Autonomous ships and legal authorities of the ship master

Case Studies on Transport Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies on Transport Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cstp

Autonomous ships and legal authorities of the ship master ⁎

Goran Vojković , Melita Milenković Faculty of Transport and Traffic Sciences, University of Zagreb, Vukelićeva 4, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Autonomous ship Remote-controlled ship Master authorities Regulation New proposals New shipping rules

The world is already working on the development of automated ships, it's not a new idea in maritime transport but these ships sail completely without the human crew or only with the basic crew (the one that does not have to include the deck service). They can be fully autonomous (the using of an uncrewed battery-powered ships; which is currently being explored), or remotely-controlled ships, such as the ones that have already been experimentally tested. The emergence of autonomous ships, where at least part of the journey is going to be led by the artificial intelligence (Al), brings a full range of legal challenges, and in particular changes the role of the ship master which has developed for centuries. Today, the ship’s master authorities are divided into three segments: the public authorities, the duties of the ship's safety and navigation, and representation of the shipping companies. If the ship master is not physically on board - the powers change considerably, to the level of legal question: Who is the master of an autonomous ship?

1. Introduction The powers and duties of the ship master have evolved since ancient times, the Phoenicians, the Ancient Greeks and the Romans, first as custom law, and with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and the emergence of ever larger and more complex vessels as well as written law. It was a long, evolutionary development of a legal institute for many centuries. However, recent technological changes, the introduction of automation, with the aim of partially and fully automated navigation, and on the other hand, the introduction of a remote-controlled navigation, raised a number of new questions regarding the authority of the master. Rules have been ‘’built’’ and written for centuries, beginning with a ubiquitous fact: that the master must be on board during navigation – are being questioned. Furthermore, a number of questions of responsibility arise with the navigation automation system, especially with full automation. The issues of remotely operated navigation have not been resolved and what happens if the disconnection with such a vessel occurs? Additionally, in the maritime sector, the stages of automation are not uniquely arranged as in road transport, which is further complicated by the fact that there are two different technological directions: automation and remote control. Therefore, in this paper we would like to point out the changes in the powers of a shipmaster which are highly important and quickly

⁎

occurring, and also indicate the degrees of automation, i.e. remotecontrol, because they are closely related to the need for prompt changes in legal regulation. Given the speed of technological change, there is a real danger that the legal framework may fall behind, which is also discussed in this paper, which will consequently lead to a delay in the implementation of new technological possibilities. 2. Introductory of powers of the ship's master and development of ship's master authorities Before we begin to analyze new occasions related to the powers of the ship master (further: master) of autonomous and remote-controlled ships, the historical development and the current authority of the master shall be highlighted. Development of the current authorities of the master can be followed from the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages one of the co-owners of the ship was elected and authorized in the name and on behalf of others to lead a joint navigation. He was the master but did not interfere in the nautical guiding of the ship. Navigation was conducted by specially trained expert seaman, while the administrative tasks were led by a special expert. When the shipowners stopped to navigate, the function of ship master in modern sense has developed. Since discipline and order are of utmost importance on board, he was given certain functions of authorities, as well as public legal powers. (Grabovac, 1995, pp.

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (G. Vojković), [email protected] (M. Milenković).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2019.12.001 Received 18 September 2018; Received in revised form 31 October 2019; Accepted 11 December 2019 2213-624X/ © 2019 World Conference on Transport Research Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Goran Vojković and Melita Milenković, Case Studies on Transport Policy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2019.12.001

Case Studies on Transport Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

G. Vojković and M. Milenković

the regulations today, but they are also a part of customary law, and it can be said that they have not changed significantly for hundreds of years. Certain changes, of course, exist, e.g. large passenger ships have strengthened the role of ship's purser (due to the size and scope of the work, the purser now has an office on the modern passenger ship). On cargo ships, the role of master, as a representative of shipowner is reduced, but still by abolishing the radio-telegraphist position, the master received additional administrative duties, since the radio station should not be used in the port, because sometimes the customs authorities physically lock the radio-room. The telegraphist usually carries out administrative work while the ship is in the harbor. However, all these applications, as well as possible different powers of the master have not changed its role of the person responsible for the ship, cargo and the persons on board, and whose command on board is binding.

35–36) The above results with today's division of authorities of the master; as follows: a) Ship's safety b) Public authorizations c) Representation of the shipowner. When speaking of master's powers in the modern age, these three (3) categories are mentioned. 2.1. Three (3) types of authorities of the master Briefly (and due to the fact, there is a wide range of classical literature mentions), we shall shortly explain master's authorities. The master (per-established maritime tradition commonly calls him a captain, regardless of the rank he acquired during his service). Personally, he is responsible for the safety of the ship i.e. maintaining the seaworthiness of the ship. He is also obliged to take care of the ship's supply (Grabovac, 1995, p. 38). The master has certain public authorities; he is in charge of all personnel (not just crew members!), in charge of issuing commands, but also in charge of:

2.2. Obligation to keep the master on board We aim at this obligation separately, since full automation alters the basic rule that the master must be on board during navigation. It is a fact that the master is responsible for the entire navigation, therefore involves him to be physically present on board while navigating. The rules state that in case of death or absence of the master chief officer is due to replace him with all his powers. (Grabovac, 1995, p. 36). This rule is also generally accepted, and it is codified in the contemporary legislation. During navigation, a master is obliged to be on board, and even if he is in any way prevented from operating (e.g. loss of consciousness), its place can then be taken by the oldest (by the rank) deck officer. This definition “deck officer” should be emphasized, in particular, and due to the situation/s which will be mentioned in the following chapters. The question being raised is: what will happen with the tasks and powers of the master in various stages of the autonomy of the ship? To be able to answer that question, we certainly have to consider that autonomy is a very broad term and that it is first of all necessary to classify different degrees of autonomy. We shall also introduce the foundations of the existing regulation and the fact, (which, in legal doctrine is bypassed), that ships of higher degree of autonomy are not SF scenarios, but reality of the world's seas and rivers.

• the entire vessel and the crew, • safety of the crew, vessel and cargo. Also, he is authorized, if necessary, to limit the freedom of movement to any person on board. In the event of a criminal offense on board, the master is obliged to take all the necessary measures to lessen the occurrence of harmful consequences. He is responsible for ensuring that proper and accurate records are kept by the vessel, and are available to the authorities on the shore, particularly in the event of an accident or when it is required. The master has certain powers typical for administrative bodies, e.g. he takes into account the fact of birth on board and has the right to receive a statement of the last will. (Grabovac, 1995, p. 38). It can also be said that the master plays the role of a police officer, the role of the registrar, or even a public notary. The entire state apparatus of the state flag is personified in the role of the master. Administrative powers of the master are particularly important when a ship is in international waters, perhaps thousands of miles away from the police and other bodies of the national state. In that case the master becomes a personification of the entire state apparatus, including the one that has the power to limit the freedom of the individual. The third category of master's authority is representation of the shipowner. For example, the master is authorized to sign salvage contracts and legal affairs on behalf and for the account of a shipowner in the place outside the ship’s seat. Also, the master is authorized to conclude contracts on behalf and for the account of the shipowner (when there is no representative of the shipowner), and contracts on maritime-navigation tasks. It is interesting that these powers of attorney are usually given to the master ex lege, i.e. he does not need special power of attorney. However, today's masters are already seldom using this group of powers because they are in touch with the bargee who will give them further instructions. (Grabovac, 1995, p. 70). Moreover, as the ship has a multiple communication channels (satellite phone and similar), in general, in that case there are more reliable ways of communication, than via person on the coast. The power of representation of the shipowner still exists (e. g. in Croatian legal practice it is one of the few ex lege powers), however, in practice, not as much used (Grabovac, 1995, p. 70). But without a special legal provision, which is world-widely accepted business practice, by which the master is authorized to represent the shipowner (Barbić, 2008, p. 16). Three (3) groups of master’s authorities have been incorporated into

3. The existing regulatory framework To explain the changes that technological advances bring, we briefly outline the existing powers of the master. Insecurity towards legal regulation of the autonomous ships in the ‘’legal world’’ is so strong that the question has been asked: whether they are ships at all? The doctrine confirmed that it is still only an evolutionary step they are ships, but different from the ones that have existed so far. In 2010 James Kraska wrote: “Historical usage of terms of art in the law of the sea may be used to adduce the meaning of words such as “ship” and “vessel,” as applied to unmanned systems at sea. Positive law has also made a great contribution to oceans governance. The essential framework for understanding oceans law today is the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (further: UNCLOS). UNCLOS reflects and prescribes widely accepted rules for activity on, over, and under the world’s seas. (…). For the most part, the rules governing manned surface ships, submarines and aircraft apply mutatis mutandis to unmanned systems operating in the same domain.” (Kraska, 2010) Certainly, we can agree with the view of later authors: “This view should be supported, since there is no indication in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS) that a crew is an essential element of the definition of a ship. Therefore, the rules of this convention, the definition of the rights and duties of countries, in relation to international transport, also apply to unmanned ships.” (Lafte et al., 2018) 2

Case Studies on Transport Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

G. Vojković and M. Milenković

the fact that STCW Convention finds no possibility for application of personnel based on the mainland. Others Conventions like (The International Regulations for Preventing Collision at Sea, 1972) (COLREGS) in its Rule 2 – Responsibility - states that nothing in the Rules could exonerate any ship, the owner or the master from the consequences of possibility of neglect, or any neglect of precaution which may be required during a common practice of seamen. Above mentioned indicates that there is highly no need for real-time human judgement, which remote-controlled ships will be able to comply, but autonomous ships probably won't be able to manage.

When we consider the possibility of emergence of autonomous cargo ships, the question arises: can autonomous ships fit into existing regulatory framework of International Maritime Organization (IMO)? To be specific, there are two (2) unmanned control methods: remote control and autonomous operation system; where the first uses a semisupervise machine learning, and there is always a human-in-the-loop (HITL) factor where a computer program’s learning algorithm knows that it can periodically and interactively ask questions of a user (or user group) to gather desired outputs at new data points. (Bridgewater, 2016), and on the 2nd control method human is ''not-in-the-loop'', the programme is pre-programmed to set nautical course by controlled algorithms (Veal, 2017). According to UN Law of the Sea Convention from 1982, Art. 94: it is required (b) that each ship is in the charge of a master and officers who posse appropriate qualifications, in particular in seamanship, navigation, communications and marine engineering, and that the crew is appropriate in qualification and numbers for the type, size, machinery and equipment of the ship; (c) that the master, officers and, to the extent appropriate, the crew are fully conversant with, and required to observe the applicable international regulations concerning the safety of life at sea, the prevention of collisions, the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution, and the maintenance of communications by radio (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea)., (further: UNCLOS). Therefore, UNCLOS requires that the flag State must take steps to ensure maritime safety, including measures to ensure a ship flying its flag has an appropriate crew in numbers and qualifications. Likewise, International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (further: SOLAS) in its Regulation 14 states: ''Contracting Governments undertake, each for its national ships, to maintain, or, if it is necessary, to adopt, measures for the purpose of ensuring that, from the point of view of safety of life at sea, all ships shall be sufficiently and efficiently manned.'' Also, for every ship Administration shall provide with an appropriate minimum safe manning which follows transparent procedure or issue of evidence of the minimum safe manning considered necessary to comply with the provisions of paragraph 1 of the Convention. (…) However, the duty only applies to ships at sea that are “in a position to assist”, so fully autonomous vessels may have reduced assistance obligation of notifying search and rescue services only. Conversely, if an autonomous vessel should get into trouble at sea, there will be no duty on other vessels to render assistance, because there would be no persons in distress at sea.” (New Ships, Old Rules: Updating IMO Rules to Cover Autonomous Ships, 2018) In Fiona Cain’s article in New Ships, Old Rules: Updating IMO Rules to Cover Autonomous Ships states that vessel autonomy seeks change in many fundamental conventions. As an example, we would like to mention SOLAS, the main convention for maritime safety. The first obstacle in the convention is the requirement of safe manning levels. “Regulation V/14(1) requires that national authorities adopt rules that all ships must be “sufficiently and efficiently manned”. The question is therefore whether – under the national laws of the flag state where a vessel is registered - it will be deemed to have safe manning levels within the meaning of SOLAS with reduced or no crew members on board. (…) The Maritime and Coastguard Agency of UK (MCA) would consider a ship to be safely manned if the crew includes sufficient officers and ratings with the appropriate skills and experience to ensure that the principles set out in IMO Resolution A.890(21) are complied with, and that the capabilities spelt out in that Resolution are available. The Resolution should be consulted when determining safe manning levels. International Convention on Standards for Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) (International Convention on Standards for Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978). According to the previously mentioned, a new regime is highly needed for the: remote-controllers, pre-programmers and pilots, due to

4. Autonomous ships and remote-controlled ships are already the reality When we write about the substance of this article - we have to emphasize that it is the present, it has already begun, it is reality. Specifically, there is an enormous amount of investment in technological development, but the legal development does not follow it for now. While billions of euros are being invested in new technologies, it has been only the first countries in the world to determine the areas for experiments with new automated vessels. This only leads to a real danger of the legal framework becoming a barrier to technological development. We must emphasize that both autonomous and remote-controlled ships are our reality, although in practice (outside of classified military research there is only one remote-controlled and one autonomous ship navigating). The first test for the remote-controlled ship was the tug Svitzer Hermod which in February 2017 carried out the first fully remote navigation in the port of Copenhagen. The ship was equipped with remote commands and cameras, and there was a commanding station on the mainland surrounded by monitors and other navigational equipment. Sailing through the harbor proceeded without any problems. For safety reasons, there was a whole “substitute” crew on board with the master, but there was no need for intervention. Mikael Mäkinen, Rolls-Royce President, Marine, said at the time: “It was an honour to be present at what I believe was a world first and a genuinely historic moment for the maritime industry. We’ve been saying for a couple of years that a remotely operated commercial vessel would be in operation by the end of the decade (Another step to remote reality). An example of a fully automated ship is the Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship (ASDS), a barge that served as a landing platform (the first stage landing), of the SpaceX missile. The barges are partially autonomous – after reaching the required position, independently by the help of their own engines, they maintain the position within three (3) meters. In case of emergency, remote control can also be activated. However, it is important to note that there are always some tugs in the vicinity – ASDS are autonomous while they are waiting for the rocket, as keeping the crew on the barge is dangerous. Shortly after landing, the crew embarked on the barge and secured the rocket (Evans). Certainly, we could take the point of view for which this is not the proper ship – it's a barge which does not sail but it is automatically maintained in one place, and nearby navigation is limited, and it also shows how the automation is possible and preferable. ‘’Manual’’ maintenance of the ship’s position within three (3) meters, on the Atlantic Ocean would require enormous effort of the crew. In doing so, we do not wish to go into technical details of the remote-controlled and autonomous ships, but to emphasize how they are reality, and not a distant scenery from SF-movies or even a kind of longterm strategy development. Also, autonomous ships are expected to have less greenhouse gases emission and new ship design, i.e. no deckhouse structure and zero-ballast concept, which have an impact on the ship wind resistance and fuel consumption, which will also facilitate the introduction of such ships. (Ait Allal et al., 2018) “The biggest hurdle to compliance with the regulatory regimes and 3

Case Studies on Transport Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

G. Vojković and M. Milenković

• Level 5 – Partial autonomy • Level 6 – Full autonomy

seaworthy obligations is the lack of any human physical presence on the ship.” (Luci, 2019) 5. Autonomous, remote-controlled and similar ships – division and the authorities of the master

In the first four (4) categories of autonomous systems, navigation assistance is present – but the key decision is on the master. We can mention the analogy between the master and the maritime pilot, where the pilot advises the master but ultimately master is the one who makes decision, for he can release the pilot. Here, the legal framework can be supplemented by adjusting the existing rules about the powers and authorities of the master. Regarding the various forms of automation, in the sense of level 0–3, we should mention that ships do not even have a problem that occurs when automating the road vehicles. In short, while a lower level of automation helps the driver of a road vehicle, for higher levels of automation where the driver is expected to take control only in the case of emergency, after some time the driver relaxes, and ceases to monitor the traffic. Due to significantly longer reaction on the sea, this logical consequence of partial automation of driving, will not be a problem with ships. The fourth category, Remote monitoring, introduces a new category - although the ship is under the constant control of the master, this connection due to technological and other conditions, could not be considered permanent. Power cuts, heavy storm and thunder, can interrupt the connection between the ship and the commanding officer on the shore. In that case, the ship must automatically secure its position without the assistance, even if it is the command: “Stop the machines” or “Keep in place with engines” or “In case the depth is appropriate, drop the anchor.” In these cases, procedures will have to be prescribed, and the ship would have to comply with, if it runs out of line with the mainland. For example: stop the machines, take a neutral position toward the wind, and turn on signal flags for the ship which is maneuvering with difficulty. The last two (2) categories; Partial autonomy and Full autonomy require a completely new approach and new legal regulation, which is still not developed. Briefly, this categorization follows the pre-established categorization of cars to five (5) categories of automation, but it is supplemented with the remote-controlled ships. Although, remote control is possible even with some types of autonomous cars (i.e. it is in the announcement); due to the speed of movement, and the possibility of loss of the signal, remote-controlled cars will presumably be limited in areas of increased risk of movement or cases of action in difficult circumstances.

The terminology of autonomous and remote-controlled ships has not yet been fully developed, so some divisions will also be mentioned in this paper. The authors do not consider these proposals as final, but as initial theses which will certainly be furtherly considered, and to which critical reviews will be given, both in literature and practice. Only defining the autonomy of ships is very complex: “One main difference is that ships are larger, slower and fewer than cars, but that consequences of accidents may be more severe. This is a typical characteristic of industrial autonomous systems. For ships one also must consider a more complex functional system (duration of voyage, energy, steering, hull integrity and stability etc.) as well as a very likely possibility that autonomous ships will be supervised from shore.” (Rødseth et al., 2018) 5.1. Division and powers of the master – autonomous and remote-controlled ship Considering that the degrees of automation have not yet been established, here we first propose its division. Then it is outlined the need to change the legal framework of the master of a ship, including cases (already cited in the literature) where the vessel will not have a classic master. Also, we mention the need to change the legal framework for remote-controlled ships. The first, basic division can be made into two (2) categories: a) Autonomous ships – are ships capable of independent navigation without a human presence on board, which can be divided to ships with no human presence on board and those without a navigation crew (e.g. can transport workers on the platform), b) Remote-controlled ships – are ships operated by cameras and sound receptables for shore streaming from remote location but are not provided for independent navigation (it is assumed to have a basic automation in case of loss of communication link, e.g. “stop and wait”). However, with autonomous ships the situation is quite different there is no master on board, and no constant connection with the ship.

5.3. Authorities of the master and levels of autonomy 5.2. The six degrees of automation Authorities of the master are significantly larger. As the authors of The International Law of the Shipmaster said: “We have observed that the law of the shipmaster is everywhere, yet it is nowhere. The shipmaster is often mentioned in cases, occasionally as a party and frequently in obiter dicta.” (Cartner et al., 2009) There are numerous reasons for this, even in today's fast digital communications, the master and the ship can be found in a very specific situation (ship failure, cargo delay, metrological problems and even the risk of piracy).

As for the detailed division of autonomous and similar ships is concerned, quality proposal would include ''navigation assistance '' (a term is borrowed from the road traffic – ''road assistance''); remotecontrol ships and autonomous ships, and it is specified in the document - Pre-analysis on autonomous ships by Mogens Blanke, Michael Henriques and Jakob Bang. (Blanke et al., 2017). They used already existing division of autonomous vehicles into five categories defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers and terminology listed in the (Lloyd’s Register, 2016), and suggested interesting, and very useful classification of autonomy levels (Al) of the ships (Table 1). As we already have a common classification of autonomous vehicles in five (5) different autonomy levels (Path to Autonomy: Self-Driving Car Levels 0 to 5 Explained, 2018), we can suggest, and by using the upper Table, classification of autonomous ships into six (6) categories:

5.3.1. Responsibilities of the master at the lower levels of automation Classical autopilot control of ships involves controlling the course angle. By including an additional control-loop with position feedback a ship guidance can be designed. (Fossen, 1994) At lower levels of automation, automated systems are only helping the master when making decisions. In this case, the formal powers of the master are not changed. These levels are:

• Level 0 – Manual navigation of merchant ships • Level 1 – Automatic course steering • Level 2 – Decision-support • Level 3 – Remotely operated navigation • Level 4 – Remote monitoring

• Level 0 – Manual navigation of merchant ships • Level 1 – Automatic course steering • Level 2 – Decision-support • Level 3 – Remotely operated navigation 4

Case Studies on Transport Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

G. Vojković and M. Milenković

Table 1 A pre-analysis on autonomous ships (Blanke, Henriques & Bang 2017). Terminology related to automatic steering, remote operation, remote monitoring and autonomy Manual navigation of merchant ships

Automatic course steering Decision-support

Remotely operated navigation Remote monitoring

Partial autonomy Full autonomy

The navigating officer gives the command for the wanted course and speed, either to a helmsman or as an autopilot setting and for bridge navigation of the ship's main engine. The navigating officer has electronic charts and own position and course. A radar system shows other ships' course and speed. Course steering takes place between encoded positions; the ship's autopilot ensures that the ship goes from position A to B. Decision-support consists in planning a route and speed profile in order to reach a port at a given time with a prediction of the sea and wind conditions underway. More extensive decision-support could consist in guidance for the navigating officer about the performance of an evasive action in narrow waters. Remote operation is used about the possibility of remotely operating a point for the autopilot and the effect on the propulsion machinery. Measured values from sensors in, for example machinery spaces, on course and speed are shown in real-time in an operation centre ashore or on board another vessel. Full monitoring includes transmission of TV monitoring and radar picture so that the operation centre has sufficient information about the ship and its surroundings to be able to perform remotely-operated navigation. The ship has systems for assessing the situation as well as the consequences and advising the navigating officer about how to react. The navigating officer is not necessarily present on the ship's bridge in person. The situation is perceived and assessed and a decision on which action to take is made without any intervention by human beings.

or more as they ever have — just in a slightly different way. Nowdays, the emphasis is on a different skill set, absolutely, but it’s wrong to say this skill set is somehow less important, or less demanding, than the old one PIC (pilot in command) is still managing the aircraft and has the right to a final decision.” (Smith, 2019) Levels 1, 2 and 3 of automation systems are therefore only helpful. The master and the on-duty officer on the bridge manage the ship, also, they are obliged to monitor all the functions of the automated system. Does the error of such system, which is not noticed on time, reduce their liability in case of accidents – it is a misdemeanor and beyond the scope of this paper. In these regimes, where the automated system is only a way of assistance, the master is still fully responsible for the ship as well as if there were no such systems. Although this paper primarily deals with the roles of master, we would like to emphasize that Level 3 - remotely operated navigation, in cases of regular navigation may exclude the need for on-duty officer on the bridge. By the definition, the function of the helmsman is to steer the vessel when it is not engaged on automatic pilot. The importance of this workplace today is large, even the change of a helmsman represents a formal procedure. (House, 2013), but when Remotely operated navigation is in function it will certainly raise the question of justification of permanent helmsman on board, especially in the open sea navigation. It won’t interfere with the role of the master, although the functioning on the bridge could become similar to the aircraft – where both pilot and copilot manage directly.

When talking about an autopilot, i.e. planning a route and speed; these systems should be considered only as help to the master. His decision is final. There are similar circumstances as if the pilot was on board. The Bridge Watchkeeping manual is intended for education of the officers of the watch (OOW), and it is clearly referenced in the IMO Convention on Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping 1978 (hereinafter: Convection) where states: “By monitoring the courses steered, the helm movements, and noting the passing of buoys or position off conspicuous points of land, the OOW will be able to assess if a mistake is made by the pilot. Buoys and floating beacons can be out of place and the ship's position should be verified independently whenever possible. Useful advice is given in the IMO convention resolution Annex 2: “If the OOW is in any doubt as to the pilot's actions or intentions, he should seek clarification from the pilot; if doubt still exists/he should notify the Master immediately and take whatever action is necessary before the Master arrives“. (Bridge Watchkeeping A Practical Guide, 1994) Also, the role of the master is being emphasized: The duty of the pilot is to direct the navigation of the ship. The pilot liaises with the VTS and other vessels in the vicinity, and advises on the use of tugs, of anchors, moorings and towing lines. “The International Convention, Annex 1, states: Despite the duties and obligations of a pilot, his presence on board does not relieve the Master or officer in charge of the watch from their duties and obligations for the safety of the ship. The Master and pilot shall exchange information regarding navigation procedures, local conditions and the ship's characteristics. The Master and officer of the watch shall co-operate closely with the pilot and maintain an accurate check of the ship's position and movement.” (Bridge Watchkeeping A Practical Guide, 1994) These rules date back to the era of maritime common law, which were codified in 1978, and they were quoted in the manual from 1994. And until now nothing has changed – the master is responsible for the ship and crew and even the presence of the pilot; (the local navigation expert) does not release the master of the responsibility. The master is also formally superior to the pilot. The master’s order is final. The Convention states: “The Master and officer of the watch shall co-operate closely with the pilot and maintain an accurate check of the ship's position and movement.” Automatic course steering and Decision-support are using as a help, but they do not release the on-duty officer and the master of responsibility. They are a digital equivalent of a pilot-on-board, very helpful but don’t take final responsibility for their actions. We can consider another analogy – the one in the air transport. A journalist wrote an article on how the planes today fly their own. The expert response is that pilots of today (apart from takeoff and landing) physically do not hold a steering mechanism and do not keep the aircraft's direction as it was during the 30′s of the 20th century, however: “It doesn’t mean they aren’t controlling the aircraft. Pilots “fly” as much

5.3.2. Responsibility of the master and remote monitoring Remote-controlled ships are already a reality – new satellite systems such as the Iridium NEXT provide fast enough data transfer by which an operator on the shore sees a real time image of the ship. In coastal navigation, expensive satellite links are unlikely to be needed, and the operation is close to shoreline. The connectivity can be based on the terrestrial solutions. Hybrid satellite-terrestrial solutions are also possible. (Höyhtyä et al., 2017) New technologies also enable the wireless transmission of the machinery and the equipment, (Panić et al., 2018), which can be sent by the fast connections to a remote base that manages the ship. With the present technology it's easy to imagine and realize a remote-controlled tug, the one that performs highly dangerous firefighting operation, or a smaller freighter that, in extremely bad weather conditions, supplies the island with no risk to the crew. The above mentioned also changes legal regulations, where one of the fundamental rules of all maritime acts, from the time of customary law addresses the master as the one obliged to be on board during the voyage. For example, Maritime Code of the Republic of Croatia (Croatian: Pomorski zakonik) states in the article 148: ‘’The master is obliged to be on board during the voyage’’. What if it’s located in a 5

Case Studies on Transport Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

G. Vojković and M. Milenković

poor conditions on board (a couple of interesting cases are cited in The International Law of the Shipmaster, including the event when the master spent 35 h on the bridge. (Cartner et al., 2009) As shipowners are trying to minimize the number of crew members, the same source cites the limitations given by the United States Oil Pollution Act from 1990. “This Act prohibits a licensed master or officer on a tanker from working more than 15 h in any 24-hour period or more than 36-hours in any 72-hour period except in an emergency or a drill.” For example, the latest container ships have over 20,000 TEU according to (10 World’s Biggest Container Ships in 2017), and in general on its travels between the continents they touch a very small number of ports (Mapping Supply Chains in the Global Economy, 2019). They pass through areas of very heavy traffic, for example: Singapore canal, Gibraltar, but they also pass through areas where traffic is very rare. Today's development of technology already allows a ship to sail automatically, without an on-duty officer on the bridge, with a minimum crew, in case of approaching another ship, changing weather conditions or generally increasing traffic density which would signal the master that human presence on the bridge is highly needed. Although, this model represents a high degree of automation in its essence, it does not change the master's authority! In this example, the master is on board and he would have been invited to the bridge when computer evaluates it. New regulations would have to make minor changes in master’s authorities – master would have to be present on the bridge, and only when a specific case would require it from him, but it should also be allowed by the regulations as a ship without a crew deck. Mentioned would also involve introducing the technical standards that such a ship must pass, including simulations of different situations when a computer should decide independently or call the master. At last, we have fully autonomous ships, and the question remains: when will they appear on the world seas? “In his article David Cowan presents various estimates: “According to Rolls-Royce Marine, by 2030 autonomous ships will be a common sight on the oceans.” On the contrary, Maersk chief executive Søren Skou has cast doubt: “I don’t expect we will be allowed to sail around with 400-metre-long on board,” he says. “I don’t think it will be a driver of efficiency, not in my time.” (Are autonomous ships the future?, 2019) The author states many advantages of such ships: “As 80 per cent of accidents are human error, autonomous ships offer safer solutions than crewed ships. However, risk in shipping will remain; it’s just that the risk of human error is transferred onshore to a remote control centre. Also, with opportunity comes fear, as the industry worries about autonomous shipping leading to new forms of piracy.” He cites a clear conclusion: “Existing international conventions, including Safety of Life at Sea, Convention on the International Rules for Preventing Collisions at Sea, Prevention of Pollution from Ships, and Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, were drafted on the assumption there is a crew on board.” The aim of this paper is not entering into technical predictions, which may depend on many non-technical factors. Clearly – the fully autonomous ship also seeks completely new legal regulation. It will almost certainly have the ability to be controlled from the mainland (Level 4 - Remote monitoring), as stated in the existing literature: “The Shore Control Centre (SCC) will almost certainly be present for all autonomous ships (…) It will be used partly as a backup in case the ship encounters unexpected events, partly to reduce the required complexity of on board detection and control systems and partly to satisfy legal requirements that some human is in control of the ship.” (Definitions for Autonomous Merchant Ships, 2017), and while there is a lot of work on the technology of such ships, the legal framework is still at a very early stage. As Oskar Levander states: “These ships will represent some of the most fundamental changes seen by the shipping industry in a long time. But other changes are probably in store as well. The shift from having a crew on board to having land-based technicians manage ships remotely will no doubt revolutionize the operation of the global supply chain,

remote location? It’s not just about a formal change of regulation, e.g. “The master is obliged to be on board during the voyage, or to be able to function effectively without a crew from a remote location”. A justified question arises: how will the master finish other obligations related to the ship’s readiness? The master is also obliged to take care of ship's supply, maintenance, hull condition, devices efficiency, and adequate stock quantities. These are the powers of the master defined by the Maritime Code of the Republic of Croatia (Art. 148), where a very similar form is also found in the maritime regulations of other states. There are two possible solutions: a) The master will check the ship and only then go to the remote control area b) Another person should check the ship and ensure that it’s ready to sail. The first solution is similar to the one used for civilian unmanned aircrafts. These flight standards still haven't been standardized across the EU, even though it's planned (Opinion No 01/2018) (Introduction of a regulatory framework), therefore we shall mention Croatian regulation. According to the Croatian Ordinance on Unmanned Aviation Systems a person in charge of the unmanned aircraft is also known as unmanned aircraft system operator. The following is explicitly stipulated: ''For the purposes of the provisions of the Air Traffic Act, the operator is considered to be the commander of the aircraft.“ Among other things, the operator is obliged by the Article 11 of the Ordinance to check and confirm the accuracy of the unmanned airplane system before the flight, collect all necessary information for the planned flight and to make sure that meteorological and other flight conditions ensure safe flight performance and ensure that all equipment or cargo on an unmanned aircraft is properly secured so as to prevent the falling of cargo. (Ordinance on Unmanned Aviation Systems). As the regulation of unmanned aircrafts takes place faster than the regulation of navigation in the Remote monitoring level, we consider that under a) the experience of managing of unmanned aircrafts could be used. Powers of pilot in command have been historically derived from the authority of the master, therefore mutatis mutandis there is no reason not to use this experience from the Air law in the modern maritime regulation. The master will check the condition of the ship and then begin remote-controlled navigation. Under b) there are still no regulated legal rules. That would be the case when the master is in one port, and an autonomous ship is in another port or is inaccessible. Thereof, it’s necessary to introduce the role of the person responsible for preparing the ship for navigation. In practice this can be accomplished by providing additional powers to the port agent. ''Ships and the ship’s captain approach a port agency to make sure that proper mooring areas are allotted to the ship and all the pertaining documents are ready and adequately taken care of. Additionally, port agencies also mention all minor and major aspects about the charges of customs and all other government procedures required to be fulfilled by the captain of the ship.“ (What is A Port Agency?, 2016) In our opinion, when considering all the powers and the roles of the port agent (Port Agency, 2013), he would be the most appropriate person to delegate powers of preparation of remote-controlled ship. 5.3.3. Responsibility of the master at the higher levels of ship’s autonomy The first case is “Partial Autonomy”. It’s interesting that computer system doesn’t replace a master but an on-duty officer and helmsman! Croatian Maritime Code states; (very similar rules are elsewhere); that the master is required to personally manage the ship whenever this requires the safety of the ship, especially if the ship enters a port, a canal or a river or when it’s leaving, but also during limited visibility. The principle must have meaningful limitations. Excessive stay of the master on the bridge might be a sign of poor organization or generally 6

Case Studies on Transport Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

G. Vojković and M. Milenković

but do not anticipate situations which could occur, such as the one in which the master manages a ship in the South Pacific while being in his office in Rotterdam or in Rijeka (Croatia). What happens when the fault occurs? What if a pollution of the sea occurs? What about a hacker attack? There are too many questions to be solved partially within individual projects, or even at the national or regional level. It’s necessary, to create teams at the levels of companies and universities, scientists and lawyers who will work on the development of the new legal shipping rules. Unfortunately, most people are not ready for the changes that come with technological advances, changes that are coming by using Artificial Intelligence (AI), and which surpass human ability to understand and adapt, and to accept the challenges of the present era. The impact of the new technologies will be enormous, both economically, socially, and also in terms of crew. There is no segment in shipping industry that will not be affected by these changes. “The impact on the shipping industry of the replacement within the proximate future of the hard work of masters, ships’ officers and crews by computer programs and artificial intelligence, assisted at most by shore-based vessel controllers have the potential to change the social and economic parameters of the shipping industry as much as the introduction of steel construction and steam propulsion did in the nineteenth century.” (Hooydonk, 2014) That is the reason why it’s necessary to work much more progressive on the new legal regulation, including a major change in the role of the ship's master. At first we could approach with minor changes to the legislation of individual Member States in particular in the area of inland waters where it would be possible to start using remotely-controlled and fully autonomous passenger ferries in the near future, and then create legislation that will be used globally, only once the technology has demonstrated its capabilities at smaller distances. We consider that with the current status of the legal regulations not being in line with technological development, we are actually on the verge of a scenario where the legal framework becomes the brake of technological development. “The international regulatory framework is structured on the premises of manned ships. Thus, significant amendments or a completely new convention will be required to allow unmanned ships to enter the trade. Prior to the adoption of the necessary amendments and the clarification of the operational status of unmanned ships the risk from an investment in the new concept design is considerably higher than an investment in a manned ship. The risk element is enough to deter shipowners from investing in the new technology.” (Karlis, 2018) The possibility of speed of technology development and the need for urgent changes of legal rules will be able to reconcile the old and the new opportunities that are ahead of us, unfortunately for now we still have no acceptable answers or ready-made solutions to rapidly moving technological advances.

creating new services, more-efficient schemes for leasing and pooling vessels, the emergence of online marketplaces for cargo delivery by sea, and other clever innovations for the digitally connected age.” (Levander, 2017). Similar, Torgeir Willumsen states: “However, all maritime conventions have been drafted on the basic assumption that vessels have crew onboard and it seems unlikely that flag states will push the boundaries here.” (Willumsen, 2018) In alia manu, the same author emphasizes that a national level changes could happen significantly faster: “By contrast, national legislators can move much faster as international conventions allow for national exemptions. In the Yara Birkeland project the Norwegian Maritime Authorities have publicly stated that they want Norway to be the first maritime nation deploying an autonomous vessel.” (Willumsen, 2018) It wouldn’t be convenient that law matters as questions of liability and insurance issues stop development, while the most complex technical issues are solvable. The master is the main person on the ship literally for thousands of years, but the apparent development of technology has also brought the time to develop a legal framework for ships without master. 5.3.4. A special case – ships without navigation crew The possibility of partial crews could also be introduced in practice. ''The first intelligent ship to go into commercial operation will use mostly technology that already exists. That vessel will likely ply the coastal waters of a single “flag state,” a seafarer’s term for a country that can provide the legal basis for a ship’s operation. The ship could be a ferry, a tug, or other coastal vessel traveling within a very confined area. It could still have a crew on board, although they will be carrying out duties other than navigating the vessel (Veal, 2017). Such a situation where a ship does not have an active navigation crew, but there are persons present in a different capacity (e.g. a group of workers who run a remote-controlled ship to the platform), which is also a novelty and it is not legally regulated by any existing legal rule. Due to the similarity of themes, and possibility of problems that may arise in the future, we shall mention the case from the science-fiction series “Star Trek - The New Generation’’, episode “Disaster”, (where the master is unable to reach the bridge, so the command over the ship is taken over the ship’s adviser, without navigation experience, but with formal rank. Adviser uses the advice of lower ranked officers – is such an option possible in reality as well?). It is possible that it will be an option in the period of transition to request that some of the passengers have a basic navigational knowledge. However, is an amateur that takes the control over the ship, a lesser risk than shifting the ship to Full autonomy and waiting for help? Only further researches will be able to answer that question. 6. Conclusion Existing legal framework presents challenges in current technological development both for remote-controlled and autonomous ships, therefore regulatory changes are needed to allow such ships to operate, but safety comes first! The ultimate goal is to enable the international shipping rules to follow technological development or to precede it. Therefore, the most important challenge lies on the engineers to combine technologies to avoid risk, dangers of collisions, navigate to the destination and perform complex maneuvers. These changes of having on-board crew to having engineers on the mainland who manage ships remotely, will undoubtedly revolutionize global supply chain for cargo transport industry, bring an increase of on-line market places for cargo delivery by the sea, which will disrupt relationships when new players enter global market. The same happened when Waymo, Uber, Lyft, Airbnb and other pioneers did in the other sectors of industry. The powers of the master are part of the customs, the state, and international conventions, which have evolved for thousands of years,

References World’s Biggest Container Ships in 2017. Retrieved 23. 3. 2019 from Marine Insight: https://www.marineinsight.com/know-more/10-worlds-biggest-container-ships2017. Ait Allal, A., Mansouri, K., Youssfi, M., Qbadou, M. 2018. Toward energy saving and environmental protection by implementation of autonomous ship. 2018 19th IEEE Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference (MELECON) (pp. 177–180). Marrakech: IEEE. Another step to remote reality. Retrieved 24. 3. 2018 from https://www.rolls-royce.com/ media/our-stories/discover/2017/worlds-first-remote-controlled-commercial-vessel. aspx. Are autonomous ships the future? Retrieved 23. 3. 2019 from https://www.raconteur. net/finance/autonomous-ships. Barbić, J. 2008. The master of the ship - shipowner's agent by employment, In Croatian, [Zapovjednik broda – punomoćnik brodara po zaposlenju], Proceedings of the Faculty of Law in Zagreb, 58 (1–2), pp. 15–33. Blanke, M., Henriques, M., & Bang, J. 2017. A pre-analysis on autonomous ships. Kongens Lyngby: Technical University of Denmark. Retrieved 11.. 3. 2018. from https:// maritimecyprus.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/autonomous-ships-pre-analysis-s.pdf. Bridge Watchkeeping A Practical Guide. (1994). London: Nautical Institute.

7

Case Studies on Transport Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

G. Vojković and M. Milenković

pdf. Luci, C. All hands off deck? The legal barriers to autonomous ships. Retrieved 11. 6. 2019 from NUS Centre for Maritime Law: https://law.nus.edu.sg/cml/pdfs/wps/CMLWPS-1706.pdf. Mapping Supply Chains in the Global Economy. Retrieved 23. 3 2019 from https://www. supplychain247.com/article/mapping_supply_chains_in_the_global_economy. New Ships, Old Rules: Updating IMO Rules to Cover Autonomous Ships. Retrieved 23. 3. 2019 from The Robotics Law Journal: http://www.roboticslawjournal.com/analysis/ new-ships-old-rules-updating-imo-rules-to-cover-autonomous-ships-56804504. Panić, I., Ćelić, J., Cuculić, A., 2018. Wireless condition monitoring of machinery and equipment in maritime industry: an overview. Scient. J. Marit. Res. 201–210. Path to Autonomy: Self-Driving Car Levels 0 to 5 Explained. Retrieved 19. 3. 2018 from https://www.caranddriver.com/features/path-to-autonomy-self-driving-car-levels-0to-5-explained-feature. Maritime Code. The Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia 181/04, 76/07, 146/08, 61/11, 56/13, 26/15, 17/19 [Pomorski zakonik. Narodne novine 181/04, 76/07, 146/08, 61/11, 56/13, 26/15, 17/19]. Port Agency. (2013). London: Institute of Charted Shipbrokers. Ordinance on Unmanned Aviation Systems, The Official Gazette of Republic of Croatia 49/15 [Pravilnik o sustavima bespilotnih zrakoplova, Narodne novine 49/15]. Rødseth, Ø. J., Nordahl, H., Hoem, Å. (2018). Characterization of autonomy in merchant ships. 2018 OCEANS - MTS/IEEE Kobe Techno-Oceans (OTO). Kobe: IEEE. Smith, P. We are told that planes basically fly themselves. How true is this? Retrieved 14. 3. 2019 from https://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/. The International Regulations for Preventing Collision at Sea (20. October 1972). London, Maritime Law. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Retrieved 2. March 2018 from http:// www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf. Veal, R., 2017. Unmanned ships and navigation: the regulatory framework. Retrieved 18. 3. 2018 from. http://www.marineclaimsconference.com/imcc-docs/docs/Unmanned %20ships.pdf. What is A Port Agency? Retrieved 20. 3. 2019 from Marine Insight: https://www.marineinsight.com/ports/what-is-port-agency/. Willumsen, T. A legal reality check for autonomous shipping in 2018. Retrieved 23. 3 2019 from Seatrade Maritime News: http://www.seatrade-maritime.com/news/asia/ a-reality-check-for-autonomous-shipping-in-2018.html.

Bridgewater, A., 2016. Machine Learning Needs A Human-In-The-Loop. Retrieved 1. 3. 2018, from. https://www.forbes.com/sites/adrianbridgwater/2016/03/07/machinelearning-needs-a-human-in-the-loop/2/#7ad92a2dfce4. Cartner, J., Fiske, R., Leiter, T., 2009. International Law of the Shipmaster. Informa Law, Routledge. Definitions for Autonomous Merchant Ships. (2017) Norwegian Forum for Autonomous Ships. Evans, B. SpaceX Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Sets Sail for Tuesday's CRS-5 Rocket Landing Attempt. Retrieved 25. 3. 2018 from http://www.americaspace.com/2015/ 01/04/spacex-autonomous-spaceport-drone-ship-sets-sail-for-tuesdays-crs-5-rocketlanding-attempt/. Fossen, T.I., 1994. Guidance and Control of Ocean Vehicles. Wiley. Grabovac, I., 1995. Croatian Maritime Law and International Conventions, In Croatian [Hrvatsko pomorsko pravo i međunarodne konvencije]. Književni krug, Split. Hooydonk, E.V., 2014. The law of unmanned merchant shipping – an exploration. J. Int. Maritime Law 20, 403–423. House, D., 2013. Seamanship Techniques: Shipboard and Marine Operations. Routledge. Höyhtyä, M., Huusko, J., Kiviranta, M., Kenneth, S., Rokka, J. 2017. Connectivity for Autonomous Ships: Architecture, Use Cases, and Research Challenges. 2017 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC) (pp. 345-350). Jeju: IEEE. International Convention on Standards for Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers. (7. July 1978). London: International Maritime Organization. Introduction of a regulatory framework for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems in the ‘open’ and ‘specific’ categories. European Aviation Safety Agency. Retrieved 1.6. 2019 from https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Opinion%20No %2001-2018.pdf. Karlis, T., 2018. Maritime law issues related to the operation of unmanned autonomous cargo ships. WMU J. Maritime Affairs 17 (1), 119–128. Kraska, J., 2010. The law of unmanned naval systems in war and peace. J. Ocean Technol. 5 (3), 44–68. Lafte, M.B., Jafarzad, O., Ghahfarokhi, N.M., 2018. International navigation rules governing the unmanned vessels. Res. Mar. Sci. 3 (2), 329–341. Levander, O., 2017. Autonomous Ships on the High Seals. IEEE Spectrum 24–29. Lloyd’s Register. (2016). Cyber-enabled ships. London: Lloyd’s Register. Retrieved 11. 3. 2018. from http://www.arbitrage-maritime.org/fr/Gazette/G43complement/lloyds.

8