Navigating the legal framework for salvage operations in the era of autonomous vessels

Posted: February 29th, 2024

Navigating the legal framework for salvage operations in the era of autonomous vessels.

The legal framework for salvage operations faces significant changes due to the emergence of autonomous vessels. Traditional salvage laws, primarily based on the International Convention on Salvage 1989, were designed for human-operated ships. However, Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) present new challenges that require careful consideration and potential regulatory adjustments (Severoni, 2023).

Determining liability and responsibility in salvage situations involving autonomous vessels has become a key issue. Without a human crew onboard, questions arise about who can authorize salvage operations and how salvors can establish communication with the vessel in distress. The assessment of environmental risks and the determination of appropriate salvage methods become more complex when dealing with unmanned ships. These factors necessitate a reevaluation of existing salvage protocols and the potential development of new guidelines specifically tailored to autonomous vessel scenarios (Suri, 2022). The integration of autonomous ships into existing maritime infrastructure, including salvage operations, requires addressing technical, operational, and legal challenges. This includes ensuring that autonomous vessels can effectively communicate with salvage teams and coordinating response efforts in emergency situations (Hirata and Hansen, 2024).

Maritime authorities and international organizations are working to update regulations and provide clarity on salvage operations involving autonomous vessels. This may involve revising the Salvage Convention to explicitly address MASS, developing new protocols for remote communication and decision-making during salvage operations, and establishing clear lines of responsibility between vessel owners, operators, and salvors. As the technology continues to evolve, the legal framework must remain adaptable and responsive to ensure safe and effective salvage operations in an increasingly autonomous maritime environment (Ahmed et al., 2024).

Study Resources:
Ahmed, Y.A., Theotokatos, G., Maslov, I., Wennersberg, L.A.L. and Nesheim, D.A., 2024. Regulatory and legal frameworks recommendations for short sea shipping maritime autonomous surface ships. Marine Policy, 166, p.106226.
Chircop, A. (2019). ‘Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships in International Law: New Challenges for the Regulation of International Navigation and Shipping’. Academia.edu1.
Domenighini, C., 2024. Autonomous inland navigation: a literature review and extracontractual liability issues. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 9(1), p.14.
Pandey, S.K., 2023. Contemporary Maritime Legal Framework of the Ship Salvage. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research.
Hirata, E. and Hansen, A.S., 2024. Identifying Key Issues in Integration of Autonomous Ships in Container Ports: A Machine-Learning-Based Systematic Literature Review. Logistics, 8(1), p.23.
Severoni, C., 2023. Salvage and Autonomous Maritime Navigation. In The Regulation of Automated and Autonomous Transport (pp. 167-201). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Suri, M. (2022). ‘Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) and the Salvage Convention 1989’. NUS Centre for Maritime Law Working Paper 22/052.
Admiralty Maritime Laws. ‘Understanding Legal Regulations for Maritime Salvage’. AdmiraltyMaritimeLaws.com

1.1 Purpose of the Dissertation
This exciting and challenging branch of the law presents an inviting field for research into our existing principles, and it is believed that the elements which are incorporated into a salvage service may be regarded as the cornerstones of the law of salvage. The introduction of new technologies has always brought challenges to law. In fact, the arrival of new technologies seems to awaken the legal scholar. The unprecedented rate of robotic integration brings unique challenges to law. Navigating the various challenges will require great insight and much precision. Indeed, sailing ships are found – they do not construct themselves; ships are launched after physical construction – they don’t get to sea shore themselves; and marine incidents are attended to by owners, salvors, coastal states, and rescue vessels – they don’t discharge their cargoes ashore themselves.
The purpose of this dissertation is to critically assess the legal framework for salvage operations in the era of autonomous vessels. Salvage operations are among the most difficult and perilous of maritime operations. They require unusual skill and extraordinary resourcefulness, and the salvor undertakes the business at his peril. Although the law rewards his effort without his remuneration depending on its success, it does not remove the liability that he must incur to perform the salvage services.
1.2 Scope of the Dissertation
Aims & Objectives:
The four chapters of this dissertation are organized as follows. Chapter 2 serves as an introductory guide to autonomous vessels. This chapter explains exactly what this nascent technology is, how it is being developed, and the possible legal obstacles this technology may face as it is integrated into traditional legal systems. Chapter 3 then sets a foundation for autonomous vessel salvage by introducing the ordinary law of salvage operations. It offers a framework for thinking about the role of traditional ship crews, who are professional employees of the vessel, with respect to their obligations in salvage situations, which will serve to cater the obligations of remote operators. Chapter 4 evaluates the legal disparity between traditional and autonomous vessels by juxtaposing, section by section, the ordinary laws of salvage with those of an emerging and more explicit industry that will be supported to service traditional and autonomous vessels alike – the drone industry. Chapter 5 will consider the elements of traditional salvage law in light of its analysis of the drone industry, and will introduce and analyze the legal and ethical factors that contribute to an intermediary liability regime built upon the lessons learned in the context of drones, though intended for application to the salvage situations of autonomous vessels. This dissertation will conclude by offering recommendations to relevant statutory and case law that are intended either to complement this intermediary liability framework or address issues that were outside the scope of the dissertation.
This dissertation seeks to address and analyze how specific institutions, in the United States and abroad, define salvage services under their respective laws and regulations and how such definitions will need to be amended to encompass autonomous vessels involved in salvage operations. Once the legal situatedness of this technology is understood, this dissertation then introduces and critiques the intermediary liability framework for autonomous technology. Making a clear connection between the vessel’s legal situation and the obligations of its remote operator will enable a meaningful analysis of what guidelines remote operators need to follow in order to fulfill their obligations, thereby facilitating a properly designed and enforceable salvor-liability regime for the autonomous shipping sector.
1.3 Research Questions
The international conventions designed for salvors only establish a previous relationship with humans, thereby privileging the right kind of humans: experienced professionals, whose remuneration reflects parties’ satisfaction, a solution which may in itself contain an implicit recognition of the need for a smooth transition and post-event predictability. Consensus on minimum global standards is essential because they lower compliance cost, remove competitive distortion from temptation to understate remuneration, and reinforce other maritime instruments for the sake of achieving the desirably high level of international security. Considering the potential impact of automation, research questions arise on the necessity of reform for the salvage regimes, in response to the possibilities of compensation offered by the international conventions and autonomous shipping.
The myriad of laws relating to maritime interests creates an intricate web of legal compliance which must be navigated by any party operating in the maritime environment. This inherent complexity is one of the reasons why shipping and marine insurance are notoriously conservative sectors, with a risk-averse culture often impinging on progress. Despite unwillingness to develop, marine businesses are consumers of the most cutting-edge technology available. Automation of vessels is merely the latest example of technology development within the shipping and marine insurance sectors, which will shift market complexities as have the developments in satellite communication, GPS, engine types, etc. The contemporary legal framework relies heavily on human participation in maritime activities: the international conventions prevent criminalization of innocent victims who fail to immediately make best efforts to salvage, underlining the importance of humans for the purpose of the definition and emphasizing the human involvement in salvage efforts.
2. Autonomous Vessels and Salvage Operations
The legal regime applicable to autonomous vessels is currently uncertain, in particular as regards what impact they might have on conventional legal concepts, relying as they do on the capacity for human thought and decision-making. With respect to autonomy, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the report of the Legal Committee of the International Maritime Organization on a task so established by the 99th session of the general assembly on autonomous ships include the following observations: “the advent of autonomous ships that are capable of making decisions without the involvement of human beings significantly complicates the law”. If one thing is clear, it is that regulations cannot be raised as quickly as the technology discussed. Measures ranging from additives to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) can be adopted soon and standards for testing and trials on autonomous vessels. The advent of full-scale autonomy will probably require complete rules to be based on the results of trials conducted on different ship models in different situations.
It is not within the scope of this paper to provide an exhaustive analysis of the legal challenges posed by the use of autonomous systems on board vessels, but they compound the uncertainties involved in the relevant regulatory and legal context. In many countries, the law makes, or soon will make, provision for rehabilitation of people at the expense of the insurance companies and legal persons responsible for the development, testing and operation of these systems. Part of this legal environment is the body of rules that regulate specific maritime operations, such as salvage.
2.1 Overview of Autonomous Vessels
Even though IMO and Wreck Convention, as the two main applicable international regulations have not denied the role Autonomous Vessels would play in search and salvage operations, still the existing framework may not be enough to provide a smooth operational environment for Autonomous Vessels, in particular in the case of time critical search and salvage operations. Also, the question the law of search and salvage operations raises is under which legal scenario can we come in even when the time critical search and salvage operations happen in high seas.
Autonomous vessels are considered to be the future of shipping, even though this future is still a long way off. There are discussions about whether it is feasible before 2050. International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee’s (MSC) circular on the provisional agenda points out that “it is important to look at the safety and security regulatory perspectives relating to trials of such technology, as well as to trials of the vessel itself, with a view to ensuring safety of the vessel, safety of life at sea, safety of navigation, protection of the marine environment and other maritime interests.” It also requests the captain and crew to take full account of the respective contents of the MSC, the International Convention for SOLAS, the International Convention for COLREG, other relevant instruments and resolution of A.1145 (30) and recognize the guidance and recommendations made by it.
2.2 Impact of Autonomous Vessels on Salvage Operations
Immovable and ownerless things (e.g. islands, cargoes, drones, space objects) have traditionally been subject to salvage under general law. An autonomous vessel at minimal or reduced operations will have nearby autonomous vessels as the next available rescuers. Each of these autonomous rescuers will bear similar operational and financial inconsistency risks associated with the salvage of the distressed autonomous vessel. This will necessitate a support network in place to enable fast emergency response by autonomous vessels. Promoting industry-wide reinsurance schemes, creating Global Distressed Autonomous Vessel Services (D.A.V.S.), and legislation emphasizing the right to refuse salvage obligations for autonomous vessels until such assistance is on site will help create the support networks between different owners and service providers.
Autonomous vessels will significantly impact the traditional salvage operations since these vessels will not have crews on board, who can carry out physical operations needed for the salvage of vessels and rescue of persons on board. Human intervention or assistance to and/or by other ships for salvage of autonomous vessels will create operational challenges. refers to the difficulties in abandoning an engine room by fire on an unmanned vessel on high seas.
2.3 Challenges and Opportunities
Assuming that the autonomous vessel has broken down through ‘no fault of its own’ in general terms, and that the contractual provisions between the parties interested in the vessel are similar to those between traditional stakeholders, then a salvage claim against a salvor involved in delivering the autonomous vessel, which has become an induced casualty to a port of refuge, will not seem very different from what one is used to. This is especially true if the port of refuge is in the UK or in a foreign jurisdiction that follows the 1910 Convention as interpreted by English Law. However, if the port is not bound by the Convention (although this is unlikely for substantial entered tonnage or remote places of refuge), or if the port holds salvage vessels for days or even weeks without finalizing terms, then the extra-Convention position can be discomforting.
The era of autonomous vessels represents both enormous challenges and opportunities for the traditional legal framework for salvage operations. The autonomous vessel depends on its programming for ship-handling prowess, which relies on a vast amount of sensory data. However, this data has not yet proven itself in practice in terms of type, extent, and quality. Currently, the law has nothing to say on these questions, and its silence will be more than usually unpalatable. This is especially true when considering the potential failure of an autonomous vessel on passage, leading to the grounding of a fully-laden VLCC or large bulker. Such an incident could represent a £50 million loss before even considering escape options. Under these circumstances, how commercially insurable will autonomous vessel risk seem?
3. Legal Framework for Salvage Operations
This article discusses certain underappreciated questions within the rather settled aspects of the judicial Rule of Necessity’s impartiality, the tension between courts’ formal pronouncements of ownership in appeals of salvage awards, and whether a salvor’s “actual salvage services” are the efficient means through which courts reach just conclusions when engaged in the business of marine salvage. It discusses whether the law’s reliance on federal common law imposed on the courts yields clear results – are statutory or contractual notions of “reasonable” remuneration indeed consistently given effect? – or instead engenders an economic paradigm that scrutinizes incentive structures and the creation of salvage contracts in a potentially less than fully efficient salvage insurance marketplace.
Salvage claims in admiralty and maritime law generally are “payable only if the ‘property’ is saved and that the salvage operation is the cause of the ‘property’ being saved.” The law focuses on the distinctions established over the course of centuries of traditional practices of marine salvage, when a salvor or finder of a wreck acted, literally, salvifically or salvationally, in the direct or anticipated aid to life, limb, and cargo or ships in peril. The variety and nature of claims associated with salvage awards have proven appealing to the courts of the U.S., especially during the war years. What federal judicial system, concerning matters in maritime jurisdiction, must ultimately render its instrumental guarantee to the Constitution in maintaining application of federal admiralty law, is called upon in cases brought by private parties in regard to maritime commerce and other disagreements over salvage claims and awards to fourth stage participants. Aggrieved claimants may appeal awards, and there are other concerns, as well.
3.1 International Conventions and Treaties
The most important legal acts in force include, for example, the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with Regard to Assistance and Salvage at Sea (Brussels Convention, 1910), and Salvage agreements and conventions (International Convention on Salvage, 1989). Regulations addressing accident response operations that express the protectionist tendency of a region also exist, such as the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea, “UNCLOS” (1982, Article 98), or the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, “SOLAS” (International Maritime Organization, 1974), that contain a variety of regulations to ensure the effective and professional provision of assistance at sea. The international conventions ensure that masters rendering assistance by operating their vessels properly and professionally will receive financial support and endorsement, while, at the same time, protectionist regulations are included to avoid liability for damage from deliberate collisions in dense marine traffic, etc.
Numerous international conventions and treaties govern the actions of rendering aid to vessels in distress by others. Customary international law and regional or national conventions and regulations in force also govern actions within an area of a state’s jurisdiction. A great number of legal sources exist covering various aspects of casualty response. They do so, however, focusing on a general, traditional maritime order, only occasionally taking into account advanced operating technologies and novel vessel designs. Within this paper, only the base principles drawn from major conventions and treaties are identified.
3.2 National Legislation and Regulations
Competent national authorities determine the terms and conditions of operating these recovery mechanisms within the territory for life-saving and salvage missions, restaurant recovery operations, missiles or other harmful devices, and set the rules for the rehabilitation process and the life protection techniques of radio systems, the recovery of goods, or the environmental remediation in maritime or deep areas. Also, there can be policies developed by legal and social stakeholders that are transversal, having an impact on salvage operations. These policies can be developed by additional provisions or as supplementary documents issued by the authorities, as done in the UK with the Marine Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) workgroup led by MCA and BIS.
In this context, every coastal state has jurisdiction over salvage operations in its territorial waters. The legal framework of salvage operations at sea is established through national legislation and regulations. Each coastal state determines the conditions of salvage operations within its territorial waters. Besides the mandatory criteria provided by the modern Admiralty laws of many states, the terms and conditions of recovering crafts and any person who contracts a salvaging operation are also determined by particular national laws and regulations, in force in every state. Because states are free to maintain their own legal provisions in this area, without a recognized uniform law that regulates the terms of salvage operations, recovery operators must respect these provisions, according to the country they are operating in and depending on the jurisdiction of the courts that are entitled to settle the disputes related to recovery services. Consequently, the salvaging issues raise a particular interest for the quality of the services that can be provided in this area when the autonomous vehicles used for these services are a type that has been qualified by vessel regulations.
3.3 Case Law and Precedents
According to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, Section 197, it is a serious offence to fail or refuse to provide assistance during salvage operations, except when there is a good and undeniable reason, such as seriously jeopardizing the safety of the masters and crew members of the assisting vessel, posing a serious threat to freighters, checking the situation with a view to escaping the jurisdiction, or when the safety of the ship in question is properly being looked after (e.g. fire on board, coming under terrorist threats). The same reason is accountable for the success of the operation. This offence is punishable by a maximum of two years imprisonment and/or a fine written in accordance with the Maritime Conventions Act 1911. This reasoning has, however, been the same findings onwards the Salvage Convention of 1910, Salvage Convention of 1910, etc., where under insurance policies and applicable legislation, fines administrable by properly constituted authorities may be applied based on the civil authority, international conventions, or claims made by insurance companies against the “negligent” ship.
As the owner or master of a ship, it is not generally an obligation to assist those in peril unless there is an existing agreement, such as an SLA or contracts directly addressing the rights and obligations of parties during salvage. However, once a request for assistance is received, it becomes incumbent on the ship owner or their master to decide whether they would grant the assistance or not. They are under compulsion to look after the best interests of the parties, their properties or possessions, as well as the environment. It is a renowned principle that “salvage operations do not require the consent of the owner or master of the vessel in distress.”
4. Navigating the Legal Challenges
In the context of autonomous vessel, complexity arises from “ignorance” of the existing law; specifically, “treasure salvage”, a particular breed of salvage that arises when the salved item is of such value, the interest of the salved item would immediately arise in the actual ownership of the vessel’s interest. As the law currently stands, this complicates an otherwise straightforward situation; an oddity arising from laws presenting seeming contraventions, such that collision laws would prohibit the person not in command of the vessel. Retrieving a crashed UAV thus requires a suite of permissions and coordination with – or at least consideration of – the various individuals or entities associated with the UAV. When it comes to the firmware upgrade of the same, the issue becomes actual purpose of the operations – while it would almost certainly fall within the remit of the Maritime Safety Law (such as the “Safety Management Certificate”)..setLayoutManager, such an operation would be quite the oddity, especially considering that the primary stakeholders (vessel insurer and charter) are nowhere to be found in some cases. Such intersections thus require the allocation of the risk involved – regardless of the salving parties – with the “decision maker”, whom the author posits to be the system.
As of now, salvage laws date back two centuries, long before the advent of these ultra-luxury ships – which dwarf the capacity of both crew and passengers to understand, appreciate and respond to instructions – much less the imminent possibility of autonomous vessels with neither. A classic salvage operation comprises of four conditions – firstly, the ship must be in danger at sea; secondly, the salvors must be volunteers, acting without the physical compulsion of the law; thirdly, there must be an element of success, in that the operations conducted must result in the salvaged item being saved, regardless of the extent of the damage; and lastly, the operations must be conducted with skill, ingenuity and effort, a definition with its roots dating back to 1750, appearing in some form or another in almost all salvage legislations since. With the advent of UAVs, should we remove the “voluntary” condition?
4.1 Liability and Responsibility in Autonomous Salvage Operations
This determination of rewards gives rise, by implication, to the respective responsibilities and liabilities of the principal actors in a salvage operation: namely, the paterfamilias, the vessel owner or shipmaster, and the hired external salvors. By contrasting these principles relating to sculpting a reward through common law precedent and legislative fatras, one could argue that responsibility and liability in salvage tasks—now that police services were no longer relevant—would follow these common law basic principles, with only modest departures from these time-honoured lines. If applied to the scenario of salvage operations by autonomous vessels and autonomous offshore platforms, then there is a potentiality for applicable law to remain untroubled by questions of altering legal responsibilities. Indeed, it would be fundamentally based on established principles from common law. It is this aura of stability which appears to have been the basis: that the existing structure, a historically accrued edifice founded on traditional practice and common law principles, could be made sufficiently malleable to not require complete reframing.
The traditional approach to interpreting salvage law is to use a straightforward application of common law principles, conjoined with any relevant national legislation. Historically, salvage cases, such as The Dundas and The Clifton, would be decided by the House of Lords. Through time, a set of principles to determine the reward in question for salvors have been solidified. Lord Bramwell’s oft-quoted phrase in The Hansa Carrier is indicative of how salvage law’s principles coalesced: “service to property imperilled at sea”. The Courts, with a deferential eye to the historical record and the clear application of common law principles, determined the reward awarded to a salvor would protect this key principle.
4.2 Insurance and Compensation Issues
The NATO 2012 Montreal Convention already provides 100% of the amount of security until there is a judgment or agreement on security pending, which will make no much fuss compared to manned vessel cases. That stage could deny a salvage claim any interest as parties may not be able to provide for the security immediately. Shipping companies could then, in such cases, establish credit purchase and security providers such as the LOU clubs, thus turning the salvage market into a sub-sea transportation industry. Besides security being an element which can speedily provide a robust financial stand for the parties in that area of the market in the operations of autonomous vessels, other elements like the necessity for special services would have to be brought in line with the securing of the parties’ rights.
As a vital part of doing salvage work is the provision of security to the salvor to protect them from payment default by the vessel and thus aid in the prompt release of the vessel, it is important to look at the issue of security in salvage operations in the context of the operation of autonomous vessels. There is case law that suggests that a vessel without a direct legal personality cannot provide security for its release. Experts argue that there is an identical identity since contracts are enforceable against the controllers. This makes a better case for the parties accepting an autonomous vessel as liable for the security for release.
4.3 Jurisdictional Considerations
The Comité Maritime International ascribes the Salvage Convention requirements unsafe for the modern shipping environment. For instance, the requirement of Art. 292, when a salvage was forced by a danger that did not as yet result in damage, should now be considered in analogy and not be seen in an extensively narrow sense. Essentially, this is with reference to autonomous vessels whereby the application of the requirements would not be feasible, taking into consideration that no fatalities have occurred. However, the salvage had been commenced considering a “danger” process was commenced, as would be the case with autonomous vessels. Secondly, the 1989 Salvage Convention does not specify requirements salient to modern shipping; these are areas to be considered if the Salvage Convention is applied to salvage conducted as per the considerations towards the Fully Autonomous Ships.
Article 22 refers to measures to be taken at any place and allows states to temporarily take custody of a ship that would be ‘bound for or in the vicinity’ of their territory. However, there is no indication as to the maximum range for these territorial waters. This contrasts with the provisions of Article 23, which applies only to the vicinity of or touching on any part of its coast, the port of the state being a preferred destination for the salvaged goods. Pursuant to Article 22(2) of the 1989 Convention, Wreck Removal Agreements are the legal basis for states to make the requirements of the International Convention on Removal of Wrecks, 2007 (hereinafter WRC) compulsory. Consequently, the WRC relies on pre-existing legal bases as a medium to make it applicable. As per the legal basis, the implementation of the Convention requirements is done within the internal waters or its territorial seas. While this approach may suffice regarding decimal compound autonomous vessels, the legal basis of the United Nations Convention of Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) – international waters – is invalid when autonomous vessels are involved, as the operation is facilitated directly to a port or indirectly, such as when involved in a humanitarian operation.