A Reflection on How to Perform Seaworthiness Obligation in Autonomous Vessels from a Legal Perspective

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Assistant Professor, International Commercial, Intellectual Property and Cyber Space Law Dept., Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

In maritime law, the duty of the carrier to make the vessel seaworthy is one of the fundamental obligations in the contracts of carriage of goods by sea, so that the non-performance of this obligation may lead to the contractual liability of the carrier towards the owner of the goods. The aforementioned obligation is considered to be a multifaceted obligation, one of the important aspects of which is the hiring of a competent crew to sail the vessel to its intended destination. Therefore, if there is no crew on board or the crew recruited does not have the necessary qualifications, there is no doubt that the vessel is unseaworthy.
The recent emergence and expansion of artificial intelligence has impacted nearly all industries, including shipping. Large companies in the shipping industry are currently focused on constructing autonomous vessels using this technology. The vessels are constructed with the main approach of relying solely on artificial intelligence for navigation at sea, without the intervention of a crew. This replacement of the crew with artificial intelligence raises fundamental legal questions. One such question is how the carrier can fulfill its seaworthiness obligation without the presence of a crew. In this regard, it is important to consider whether existing international rules can be applied to autonomous vessels or if new rules should be created to account for the unique nature of this vessel class.
From a technical perspective, autonomous vessels can have varying degrees of autonomy. However, current research primarily focuses on fully-autonomous vessels. The full degree of autonomy in this category of vessels means that the vessel is able to make decisions and determine the necessary actions without the intervention of humans and solely by relying on its operating system. In response to the above-mentioned questions, different approaches have been proposed. While emphasizing the effectiveness of existing traditional rules, some believe that based on the concept of “functional equivalence,” existing international rules can also be applied to this category of vessels. In fact, according to this approach, artificial intelligence in fully autonomous vessels is supposed to do the same work that crews do in conventional vessels; therefore, based on the functional equivalence, the existing rules can be applied to artificial intelligence. On the other side, another group, referring to the “black box” problem of artificial intelligence, believes that the reformulation of the doctrine of seaworthiness should be put on the agenda in such a way that the seaworthiness of the vessel can be assessed by evaluating the algorithms used in artificial intelligence. The said problem can be explained in this way: although the input data and the output result of artificial intelligence are comprehensible by humans, humans cannot understand the decision process taken by artificial intelligence and its reason. There is, therefore, no way to evaluate whether the algorithms used in artificial intelligence are suitable for the intended sea voyage or not, and inevitably, the concept of seaworthiness must be reformulated. Finally, the third approach finds the solution in revising the existing rules because the nature of artificial intelligence requires that appropriate rules be imposed to assess the seaworthiness of autonomous vessels, and the existing rules cannot be interpreted in such a way to be applied to the mentioned vessels.

Keywords

References

منابع
الف) کتب و مقالات
1. Aikens, R., Richard Lord, Michael Bools, Michael Bolding and Kian Sing Toh (2021). Bill of Lading. 3rd ed., New York, Routledge (Informa Law) Publications.
2. Ahvenjärvi, S. (2016). The Human Element and Autonomous Ships. TransNav Journal, 10(3), 517-521. Available at:
https://www.transnav.eu/Article_The_Human_Element_and_Autonomous_Ahvenj%C3%A4rvi,39,675.html (Accessed on April 15, 2023).
3. Bathaee, Y, (2018). The Artificial Intelligence, Black Box and the Failure of Causation and Intent, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 31(2), 889-938. Available at https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/assets/articlePDFs/v31/The-Artificial-Intelligence-Black-Box-and-the-Failure-of-Intent-and-Causation-Yavar-Bathaee.pdf (Accessed on April 15, 2023).
4. Baughen, S, (2015). Shipping Law. 6th ed., London, Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group).
5. Baughen, S, (2021). Unmanned vessels and International Conventions for the Carriage of Goods by sea. in Baris Soyer and Andrew Tettenborn (eds.), Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Shipping: Developing the International Legal Framework, Hart Publishing, 2021, 81-98.
6. Berlingieri, F. (2014). International Maritime Conventions. Vol. 1, The Carriage of Goods and Passengers by Sea, Routledge (Informa Law) Publications.
7. Brodie, P, (2013). Dictionary of Shipping Terms. 6th ed., Canada, Routledge (Informa Law) Publications.
8. Castelvecchi, D, (2016). Can we open the black box of AI?. The Nature (International Weekly Journal of Science), 538(7623), 20-23. Available at
https://www.nature.com/news/polopoly_fs/1.20731!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/538020a.pdf (Accessed on April 15, 2023).
9. Chacón, V. H. (2017). The Due Diligence in Maritime Transportation in the Technological Era, International Publishing AG.
10. Chandler, G, F. (1984). A Comparison of COGSA, The Hague/Visby Rules, and the Hamburg Rules. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 15(2), 233-292. Available at https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/jmlc15&div=18&id=&page= (Accessed on April 15, 2023).
11. Defossez Delphine Aurelie Laurence (2016). Seaworthiness: The Adequacy of the Rotterdam Rules Approach. University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal, 28(2), 237-288. Available at
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/usfm28&div=14&id=&page= (Accessed on April 15, 2023).
12. Foster, N, R. (2000). The Seaworthiness Trilogy: Carriage of Goods, Insurance, and Personal Injury. Santa Clara Law Review, 40(2), 473-510. Available at https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1380&context=lawreview(Accessed on April 15, 2023).
13. Gaskell, N., Regina Asariotis and Yvonne Baatz (2000). Bills of Lading: Law and Contracts, Routledge (Informa Law) Publications.
14. Girvin, S, (2019). The Carrier’s Fundamental Duties to Cargo under The Hague and Hague-Visby Rules. Journal of International Maritime Law, 25(6), 443-462. Available at https://www.lawtext.com/lawtextMedia/media/15/443-462-2.pdf (Accessed on April 15, 2023).
15. Karlis, T. (2018). Maritime Law Issues Related to the Operation of Unmanned Autonomous Cargo Ships. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 17(1), 119-128. Available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13437-018-0135-6 (Accessed on April 15, 2023).
16. Kasi, A. (2021). The Law of Carriage of Goods by Sea, Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
17. Mocatta, A. A., Michael J. Mustill and Stewart C. Boyd (1984). Scrutton on Charterparties and Bill of Lading, 19th ed., London, Sweet & Maxwell.
18. Norris Martin J. (1970). The Law of Seamen, Vol. 1, 3rd ed., Rochester, The Lawyers Co-Operative Publishing Co.
19. Reed, C. (2018). How should we regulate artificial intelligence?. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 376: 20170360, pp. 1-12. Available at
  https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rsta.2017.0360 (Accessed on April 15, 2023).
20. Reynolds, F. (1990). The Hague Rules, The Hague-Visby Rules, and the Hamburg Rules. MLAANZ Journal, 7(16-34). Available at
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/537e8bcbe4b09ac6c31f0ae6/t/53db00e8e4b0e1c45a9f8342/1406861544651/SBL_Hague+Hague+Visby+Hamburg+Rules.pdf (Accessed on April 15, 2023).
21. Shah B. S. (1966). Seaworthiness: A Comparative Survey. Malaya Law Review, 8(1), 95-116.
22. So Lok, K., & Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit (2021). Seaworthiness and Autonomous Ships: Legal Implications in the 21st Century. Australian and New Zealand Maritime Law Journal, 35(1), 21-30. Available at https://maritime.law.uq.edu.au/index.php/anzmlj/article/view/1230/1402 (Accessed on April 15, 2023).
23. Soyer, B. (2001). Warranties in Marine Insurance, 1st ed., Cavendish Publishing Limited.
24. Soyer, B. (2020). Autonomous Vessels and Third-party Liabilities: The Elephant in the Room. in Baris Soyer and Andrew Tettenborn (eds.), New Technologies, Artificial Intelligence and Shipping Law in the 21st Century, Informa Law (Routledge), pp. 105-115. Available at https://www.routledge.com/New-Technologies-Artificial-Intelligence-and-Shipping-Law-in-the-21st/Soyer-Tettenborn/p/book/9780367777920 (Accessed on April 15, 2023).
25. Stevens, F. (2020). Carrier Liability for Unmanned Ships: Goodbye Crew, Hello Liability. in Baris Soyer and Andrew Tettenborn (eds.), New Technologies, Artificial Intelligence and Shipping Law in the 21st Century, Informa Law (Routledge), 148-161.
26. Stevens, F. (2021). Seaworthiness and Good Seamanship in the Age of Autonomous Vessels, in Henrik Ringbom, Erik Røsæg and Trond Solvang (eds.), Autonomous Ships and the Law, Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group), 243-260. Available at   https://www.routledge.com/Autonomous-Ships-and-the-Law/Ringbom-Rosaeg-Solvang/p/book/9780367692049 (Accessed on April 15, 2023).
27. Tetley, W, (2008). Marine Cargo Claims, Vol. 1, 4th ed., Toronto, Thomson-Carswell Publications.
28. Wilson, J. F. (2010). Carriage of Goods by Sea, 7th ed., Pearson Education Ltd.
29. Yoon, I, (2020). Technology Assessment: Autonomous Ships: Key Findings and Recommendations.The 3rd International Conference on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship, Ulsan, South Korea, 11-12 Nov. 2020, 1-10. (Visited: 2022/11/19) Available at https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/929/1/012015/pdf .
 
ب) آرا
30. Bradley v Federal Steam Navigation Co. [1927] 27 L1. L. Rep. 395.
31. Chartered Bank of India v. British India S. N. Co., [1909] A.C. 369.
32. Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26.
33. McFadden Brothers & Co v Blue Star Line Ltd, [1905] 1 KB 697.
34. N.M.Paterson & Sons Ltd. v. Robin Hood Flour Mills Ltd. (The Farrandac) [1967] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 232.
35. 35. The Eurasian Dream [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 719.
36. The Fjord Wind [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 191.
37. The Irbenskiy Proliv [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 383.
38. The Kapitan Sakharov [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 255 209.
39. The Makadonia [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 316.
40. The Maxine Footwear Co. Ltd. v. Can. Government Merchant Marine [1959] AC 589.
ج) اسناد، گزارش‌ها
41. Comité Maritime International (CMI), The Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules, (Visited: 2022/11/13).Available at https://comitemaritime.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Travaux-Preparatoires-of-the-Hague-Rules-and-of-the-Hague-Visby-Rules.pdf
42. Danish Maritime Authority (2017), Analysis of Regulatory Barriers to the Use of Autonomous Ships: Final Report, Dec. 2017 (Visited: 2023/01/20) Available at https://dma.dk/Media/637745499808186153/Analysis%20of%20Regulatory%20Barriers%20to%20the%20Use%20of%20Autonomous%20Ships.pdf
43. European Commission (2016), Final Report Summary - MUNIN (Maritime Unmanned Navigation through Intelligence in Networks), Rec. No. 181600, April 4, 2016 (Visited: 2022/12/16). Available at https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/314286/reporting
44. European Commission (2021), Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Harmonized Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and Amending Certain Union Legislative Acts, COM (2021) 206 final, 2021/0106 (COD), Brussels, April 21, 2021. (Visited: 2023/01/20) Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:e0649735-a372-11eb-9585-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF
45. IMO (International Maritime Organization) (2017), Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on Its Ninety Eighth Session, Doc. No. MSC 98/23 (Visited: 2022/11/20). Available at http://www.imla.co/sites/default/files/msc_98-23_-_report_of_the_maritime_safety_committee_on_itsninety-eighth_session_secretariat.pdf
46. IMO (International Maritime Organization) (2018), Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on Its One Hundredth Session, Doc. No. MSC 100/20/Add.1, annex 2 (Visited: 2022/11/20) Available at https://www.mpa.gov.sg/docs/mpalibraries/mpa-documents-files/shipping-division/msc-reports/msc-100-20-add-1---report-of-the-maritime-safety-committee-on-its-one-hundredth-session-(secretariat).pdf
47. IMO (International Maritime Organization) (2020), Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on Its 102ND Session, Doc. MSC 102/24 (Visited: 2022/11/20) Available at https://www.mpa.gov.sg/docs/mpalibraries/mpa-documents-files/shipping-division/msc-reports/msc-102-24---report-of-the-maritime-safety-committeeon-its-102nd-session-(secretariat).pdf
48. IMO-A (International Maritime Organization) (2021), Outcome of the regulatory Scoping Exercise for the use of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS), Doc. MSC.1/Circ.1638, Annex, 3 (Visited: 2022/11/20) Available at   https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Documents/MSC.1-Circ.1638%20-%20Outcome%20Of%20The%20Regulatory%20Scoping%20ExerciseFor%20The%20Use%20Of%20Maritime%20Autonomous%20Surface%20Ships...%20(Secretariat).pdf
49. IMO-B (International Maritime Organization) (2021), Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on Its 104th Session, Doc. MSC 104/18 (Visited: 2022/11/20) Available at https://www.mpa.gov.sg/docs/mpalibraries/mpa-documents-files/shipping-division/msc-reports/msc-104-18---report-of-the-maritime-safety-committee-on-its-104th-session-(secretariat).pdf
50. IMO-A (International Maritime Organization) (2022), Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on Its 105th Session, Doc. MSC 105/20 (Visited: 2022/11/20) Available at https://www.mpa.gov.sg/docs/mpalibraries/mpa-documents-files/shipping-division/msc-reports/msc-105-20---report-of-the-maritime-safety-committee-on-its-105th-session-(secretariat).pdf
51. IMO-B (International Maritime Organization) (2022), Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on Its 106th Session, Doc. MSC 106/19 (Visited: 2022/11/20) Available at https://www.imokorea.org/upfiles/board/51.%20MSC%20106%20%B0%E1%B0%FA%BA%B8%B0%ED%BC%AD%28%BF%B5%B9%AE%29.pdf
52. International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading-1924 (“The Hague Rules”), Done at Brussels on Aug. 25, 1924.
53. Norwegian Forum for Autonomous Ships (2017), Definitions for Autonomous Merchant Ships, Oct. 10, 2017 (Visited: 2022/11/19). Available at https://nfas.autonomous-ship.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/autonom-defs.pdf
54. Rolls-Royce, Rolls-Royce Demonstrates World’s First Remotely Operated Commercial Vessel, 20 June 2017 (Visited: 2022/12/15) Available at https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2017/20-06-2017-rr-demonstrates-worlds-first-remotely-operated-commercial-vessel.aspx
55. The Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, Vol. 4, pp. 4089-4092. (Visited: 2022/11/13) Available at https://heinonline- org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/HOL/Page?handle=hein.
 castatutes/rsdadac0004&id=697&collection=castatutes&index=castatutes/rsdadac
56. The Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from December, 1891, to March, 1893, and Recent Treaties, Conventions, and Executive Proclamations. Vol. XXVII, Chapter 105, pp. 445-446 (Visited: 2022/11/03) Available at https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llsl//llsl-c52/llsl-c52.pdf
57. UK Legislations, “Marine Insurance Act 1906, (Visited: 2022/11/10) Available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw7/6/41#:~:text=1)A%20contract%20of%20marine,incidental%20to%20any%20sea%20voyage
58. UNCITRAL, Report of Working Group III (Transport Law) on the Work of Its 12th Session, Oct. 6-17, 2003, U.N.Doc. A/CN.9/544. (Visited: 2022/11/17) Available at https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V03/906/87/PDF/V0390687.pdf?OpenElement
Law Quarterly
Volume 53, Issue 3
November 2023
Pages 373-396

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics