AUTONOMOUS SHIPPING- CULLING OUT TRADITIONAL SHIPPING LAW OR MERELY KEEPING MODERNITY IN PARIAH? BY - AMOGH SAGAR
AUTONOMOUS SHIPPING- CULLING OUT
TRADITIONAL SHIPPING LAW OR MERELY KEEPING MODERNITY IN PARIAH?
AUTHORED BY - AMOGH SAGAR[1]
With all the issues typically arising
in maritime law there is arrival of recent concept of Maritime Autonomous
Surface Ships (MASSs) which does not rely on traditional definitions or
criteria. It is a wholly new concept and plausibly supports an argument that
revolves around the supporters of traditional understanding of technicalities
and complexities of marine law. In this article, however, the convoluted
concept has been contended to hold significant future prospect without
blighting the ongoing nature of well settled law. This article also attempts to
align the development with the settled position under legislations and case
laws and along with that it highlights the necessity of coming up with
additional changes wherever required just like acceptance of any concept would
require. The article strictly conforms to current regime in every aspect
without culling them out but at the same time not belabouring on any such point
made to answer any issue expected to arise.
Keywords: Autonomous shipping, Surface
vessels, Sea documents, response, Environment effects
Obstinate Present Legal Regime for
Autonomous Shipping
Through the esteemed columns of this
article it is to emphasise that where few countries which are unaware of marine
trade law while certain thinkers of this department has shifted towards more
than just advancement by involving autonomous shipping or what one would call
unmanned vessel with use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and technology. The
conundrum lies in claim that legal personality be given to AI for its decision
and consequences or not due to non-consciousness of AI itself.[2]
International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has three distinct committees
considering regulations for MASS namely Legal Committee (LEG), facilitation
committee (FAC) and Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) where it agreed to jointly
agreed to work on issues and progression of regulatory issues in Joint
MSC/LEG/FAC.[3] It must
clearly be stipulated that four degrees of autonomy is defined by IMO where it
is further pertinent to note that more detailed description on the degrees are
required.[4] If
the intricacies of MASS are kept aside then for sake of understanding “smart
ships” can also be used interchangeably, in the sense that they operate at
various degrees of autonomy and especially how this article focuses on aligning
this concept within existing framework it is considered amenable but pointing
towards one specific point that how economic pattern and business models must
go through the change systematically.[5]
Undoubtedly, if such is the case then “digitally-abled” crew becomes utmost
important and how shipping companies ought to run their working parallel to
TVET (Technical and vocational Education and Training) academies and all
related studies of such institutions.[6]
Today, it is considered that success of Maritime 4.0 being wholly the next
phase for technical development is proportional to training of seafarers and
encompassing the equipment to its optimum level.[7] At
this point it would be obvious to mention that safety of operational functions,
crew safety and viability in commercial purposes would be the outcome. Now is
the right time to mention that there was a posed challenge of ECDIS (a
navigational chart system) and S-100 data (navigational-related decision making)-
without going into any more technicality as it is not the focus of the article,
it is pertinent to mention that arrival of Mayflower Autonomous Ship (MAS)
project is one such example that has been built on these standards.[8]
The usefulness of data and statistics collected by the sail in 2022 is marks a
positive response and keeping all the collective benefits it would be a
discouraging step if industries do not focus in this particular direction but
where the risk lies and it will eventually be mentioned. With this in line
United Kingdom Marine Autonomous Systems Regulatory Working Group (MASRWG)
paved a pathway for MASSs in form of ‘MASS UK Industry Conduct Principles and
code of Practice’[9]. It is
not an obligation within the country but whosoever is using this code shall
hold responsibility of understanding and complying with laws, regulations
policies relating to their activities. At this point it is important to
understand the four degrees of autonomy that has been classified by IMO in its
recent study.[10] Degree
one lays the category where seafarers are on board and controls the functions
where some functions could be automated. Second degree is the category where
ship is being controlled and operated from another location however seafarers
control and operate functions by being on board. Degree three includes human as
well as system in monitoring but seafarers or operational crew would not be
there on board. Lastly degree four lays that operating system of ship makes
decision and determines actions all by itself. The degrees have been put in
other words namely, autonomy assisted bridge (AAB), periodically unmanned
bridge (PUB), periodically unmanned ship (PUS) and continuously unmanned ship
(CUS) respectively.[11]
This article focuses on challenges to legislations and concern that stubborn
laws relating to maritime law but before that addressing the issue of security
and answering the conflicting views is equally important.
Struggle Against Existing Conditions
A large section of interested readers
would question the security and potential risks to public through misuse of
MASSs and other issues like trade arise later which will be dealt here
sequentially. It is argued that with due care the autonomous ships shall be
safe and reliable mode and it does not treat current legislations as pariah.
For such concerns of crime one might be interested to know that subjects such
as Terrorism, Rescue, Navigation or criminal matters are dealt under Convention
for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the safety of maritime navigation
(SUA), 2005. It imposes high obligation on signatory states to prevent
occurrence of criminal acts that threatens peace and security. The two major
concerns arise regarding when these ships are used as weapon and situations
where the ships transport illicit cargo. In 1988 the same legislation referred
‘ship’ as victim ship but after 2005 protocol the wide scope is evident which
includes “supported craft, submersibles, or any other floating craft”[12]. Hence
it is safely concluded that remote controlled crafts are under ambit of ‘ships’
and any such exclusion would be contradictory to object and purpose of maritime
security. Similarly, if there is a question of ‘person’ who are not on-board
then the liability assessment is impossible then it is possible to answer in
negation. The absence of offender ship and victim ship in case of Achille
Lauro led to terrorists not liable under piracy acts and because of that
SUA 2005 came up with Article 5bis that offenders can also perform
criminal acts through dry land.[13]
Now the trifold risks: ‘harm against ship’ offences, terrorist encapsulating
ship-as-weapon and ‘illicit transfer from autonomous vessels’ could be put to
rest.[14]
Thus, there is no reason why an offence committed from shore can be a threat or
perhaps a caveat to secured autonomous vessels. Only 40 states have ratified
the convention which could be a concern but this is not different from other
underlying problems in international law and cannot solely be a ground to
dissuade MASSs. A balanced suggestion could be ratification of SUA 2005 or
incorporating the pattern of legislation if countries are interested in modern
trade and strict compliance with the punishment part. An important concern of
public international law is discussed but next it is plausible to put forward
the conventions that is at question of getting affected. For example,
traditional ships assume presence of human element in navigational decisions on
ship under COLREGs under rule 2 and 5.[15]
Thus, such uncertainties will hamper integration of MASSs and its arrival will
be questionable and thus the following is an explanation on how these IMO
conventions would in a sense is compliant for autonomous vessels. Before moving
further, it is emphasised by the author that the discussed conventions and
analysis is not a critique or loopholes to the well settled law but encouraging
the arrival of autonomous shipping/ MASSs. In 1977 when Convention on
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs) entered
into force traffic separation scheme was focused upon but now it has shifted,
among other things, to lacunae such as MASS navigation, terminologies, light or
shape or sound signals, radio communications and role and responsibilities of
remote operators.[16]
Concerns are raised whether shore-based controller can be brought under ambit
of ‘due regards’ and responsibility of vessels, owners, masters and crew and
whether in presence of controllers MASS is truly autonomous.[17]
Concerns are also raised in reference to ‘sight and hearing’ requirements of
crew, requirements to avoid collision, traffic separation schemes, narrow
channels.[18] All the
elements that are specified find its place in regulations that are connected
with a specific involvement of presence of crew. However, a recent case of Evergreen
Marine (UK) Ltd Vs Nautical Challenge Ltd[19] has
discussed to some length what is remarkable. Great abatement in collision is
found out with advent of radar, ARPA (Automatic Radar Plotting Aid) and AIS
(Automatic Identification System) when fitted for navigation in vessels.[20]
As ARPA is based on radar information good use in avoiding collision can be
made possible by targeting on particular vessel and similarly as AIS relies on
GPS and during operation it could provide necessary details like vessel’s
course and speed, closest point of approach and other related details.[21]
Although the case deals with primary issue of dispute between applicability of
Narrow channel rules (rule 9) and Crossing situation (rule 15) of COLREGs the
judgement has be based on passages received from Nautical assessors on visual
observation of approaching vessel as key in these situations but as a matter of
fact the collision has occurred between two vessels.[22]
The point asserted here is that nevertheless the collision has occurred but in
any way if it makes sense that reliance on visual observation could have
prevented the collision in question then the situation would never have arisen.
The underlying object of such ships would be providing safety to people
associated with such shipping and that can also be retained. The attention
would be drawn here on definition of vessels because the root problem in
different conventions arise out of the question that whether the definition of
word ‘vessel’ is wide enough to include MASSs. Let us start by looking at an
example of a floating object. In order to be a vessel purposive construction
under the definition and specific consideration needs to be given every time. A
houseboat cannot be considered as a vessel because it does not connote that is
designed to carry person and/or goods nor is it navigable and merely because it
is moored it cannot fall under ambit of ‘vessel’.[23]
The definition that is discussed here is important and immediately made after
discussion of COLREGs because the least problematic definition of vessel has
been understood under this convention under rule 3(a). Even under such wide
definition there is an understanding that has developed by the time as is
evident. Another pertinent and related convention is Salvage Convention 1989
which defines vessel as ship or craft that is capable of navigation as per
Article 1(b). Similarly, once the understanding of vessel has been inculcated
now the raft of timber can be held that it is neither a ship nor a sea-going
vessel and structure like gas cylinder that functions as navigation beacon
having lost its moorings are not to be considered as subject of salvage as they
are not capable of navigation and the whole purpose of this convention is to
bring an operation that assist a vessel or property in danger.[24]
There is no reason why autonomous ships whether wholly or partially could not
be subjected to salvation because they certainly has property/cargo loaded or
at times certain operators who control it through a remote. Additionally the
point made by the author is that there is no reason why MASSs should be
excluded from the purview of definition of ‘vessel’ when they carry
person/goods and is much capable of navigation, in fact more focus is to be
given on how smoothly and safely it navigates using technology. Ostensibly
there is more inclination towards the traditional understanding but task to
bring autonomous ships is only difficult and not impossible. Now we examine
Convention on Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS),1974 having an object to set
minimum standards for construction, equipment operation that makes ships focus
on safety and ships sailing under the flag of member state has to comply
strictly with the provisions. In my opinion MASSs are specifically brought in
so as to reduce loss of lives and fulfil the trade without causing unforeseen
damages to crew and goods but then arises the problem out of exception that
regulations do not apply when ships are not propelled by mechanical means.[25]
If put in another words the concern is that these category of ships are
exempted under the guidelines because seafarers are not on board and it is
controlled by an offshore Remote Control Centre but reply is in negation. Just
like China developed harmonized solution by amending definitions,
reconstructing regulations and separate mandatory/non-mandatory guidelines in
consonance with International Safety Management (ISM) and just like Finland
deemed the best way is to bring up new instrument.[26]
It is urged that solutions exist but it would be time taking and could be
controversial at international platforms. Structures of qualification standards
for personnel like master, officers, watchkeepers onboard can be found under
article STCW Convention (The convention on standards of certification, training
and watch keeping). The wordings clearly say “…seafarers serving on board
seagoing ships…”[27]
that means MASSs could not find place under its ambit. A whole new training
and qualification regime will be mandatory for operators based on shore for
meeting safety object of the autonomous ships. A parallel convention to STCW is
International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR) mandates persons
in distress at sea will be coordinated by organization from neighbouring
countries and is led by France and Spain.[28]
It is suggested that part dealing with role of masters need to be adjusted in
welcoming the MASSs.[29]
Thus, the discussion has been elaborated with respect to major conventions but
the readers must understand that there are certain conventions also affected to
some extent and need not be gone into length but plausible to mention some of
them as follows: the UN Convention of law of the sea (UNCLOS), The limitation
of liability for maritime claims (LLMC),
International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS), Load Lines
Convention of 1966 (LLC), Tonnage measurement convention 1969 (TMC), Memorandum
of understanding on port state control 1982 (Paris MOU), International
Convention 1969/1973 incorporated in English law that includes seagoing vessels
of ‘any type whatsoever’ making is sufficient to include MASS, International
convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage 1992 and fund convention
(CLC), International convention on liability and compensation for damage in
connection with carriage of hazardous and noxious substances by sea 1996 (HNS),
Bunker convention 2001, collision convention 1910, International convention
relating to the arrest of seagoing ships 1952 (arrest convention), Maritime
liens and mortgages convention.[30]
For convenience it is urged that readers must go through the mentioned
conventions in detail out of which few are expressly incorporated in English
law while others are not but still are better for understanding on how
autonomous shipping law can still coexist under their ambit while some of them
would require a separate and new provisions. Other important aspect lies in an
important arena of environment and MASSs.
Is There A Detrimental Effect Of
MASSs On Environment?
In the era of major downfall of
environment health MASSs would have to abide by the principles of international
law that has primary goal of sustainable development. Let us examine and assess
if there are adverse effects of MASS. To begin with the much celebrated
principle of international law it should be well known that whenever there is
found any sort of breach of an international obligation the concerned state has
to follow principle of reparation, i.e., to eliminate the consequences out any
illegal act had it not been committed.[31]
Under International Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)
pollutants have been categorised as ‘particularly dangerous substances’ like
highly radioactive wastes, list of wastes with ‘considerable amount’ of less
harmful wastes (for example lead or copper) and lastly wastes other than
previous two categories.[32]
IMO has classified operational and accidental factors clarified that pollutants
release when ship is on voyage more than accidental factors such as activities
like discharge of sewage, tank residues, bunker oil and garbage and other
related emissions.[33]
It is argued that prevention of accidents and environmental discharge is
possible through additional assistance in vessel’s operation and at the same
time safe distance from other vessels avoiding navigational risks can be made
possible.[34] The
proponents state that productivity and fuel efficiency can be achieved through
continuous monitoring in these vessels in even trivial situations.[35]
Another argument is that digital optimization helps in fetching data like
connectivity with port and is there is congestion or not to help vessel arrival
timings and queuing outside of ports reducing emissions in air and data also
shows that fuel consumption abates by 2-3 per cent during docking times.[36]
Well it is plausible to put an argument that radioactive signals and continuous
involvement of AI (radar, ARPA etc) in sailing a vessel might lead to potential
health hazards to people so closely connected with operating autonomous vessels
and largely to marine life and can be termed electromagnetic pollution. It has
been declared dangerous and causing various problems and diseases.[37]
It is left to practitioners of this industry on what they depend on for furtherance
of the trade and at the same time judiciary will play an important role in
bringing out the true benefits and colours of MASSs. Without further ado,
negating on the question if there is a detrimental effects of autonomous
vessels the author would like to outweigh the benefits and environment
friendliness of these vessels from little of harm accentuated from a particular
group of practitioners and would term it peevish voice to be discouraged. The
UK is all set with its latest version of principles and code of practice for
MASSs where it is evident that ‘prevention of pollution’[38]
has been given specific place under the code and the author emphasises other
countries to involve similar or partial principles to welcome the future of
shipping.
Response Of Various Countries- Is It
Really Positive?
It is not overrated to state that
primary challenge at the beginning would be how the non-crew communicates to
external sources, situational awareness, interaction with systems and
maintenance. Based on the prevailing challenges it has been studies
exhaustively and number of trials have taken place. When benefits were realised
then carefully more trials were conducted. How experienced seafarers could
easily prevent the collision at sea by understanding the navigation or
autonomous vessels would reduce operational costs and reduce CO2 and NOx
emissions is intriguing.[39]
With the study it was realised that traffic in South-East Asia is troublesome
and for arrival of unmanned surface ships in this particular region: algorithm
developed particularly for narrow channel including Traffic Separation Scheme
is needed, steering aligned with weather conditions has to be inbuilt,
surrounding awareness to avoid disturbing them like fishing vessel and their
line and net, human resources that should be familiarised with the course,
collaboration with European countries in development projects- these are given
recommendations.[40] Example
of South Korea sailed 38 meter vessel SAMSUNG T-8 controlled from Daejeon
Marine Research centre almost 250 km away that analysed signals from tug’s
navigation and identifying obstacles using radar, GPS and AIS to avoid danger
of collision and other parameters to enhance commercialisation of technology.[41]
The recommendations in mind Singapore’s Smart Maritime Autonomous vessel (SMAV)
was only one of its kind. Algorithms were found to especially developed for
navigation and avoiding collision in crowded areas that is out of experiences
of officers, seeing this Abu Dhabi ports in 2020 along with Canadian designer
potentially aims for greater capability.[42]
Singaporean approach extended to health monitoring of shipboard, predictive
diagnostics and condition-based maintenance. UK has been an inspiration for
maritime laws and enacting laws or codes in this field. This includes
designing, building, manufacturing, owning, operating or controlling MASSs and
also updating systems when required both for autonomous as well as
semiautonomous vessels. China came up with motive of setting world’s largest
offshore test site for unmanned surface vehicles including air-sea-submarine
forces by developing testing fields, automatic mooring communications and
network improvement.[43]
It resulted in establishing test ground in 2019 and launching first autonomous
cargo ship (Jin Dou Yun 0 Hao) as it completed voyage in Zhuhai to Hong Kong
which is direct outcome of autonomous steering and avoiding obstacle been made
possible.[44] Similar
successful establishments are seen in Turku in Finland and Norway. It is
possibly best to answer the point whether the outcome is positive or not in
affirmation. No reason is understood why a country’s approach would move
towards testing and improving autonomous ships by bringing in training,
investing capital and time both if potential benefit is not what they expect.
Nor is any reason to deny that the vessels if programmed and operated with due
care an exorbitant rise in trade from MASSs would be visible. Hence, shifting
from traditional mode of shipping is not actually harming but positive result
is visible from the statistics.
Impact On Documents Involved in
Marine Trade
The question now remains is
determining positions where traditionally presentation of documents like Bill
of lading results in exchange of goods or liability assessment under Insurance
certificate but now when MASSs are involved. Carriage law aspects of manning
includes- seaworthiness, care for the cargo and nautical fault exception. If
one talks about seaworthiness then as per Hague-Visby Rules it is required to
be ‘properly manned’ and it is possible that autonomous ships are covered under
this provision when remotely they are controlled from shore.[45]
When Bill of lading incorporates these rules then seaworthiness means that it
should be well equipped for unforeseeable situations and what is required for
fulfilment of this obligation is due diligence at beginning of voyage.[46]
Even for fully autonomous vessels it is positive that is will be covered if due
diligence has been exercised in selecting, installing and maintaining control
system but liability of carrier is absolute that it will have to show what
exactly happened and how the facts fit within exemption of any convention.[47]
The recent case of The CMA CGM Libra[48] has
clarified that unseaworthiness is a concept not subject to attributable
threshold requiring that such attribute threatens safety of vessel or cargo but
carrier has to exercise due diligence and such diligence is carried out in work
of making vessel seaworthy regardless of whosoever carries out the task.[49]
Carrier has even those responsibilities where the duty is of master or such
defects that is reasonably discoverable once cargo is in his control.[50]
Care of cargo is done by a sound system that is generally in practice in
industry and monitoring can be done remotely like smart containers. For
nautical fault exemption it is indeed required that software or system itself
is developed.[51]
Regarding another important document, insurance document, the queries could be-
are there attributes in MASSs that make them insurable, does these vessels need
alteration of traditional principles and its doctrine, is structure of
insurance market appropriate to cover such vessels?- and the answer is in
negative for number of reasons.[52]
All it is required for avoiding problems relating to insurance is development
and acceptance of trade by these vessels. Further new risks like Design and
programming errors, Dealing with RCCs and Cyber risks that have been discussed
in previous part. Thus, it is contended that even under documents of marine
trade there is no reason why there be confusion on nature of dispute and even
if dispute arises due to newness of these vessels there is certainly no reason
for subduing its arrival. For several issues and complex problems on insurance
there are writings by proponents of this field but is not elaborated here as it
is outside scope of this paper. The author grabs the essence by showing
examples of bill of lading and similarly the ships fit under ambit of
insurance.
Concluding Remarks
Initial points marked the basic understanding
of surface vessels and how acceptance would pose convoluted problems at each
step. Any arrival or development of Artificial intelligence and technologies
would be claimed a blight on pre-existing position. However, the actual
position of vessels are aligned by accommodating it under present conventions.
It is pointed that there are lesser environmental repercussions that is
sticking to objective ‘sustainable development’[53]
of WTO looking at positive conclusion of countries. An extensive discussion on
risks posed as an obstacle to arrival of autonomous vessels are also resolved
with suggestions and ideas collected from the scholars of maritime trade. Last
but not the least said vessels are also found to complying with erstwhile
settled law on marine documents. It is also suggested that readers go through
intricacies of insurance because this would be posed as a central issue when
mishaps take place.[54]
It is herculean suggestion of author to bring the arrival of ships into motion
avoiding the kerfuffle and at last a request to critics not to put a wonderful
development in a beleaguered state with obfuscating arguments because of which
practitioners and developers and countries are left in agog on what lies is
near future.
[1] Final Year student in BBA LLB (H),
Bennett University, Greater Noida, India
[2] Shengnan jia and Lijun Liz Zhao,
Commercial and Maritime law in China and Europe 238 (1st ed., 2023)
[3] Liz Booth, Terminology Critical
for autonomous ship rule development [2022] Maritime Risk International
[4] MSC 100/20/Add. 1 Annex 2 at p.1
dated 12 December 2018
[5] Professor Francis D Rose, Insuring
smart vessels in a circular economy: An analysis from the perspective of
potential change in Property Interest, LMCLQ at p.624, 625 (2022)
[6] Liz Booth, Surfing the Digital
Wave, MRI (2022)
[7] Liz Booth, Skills anticipation
critical to Maritime 4.0 success, MRI (2022)
[8] Ibid
[9] A voluntary code Version 6,
November 2022
[10] Prof. Baris Soyer and A.
Tettenborn and G. Leloudas, Remote controlled and Autonomous Shipping: UK based
case study 5 (January 2022), (PDF) REMOTE CONTROLLED AND
AUTONOMOUS SHIPPING: UK BASED CASE STUDY (researchgate.net)
[11] Paul Dean and Henry Clack,
Autonomous shipping and maritime law 68, ed. Baris Soyer and Andrew Tettenborn,
New Technologies, Artificial Intelligence and Shipping Law in the 21st
Century (1st ed. 2020)
[12] Suppression of Unlawful Acts,
Article 1 (1)(a), (2005)
[13] Anna Petrig, Autonomous offender
ships and international maritime security law 41, eds. Henrik Ringbom, Erik
Rosaeg and Trond Solvang, Autonomous ships and the law (1st ed.
2021)
[14] Ibid, at p.40
[15] Ibid, Henrik Ringbom,
Developments, challenges and prospects at the IMO 56-68, at p.64
[16] Gaps in regulations and standards
for autonomous ships 205, John Erik Hagen, Sustainable power, Autonomous Ships
and Cleaner Energy for Shipping (2022)
[17] COLREG, Rule 2
[18] COLREG, Rule 5,8,10 and 15
[19] [2021] UKSC 6
[20] Ibid at para 71
[21] Ibid
[22] Ibid at para 74 and 145
[23] The Environmental Agency Vs
Gibbs (2016) EWHC 843 (Admin) at paras 83,84 and 100
[24] Gotthard Mark Gauci, Is It a
Vessel, a Ship or a Boat, Is It Just a Craft, Or Is It Merely A Contrivance?,
Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol 47, No. 4, 479-499, at p.484 (2016)
[25] SOLAS, Regulation 3(a)(iii), 1974
[26] Id note 16 at p.207-209
[27] STCW Convention, Art III
[28] Id note 16 at p.212
[29] Id
[30] Id note 11, at p.72-84
[31] Chorzow Factory case (PCIJ Series
A No. 9, 1927)
[32] Agbor I. Bassey and Patrick
Chukwunonso Aloamaka, Implementation of International laws on Marine Pollution:
Challenges and prospects, Vol 8, Issue 5, 146-163, at p.149 (2022)
[33] U. Ozdemir, H. Yilmaz & E.
Basar, Investigation of Marine Pollution caused by Ship Operations with DEMATEL
Method, International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of sea
transportation, Vol 10, No. 2, 315-320, at p. 316 (2016)
[34] Sean Pribyl, Autonomous vessels in
the era of Global Environmental Change 172, eds. Johansson, Fernandez et al.,
Autonomous vessels in Maritime Affairs Laws and Governance Implications (1st
ed. 2023)
[35] Ibid, at p.173
[36] Ibid
[37] Radiation: Radar, published on
November 2, 2007 available at https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/radiation-radar
last accessed May 8, 2023
[38] MASS UK Industry Conduct
Principles and Code of Practice 2022 (V6): A voluntary code version 6, November
2022, part 2 code 18 Prevention of Pollution at p. 130
[39] Mou N, Ren H, Zheng Y, Chen J et
al, Traffic Inequality and Relations in Maritime Silk Road: A network Flow
Analysis, ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information (2021), 10, 40
available at https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10010040 1-23
[40] Bornali Rahman, Analyzing
appropriate autonomous vessel for South-East Asian route: from the view of
seafarers (2022) Journal of Shipping and Trade 7, Article No. 21 available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-022-00122-9 , 1-19
[41] Ibid note 16, at p.177
[42] Ibid, at p.178
[43] Ibid, at p.180
[44] Insurance Marine News, China
launches autonomous cargo ship on December 19, 2019 available at https://insurancemarinenews.com/?s=China+launches+autonomous+cargo+ships last accessed May 8, 2023
[45] Hague-Visby Rules, Art.III 1(b)
(1968)
[46] Ibid note 11, Dr. Frank Stevens,
Carrier liability for unmanned ships: goodbye crew, hello liability?, at p.153
[47] Ibid, at p.155
[48] Alize 1954 and Anr Vs Allianz
Elementar Versicherungs AG and others [2021] UKSC 51
[49] Ibid at para 145 (iii) and (vii)
[50] Ibid at para 145 (ix) and (x)
[51] Id note 46 at p.161
[52] Baris Soyer, Insuring
remote-controlled and autonomous shipping- A paradigm shift in law and
insurance markets required? 22-40 ed. D. Rhidian Thomas, The Modern Law of
Marine Insurance (Volume 5, 2023)
[53] World Trade report 2022, Climate
change and international trade, available on: wtr22_e.pdf (wto.org) last accessed May 12, 2023
[54] Id at 52