When No One’s at the Helm: Top Legal Risks of Autonomous Vessels

Autonomous vessels challenge traditional liability models. In the event of an accident—such as a collision, grounding, or environmental spill—there is no clear consensus on who bears legal responsibility when no crew is onboard.

• No established doctrine assigning fault to AI systems or developers.
• Disputes may arise between shipowners, software providers, and equipment manufacturers.
• Existing maritime conventions assume human presence and control.

• Increased legal battles and delayed resolution of claims.
• Difficulty in securing insurance coverage for unmanned vessels.
• Unclear enforcement of international liability limits.

• Legal frameworks must evolve to define liability for AI-driven incidents.
• Stakeholders should include clear liability clauses in contracts.
• Flag states may need to issue liability guidelines for autonomous fleets.

Maritime law is built on the concept of a designated master in command of the vessel. With autonomous vessels, command is often distributed between remote operators, software systems, and developers—creating legal confusion about who is truly "in charge."

• Who holds final authority: the shipowner, the remote control center, or the software itself?
• Traditional maritime terms like “master” and “watchkeeping” are undefined in unmanned scenarios.
• Disputes could arise in real-time incident response if roles are unclear.

• Port authorities may not recognize chain-of-command structures aboard autonomous ships.
• Operational delays and legal barriers to port entry or clearance.
• Increased liability for shipowners due to unclear delegation of authority.

• Develop an internationally recognized operational hierarchy for MASS (Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships).
• Codify responsibilities in ship documentation, including real-time authority protocols.
• Flag states could mandate minimum standards for command definitions in autonomous systems.

Most international maritime regulations, including SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea) and COLREGs (Collision Regulations), were designed for crewed vessels. Autonomous ships often cannot meet these requirements as written, putting their legal compliance in question.

• SOLAS mandates onboard safety equipment and crew presence, which may not apply to unmanned vessels.
• COLREGs require human judgment in avoiding collisions—something AI may interpret differently.
• Flag states face uncertainty when issuing certificates for vessels that don’t meet convention-era definitions.

• Risk of port detention or denial of entry due to regulatory non-compliance.
• Potential invalidation of insurance policies if regulatory requirements aren’t met.
• Difficulty participating in international trade routes governed by IMO standards.

• Update SOLAS and COLREGs to include autonomous vessel provisions.
• Create exception pathways or alternate compliance frameworks for certified autonomous ships.
• Encourage flag states and the IMO to pilot new interpretations or annexes for MASS operations.

While some countries are developing policies for autonomous vessels, there is no unified global standard. This patchwork approach creates legal uncertainty for ships operating across multiple jurisdictions and increases compliance risks for fleet owners.

• National regulations vary widely, with some flag states offering clearer frameworks than others.
• No binding international convention specifically covers Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS).
• Classification societies lack consistent benchmarks for certifying autonomous capabilities.

• Legal exposure increases when vessels cross into waters with differing compliance requirements.
• Delays or detentions due to lack of port recognition for autonomous status.
• Barriers to insurability and financing when regulatory clarity is lacking.

• Encourage IMO-led development of a global MASS convention or code.
• Establish model national regulations that align with international trade norms.
• Promote bilateral or regional agreements recognizing autonomous compliance regimes.

Autonomous vessels raise questions about which country’s laws apply—especially when operating in or passing through multiple jurisdictions. Conflicts may arise over flag state control, port state authority, and international law interpretations.

• Disputes between flag states and coastal states over enforcement rights.
• Unclear how liability is assigned when an incident spans multiple legal zones.
• Overlap between UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) provisions and emerging autonomous frameworks.

• Autonomous vessels may be denied passage or detained due to unclear jurisdictional rules.
• Legal claims may be complicated by differing national stances on autonomy.
• Operators may face redundant or conflicting legal obligations depending on the route.

• Clarify enforcement authority under UNCLOS in the context of MASS operations.
• Encourage international arbitration frameworks specific to autonomous vessel disputes.
• Develop “safe passage” corridors with harmonized jurisdictional agreements.

Most flag states require vessels to meet traditional standards involving onboard crew, equipment, and compliance with conventions designed for manned ships. Fully autonomous vessels often fall outside these norms, creating major hurdles to legal registration and recognition.

• Uncertainty over whether an unmanned vessel qualifies as a “ship” under flag state law.
• Lack of criteria for certifying autonomous control systems or remote operators.
• Some flag states may refuse to issue registration documents for fully autonomous ships.

• Unregistered vessels may face port access restrictions or be barred from international trade routes.
• Insurers may decline coverage due to registration gaps or unclear legal status.
• Without flag state recognition, MASS may be excluded from diplomatic protections and dispute resolution frameworks.

• Encourage flag states to adopt specific MASS registration categories.
• Develop new registration protocols that account for autonomous system capabilities and safety records.
• Establish model documentation standards for AI and remote operation systems within the registration process.

Traditional marine insurance frameworks rely on predictable human behaviors, standard operating procedures, and legal definitions developed over decades. Autonomous vessels introduce unfamiliar risk profiles and gaps in insurability that challenge underwriters.

• Unclear how insurers should evaluate risk when no crew is onboard.
• Policies may exclude incidents involving autonomous or AI-operated systems.
• Difficulty assigning fault limits payout or delays claim resolution.

• Shipowners may struggle to obtain comprehensive hull, machinery, or P&I coverage.
• Higher premiums may be imposed due to perceived legal uncertainty.
• Insurers may dispute claims involving shared liability between software, hardware, and vessel owners.

• Develop insurance products specifically tailored to autonomous operations.
• Encourage classification societies to provide risk benchmarks for MASS underwriting.
• Incorporate transparent logs and fail-safe records to support claims verification.

As autonomous ships rely heavily on AI systems and integrated hardware, malfunctions or bad decision-making by these components can cause costly accidents. Determining legal responsibility for those failures remains a gray area in maritime law.

• No clear precedent on whether software developers or hardware manufacturers can be held liable under maritime rules.
• Vessel owners may bear full liability even when third-party technology fails.
• It’s unclear if standard warranty or negligence principles apply at sea.

• Shipowners could be forced to litigate against tech suppliers across jurisdictions.
• Insurance claims may be delayed if fault is traced to third-party components.
• Operational trust may be undermined if liability gaps remain unaddressed.

• Incorporate detailed liability clauses in vendor agreements for autonomous technologies.
• Establish maritime-specific product liability standards for AI and control systems.
• Encourage class societies to certify both software reliability and hardware redundancy.

Autonomous vessels are highly reliant on networked systems, remote control links, and real-time data feeds — all of which create significant attack surfaces for cyber threats. Legal frameworks have yet to catch up to assign accountability when a vessel is compromised.

• No uniform standard for cybersecurity readiness or breach reporting in maritime law.
• Unclear who is liable when a cyberattack leads to damage or cargo loss — the owner, software vendor, or comms provider?
• Many jurisdictions lack clear penalties or remedies for maritime cyber incidents.

• Remote operations may be disrupted or hijacked by unauthorized actors.
• Vessels could become non-compliant with port cybersecurity regulations.
• Insurers may deny claims related to preventable or unreported breaches.

• Mandate baseline cybersecurity standards for autonomous vessels under IMO guidance.
• Define legal responsibilities for cyber incident prevention, response, and reporting.
• Encourage real-time logging and isolation protocols to contain breaches and document liability.

Maritime law requires that ships be “seaworthy” before they can legally operate. But in the context of autonomous vessels, there are no universally accepted criteria to define what constitutes seaworthiness—especially when there's no crew onboard to inspect or respond in real time.

• Traditional definitions focus on crew competence, onboard safety, and emergency readiness—none of which cleanly apply to crewless ships.
• Classification societies vary in how they assess autonomous vessel systems.
• Remote control and AI decision-making create new dimensions of operational risk not yet reflected in certification rules.

• Port states may question or reject certification documents due to lack of clarity.
• Lack of defined standards can void charter contracts or delay voyage approvals.
• Insurers may argue that vessels were unseaworthy at the time of an incident.

• Develop updated seaworthiness definitions that apply specifically to MASS.
• Work with classification societies to establish autonomous certification pathways.
• Include resilience, redundancy, and remote oversight protocols in seaworthiness checklists.

Port authorities and harbor masters play a critical role in maritime regulation—but most port control frameworks were never designed to evaluate or interact with crewless, software-controlled vessels. This disconnect can create delays, denials, or legal disputes.

• Many port state control regimes assume onboard crew are available for inspections and compliance verifications.
• It’s unclear how traditional port regulations apply to vessels without human pilots or watchkeepers.
• Remote inspection protocols and digital documentation may not meet legal acceptance criteria.

• Autonomous ships may be refused entry or detained due to regulatory uncertainty.
• Manual override systems and remote monitoring may be mistrusted by harbor authorities.
• Delays in clearance can result in demurrage charges or supply chain disruptions.

• Develop port-specific guidelines for receiving and inspecting autonomous vessels.
• Implement secure digital pre-clearance systems tied to real-time monitoring data.
• Encourage international cooperation to create standard operating procedures (SOPs) for MASS port entry and exit.

Salvage and collision law traditionally depend on human action, distress signals, and eyewitness accounts. Autonomous vessels complicate these situations—especially when no one is onboard to signal distress, navigate away from danger, or respond to nearby ships.

• It’s unclear how liability is divided when one or both vessels are autonomous.
• Salvage rights may be harder to claim or enforce when no distress signal is issued.
• Current rules assume crew decisions during emergencies, which autonomous systems cannot legally replicate.

• Unmanned ships may drift without coordination, creating additional hazards.
• Rescue and salvage operations may be delayed due to uncertainty over command authority.
• Legal disputes may arise over fault, especially if AI behavior is unpredictable or undocumented.

• Amend salvage laws to account for crewless distress situations and remote signaling protocols.
• Define AI decision-making thresholds and obligations in collision-avoidance systems.
• Mandate secure black box-style data logging for post-incident analysis and fault resolution.

When AI systems onboard autonomous vessels make real-time navigation or operational decisions, questions arise about who is legally responsible for the outcomes. Maritime law has not yet defined accountability for non-human decision-making in dynamic sea conditions.

• Traditional liability frameworks require human intent, fault, or negligence—none of which clearly apply to AI behavior.
• No universal legal standard defines acceptable vs. negligent decision-making by autonomous software.
• Complex decisions made by AI may involve tradeoffs that are hard to explain or challenge in court.

• Vessel owners may face blanket liability even when they had no control over the software’s real-time actions.
• Lack of accountability undermines trust in autonomous systems for insurers, charterers, and regulators.
• Post-incident investigations may struggle to assign fault or determine whether decisions were lawful.

• Define tiers of AI decision-making (advisory vs. autonomous) and clarify legal accountability at each level.
• Require transparent AI logic and audit trails to support forensic review and liability assessment.
• Develop shared legal frameworks recognizing “duty of care” for AI in maritime navigation systems.

Autonomous vessels must still comply with environmental regulations governing emissions, ballast water discharge, fuel quality, and pollution control—but automation and lack of onboard crew can complicate compliance, enforcement, and monitoring responsibilities.

• Many environmental laws assume crew are physically present to operate, monitor, and document compliance systems.
• Responsibility for emissions or discharges by autonomous systems is often not clearly defined.
• Some remote monitoring systems may not be accepted as valid documentation by port authorities.

• Autonomous ships may unknowingly violate local environmental regulations due to lack of real-time human oversight.
• Non-compliance can lead to heavy fines, denial of entry, or reputational harm.
• Ports may require manual verification procedures that autonomous ships cannot fulfill.

• Implement AI-integrated environmental control systems with automated logging and alerts.
• Develop internationally accepted remote verification protocols for emissions and ballast compliance.
• Update MARPOL and ballast water regulations to reflect the realities of crewless vessel operations.

The Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) and related laws are built around protections for human seafarers—covering working conditions, hours, welfare, and repatriation. Fully autonomous vessels challenge the very definition of "crew" and disrupt long-standing labor protections.

• Are remote operators or AI supervisors considered part of the “crew” under MLC?
• No clear guidance on how labor laws apply to software-directed or shore-based personnel managing autonomous ships.
• Existing seafarer rights and safety conventions don’t address unmanned operations.

• Shipowners may unintentionally violate labor regulations if definitions aren’t updated.
• Disputes could arise over training, liability, or certification of remote operators.
• Flag states may be reluctant to endorse unmanned operations without MLC clarity.

• Revise MLC and similar conventions to define “crew” roles in autonomous vessel contexts.
• Create certification and labor protections tailored for shore-based remote operators.
• Collaborate with unions, flag states, and tech firms to ensure fair treatment in post-crew operations.

Remote operators play a critical role in monitoring and managing autonomous vessels, yet most maritime training and licensing systems don’t address the skills required for these new roles. There is no global standard for certifying individuals tasked with overseeing MASS from shore.

• No internationally accepted qualifications exist for MASS remote operations personnel.
• Unclear whether existing maritime licenses apply to land-based operators handling navigation and emergency procedures remotely.
• Training requirements vary by flag state, leading to inconsistent operator capabilities and oversight.

• Lack of operator standards can lead to inconsistent performance in critical situations.
• Improperly trained personnel could contribute to liability in accidents or regulatory breaches.
• Port authorities and insurers may question the competence of operators during inspections or investigations.

• Establish international training and licensing standards specific to MASS operations.
• Require simulator-based training and scenario testing for all remote vessel operators.
• Mandate continuing education to keep operator knowledge aligned with evolving AI systems and remote-control tech.

Maritime law obligates vessels to assist others in distress—but how does this apply to autonomous ships with no crew onboard? Without personnel to make decisions or deploy aid, MASS may be unable to fulfill international search and rescue (SAR) responsibilities.

• Unclear if autonomous vessels are legally obligated or even able to render aid to others at sea.
• No defined process for how MASS should respond to nearby distress calls.
• Questions remain about remote decision-making authority in time-sensitive rescue scenarios.

• Failure to render assistance could lead to legal liability or reputational damage.
• Traditional SAR coordination systems may not recognize MASS as capable responders.
• Ports or flag states may limit access or registration without SAR compliance assurances.

• Define alternative SAR obligations for MASS, such as relaying distress signals or serving as communication relays.
• Equip autonomous vessels with deployable aid packages or drone-based SAR tools.
• Update international SAR conventions to include autonomous response protocols and exemptions.

Many foundational maritime laws rely on terms like “master,” “crew,” and “watchkeeping”—but these roles no longer exist in the traditional sense aboard fully autonomous vessels. As a result, legal obligations tied to these terms are now outdated and difficult to interpret.

• Maritime codes assume a human shipmaster is always present and in command.
• Watchkeeping regulations require visual observation, which conflicts with AI-based monitoring systems.
• Crew-related obligations, such as manning levels and certifications, are not clearly applicable to MASS.

• Autonomous ships may be found non-compliant with outdated statutes.
• Legal challenges can arise during inspections, audits, or post-incident investigations.
• Insurance or port access may be denied if vessel documentation references outdated human roles.

• Modernize maritime terminology to include digital watchkeeping and virtual command structures.
• Amend SOLAS, STCW, and other conventions to reflect autonomous control environments.
• Define and certify alternative roles such as remote operator, AI supervisor, or autonomous navigation controller.

Autonomous vessels rely on continuous data collection and remote monitoring—raising new concerns about who owns that data, how it’s protected, and whether it complies with global privacy laws. Maritime law has yet to define clear standards in this space.

• Unclear who owns operational data—shipowner, software provider, or monitoring service?
• Potential conflicts between flag state laws and international data privacy regulations (e.g., GDPR).
• No unified standards for storing or transmitting sensitive maritime data securely.

• Unauthorized access to data streams could lead to cyber risks, espionage, or manipulation.
• Operators may unintentionally violate privacy laws if data from territorial waters is collected or stored improperly.
• Insufficient logging and data security could result in liability during incident reviews.

• Define ownership and access rights through clear contractual terms between all stakeholders.
• Implement encryption and data governance policies aligned with international cybersecurity and privacy standards.
• Encourage IMO and classification societies to create minimum data protection guidelines for MASS systems.

Autonomous vessels are powered by a complex web of integrated technologies—AI software, navigation systems, sensors, remote control stations, and communication infrastructure. When something goes wrong, multiple parties may share responsibility, creating legal gridlock.

• No standard method exists to allocate blame across software vendors, hardware suppliers, operators, and shipowners.
• Conflicting contract terms between parties may complicate liability and claims processing.
• Lack of legal clarity on joint vs. several liability in autonomous failures.

• Disputes may delay insurance settlements or result in prolonged litigation.
• Stakeholders may face increased legal costs defending against overlapping claims.
• Inconsistent contract language can undermine efforts to assign risk appropriately.

• Use standardized, layered contract templates that clarify obligations and liability limits for each stakeholder.
• Incorporate arbitration clauses to streamline multi-party dispute resolution.
• Encourage legal frameworks that recognize and manage shared liability in maritime technology ecosystems.