Impact of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships on UNCLOS Terminology: Issues, Challenges, and Solutions

• Examine the effects of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships on UNCLOS terminology, highlighting key issues and legal hurdles.
• Analyze how autonomous vessels challenge existing international maritime frameworks, with focus on UNCLOS definitions.
• Discuss potential solutions to terminology gaps in UNCLOS caused by Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships.

Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships, UNCLOS terminology, international maritime law, legal challenges MASS, flag state jurisdiction, autonomous vessel regulations

Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) change how ships operate at sea. These vessels sail without human crews on board. They rely on sensors, AI, and remote control. UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, sets rules for ocean use. Signed in 1982, it guides navigation, resource rights, and safety. However, UNCLOS uses terms like “master” and “crew.” These assume people on ships. MASS lack such people. This mismatch creates problems. Ships must follow flag state laws. Flag states register vessels and enforce rules. For MASS, who ensures compliance? Remote operators? AI systems? Questions arise. Furthermore, UNCLOS grants rights like innocent passage. Coastal states monitor ships in their waters. Autonomous ships complicate this. How do states board a crewless vessel for inspection? Liability also matters. If a MASS causes an accident, who pays? The owner? The software maker? UNCLOS does not specify. Consequently, gaps appear in the framework. Experts note these issues. For instance, Dong et al. (2024) argue flag states struggle with jurisdiction over MASS. They point to UNCLOS Article 94, which requires effective control. Without crews, control shifts to shore. This weakens enforcement. Similarly, Coito (2021) highlights the duty to render assistance under Article 98. Traditional ships have crews to help others. MASS may not. Thus, the convention needs updates. The thesis here states that MASS impact UNCLOS terminology, leading to issues in application, legal challenges in enforcement, and calls for solutions like amendments.

UNCLOS defines a ship broadly. Article 91 says ships have nationality from their flag state. However, it implies human operation. MASS operate independently. This raises classification questions. Does a drone boat count as a ship? Parker (2021) examines this. He notes UNCLOS does not distinguish between “ship” and “vessel.” Both terms apply interchangeably. For MASS, status matters. If classified as ships, they gain rights like freedom of navigation. If not, they face restrictions. For example, in exclusive economic zones, ships explore resources with limits. Autonomous vessels collect data. Coastal states may see this as a threat. Consequently, disputes occur. Another issue involves terminology on manning. UNCLOS Article 94 requires ships to be “properly manned.” MASS have no crew. Therefore, they violate this. Fenton and Chapsos (2023) discuss IMO responses. The International Maritime Organization develops codes for MASS. Yet, UNCLOS overrides unless amended. Statistics show growth. By 2025, over 100 MASS trials happened worldwide (Hasan, 2025). These include cargo ships and ferries. Issues multiply with scale. For instance, in busy straits like Malacca, collision risks rise without human judgment. UNCLOS assumes human decisions in navigation. AI decisions differ. Thus, terminology fails to cover algorithms. Moreover, environmental rules apply. UNCLOS protects marine life. MASS reduce emissions through efficiency. However, they pose new risks like hacking. Cyber attacks could cause spills. Terminology lacks cyber provisions. As a result, gaps widen.

Legal challenges emerge from these issues. Flag states hold responsibility. Under UNCLOS, they ensure safety and pollution prevention. For MASS, how? Remote control centers replace bridges. Dong et al. (2024) identify enforcement gaps. Flag states cannot board easily. Inspections require physical access. Autonomous ships limit this. Consequently, compliance suffers. Coastal states face similar problems. Article 21 allows laws on navigation in territorial seas. However, MASS challenge innocent passage. Hasan (2025) argues autonomous vessels may not qualify if seen as unmanned. Unmanned craft like drones have different status. For example, military drones operate under separate rules. Commercial MASS blur lines. In 2023, a Norwegian autonomous ferry tested in fjords. It navigated without issues. But if it entered foreign waters, questions arose. Who communicates with authorities? AI? This creates liability challenges. UNCLOS Article 235 holds states accountable for damage. For private MASS, owners liable. Software failures complicate. Courts must decide if AI errors equal human negligence. Parker (2021) cites cases. Traditional collisions use COLREGs, collision regulations. These assume lookouts. MASS use cameras. Thus, challenges in proof. Furthermore, insurance shifts. Insurers demand new policies for cyber risks. Statistics from IMO show 75% of accidents involve human error (Fenton and Chapsos, 2023). MASS reduce this. Yet, new errors from code bugs appear. International courts like ITLOS handle disputes. They interpret UNCLOS. However, no MASS cases yet. Precedents lack. As a result, uncertainty grows. Coito (2021) warns of policy voids. States may impose unilateral rules. This fragments the framework.

Solutions require action. Amend UNCLOS. However, amendments take time. Only three happened since 1982. Instead, use IMO instruments. The IMO developed a MASS Code in 2024. It defines degrees of autonomy. Degree one has crew; degree four is full autonomy. This helps classify. Dong et al. (2024) propose integrating this into UNCLOS via interpretation. States can agree on meanings. For example, redefine “crew” to include remote operators. Consequently, flag states adapt. Another solution involves new treaties. A MASS convention could supplement UNCLOS. It addresses liability. For instance, limit owner responsibility like in oil pollution conventions. Hasan (2025) suggests coastal state protocols. Allow remote inspections via video. This maintains jurisdiction. Technology aids. Blockchain for logs ensures tamper-proof records. AI certification standards emerge. IMO works with ISO on this. Parker (2021) gives examples. UK regulations require cybersecurity assessments. Other states follow. International cooperation matters. UN bodies like the Legal Committee discuss. In 2022, they reviewed MASS impacts. Results include guidelines. Furthermore, education trains lawyers. Universities offer courses on maritime AI law. Thus, awareness builds. Pilot projects test solutions. Norway’s Yara Birkeland, an autonomous cargo ship, operates under special permits. Data from it informs rules. Coito (2021) notes benefits. MASS improve safety overall. Fewer humans mean less fatigue errors. Fenton and Chapsos (2023) add cybersecurity focus. Require encrypted communications. These steps close gaps.

MASS disrupt UNCLOS by outpacing its terminology, creating enforcement hurdles for states and liability ambiguities in accidents. Updates through IMO codes and reinterpretations offer paths forward. Global cooperation ensures safe integration.

References

Coito, J. (2021) Maritime autonomous surface ships: New possibilities—and challenges—in ocean law and policy. International Law Studies, 97, pp. 537-564.

Dong, B., Bautista, L. and Zhu, L. (2024) Navigating uncharted waters: Challenges and regulatory solutions for flag state jurisdiction of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships under UNCLOS. Marine Policy, 162, p. 105994.

Fenton, A.J. and Chapsos, I. (2023) Ships without crews: IMO and UK responses to cybersecurity, technology, law and regulation of maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS). Frontiers in Computer Science, 5, p. 1151188.

Hasan, S. (2025) Challenges to the Coastal State Jurisdiction over Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships under UNCLOS. Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy, 10(1), pp. 4-27.

Parker, J. (2021) The challenges posed by the advent of maritime autonomous surface ships for international maritime law. Australian and New Zealand Maritime Law Journal, 35(1), pp. 1-21.