projects are not configured for the fishing activities. This type of maritime
activities will still need, at the moment, the presence of crew on board to carry out
these tasks;
- this new navigation paradigm will mean the recognition of new risks in maritime
navigation and the disappearance of others. Irrigations that must be covered by
contracting insurance policies, which will increase the costs of the premiums. Among
the former, one might think, in the case of loss of communication between the
controller on the ground and the ship and the consequent assistance that must be
provided, even by moving personnel on board the ship; risks of hacking or even the
loss of the ship.In its literalness, the aforementioned ship’s definitions do admit - in its
own terms - the unmanned or the autonomous vessels. All in all, we must make a few
differences. In most of International Conventions of private maritime law, the fact that

21
the ship has or does not have a crew onboard does not acquire material relevance in the
legal regime they rule, because the material scope that

CONCLUSION
In short, although the currents legal definitions of ships apparently “work”
for this new reality, the truth is that the system does not, and must be changed from its
base. The “vehicle” element remains essentially linked to the human presence onboard
in navigation in almost all aspects of which we can frame the administrative
“regulatory compliance” (safety, operation, work on board, discipline, registration,
control and organization of navigation, stay in port ...), and the pair of forces that
currently exist between the two, and the relationship in which it results in the logic of
the rules, is the one that has to be inevitably altered.Before the unmanned vessels fully
enter into commercial operations, especially for the carriage of goods, there are
important legal obstacles that must be overcome. The lack of a crew on board can
make this type of ships, according to existing - national and international - legislation,
not suitable for sea navigation. The traditional concept of seaworthiness (both under
common law or under international conventions) was developed to cover the needs of
conventional manned transportation and, therefore, the human element is evident in all
corners of the current regulatory framework.Consequently, the unmanned - navigation
concept is not automatically adaptable to the current legal framework of seaworthiness.
Although we havenot found relevant impediments and those that might exist - under an
analogous legal reasoning - can be softened, it will be prudent to clarify the liability of
the shipowner/carrier regarding the damages, losses or delay that the goods may suffer
as a consequence of the unmanned navigation and its effects on the seaworthiness (we
have already indicated that this is not conceived as a guarantee of compliance, but a
due diligence obligations). It seems foreseeable, however,

22
 REFERENCES
M. ALBA FERNÁNDEZ, Régimen jurídico privado del capitán del buque, Vitoria,
2006.
K. BACHXEVANIS, “Crew Negligence” and “Crew Incompetent”: their
Distinction and its
Consequence” (2010) 16 JIML, pp. 102 - 131.
J.L. GABALDÓN GARCÍA, Curso de Derecho Marítimo Internacional, Madrid,
2012.
N.K. KAMPANTAIS, Seaworthiness in autonomous unmanned cargo ships,
available on
h t t p s : / / w w w. r e s e a r c h g a t e . n e t / p u b l i c a t i o n /
311452364_Seaworthiness_in_autonomous_unmanned_cargo_ships.
A. MANDARAKA - SHEPPARD, Modern Maritime Law, vol. II, 3rd, Abingdon-
onThames, 2013.
M. ORNFELT ET AL., Best Practice Guide for Unmanned Maritime Systems
Handling,
Operations, Design and Regulations, SARUMS, Brussels, 2015.
S.-M. LEE ET AL, A Fuzzy Logic for Autonomous Navigation of Marine Vehicles
Satisfying COLREG Guidelines, in International Journal of Control, Automation, and
Systems, Vol. 2, No. 2, June 2004, p. 171 ff.
T. SCHOENBAUM, Admiralty and Maritime Law, vol. I, 5 ed., Eagan, Minnesota,
USA, 2004.

W. TETLEY, Marine Cargo Claims, vol. 1, 4 ed., Toronto, 2008.

23
 M. TSIMPLIS, R. VEAL, The integration of unmanned ships into the lex
maritima, in
LMCLQ, vol. 2, 2017, pp. 303 - 335.
E.VAN HOOYDONK, The law of unmanned merchant shipping - an exploration,
in JIML,
vol. 20, 2014, pp. 403 - 423.
G. WALKER,J. NOYES, Definitions for the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, in
California
Western International Law Journal, Vol. 33 (2002), No. 2, Art. 4, pp. 217 -

24