Autonomous shipping

Following the completion of the scoping exercise and work begun during the MSC's 105th session, the MSC has been developing a draft a goal-based instrument regulating the operation of maritime autonomous surface ships. 

MSC 108 (May 2024) approved the report of the third session of the Joint MSC-LEG-FAL Working Group on MASS (MASS-JWG 3). 

MSC 109 (December 2024) agreed to a revised Road Map for the development of a MASS Code, as follows: 

A Joint MSC/LEG/FAL Working Group has been established as a cross-cutting mechanism to address common issues identified by the regulatory scoping exercises for the use of MASS conducted by each of the three Committees - MSC, Legal Committee and Facilitation Committee. 

The Joint MSC/LEG/FAL Working Group on MASS (MASS-JWG) meets regularly. (Outcomes of these sessions on this page).

The scoping exercise was seen as a starting point that touched on an extensive range of issues, including the human element, safety, security, liability and compensation for damage, interactions with ports, pilotage, responses to incidents and protection of the marine environment. It involved assessing a substantial number of IMO treaty instruments and identifying provisions which: 

• applied to MASS and prevented MASS operations;  

• applied to MASS and did not prevent MASS operations and require no actions;  

• applied to MASS and did not prevent MASS operations but may need to be amended or clarified, and/or may contain gaps;  

• have no application to MASS operations.  

The degrees of autonomy identified for the purpose of the scoping exercise were: 

• Degree one: Ship with automated processes and decision support. Seafarers are on board to operate and control shipboard systems and functions. Some operations may be automated and at times be unsupervised but with seafarers on board ready to take control. 

• Degree two: Remotely controlled ship with seafarers on board. The ship is controlled and operated from another location. Seafarers are available on board to take control and to operate the shipboard systems and functions. 

• Degree three: Remotely controlled ship without seafarers on board: The ship is controlled and operated from another location. There are no seafarers on board. 

• Degree four: Fully autonomous ship: The operating system of the ship is able to make decisions and determine actions by itself. 

The outcome highlighted a number of high-priority issues, cutting across several instruments, that would need to be addressed at a policy level to determine future work. These involved the development of MASS terminology and definitions, including an internationally agreed definition of MASS and clarification of the meaning of the term “master”, “crew” or “responsible person”, particularly in Degrees Three (remotely controlled ship) and Four (fully autonomous ship).   

Other key issues identified included the need to address the functional and operational requirements of the remote-control station/centre and the possible designation of a remote operator as seafarer.   

Which treaties were looked at under the regulatory scoping exercise?

Maritime Safety Committee (MSC)

The list of instruments to be covered in the MSC’s scoping exercise for MASS includes those covering:

• safety and maritime security (SOLAS);

• collision regulations (COLREG);

• loading and stability (Load Lines);

• training of seafarers and fishers (STCW, STCW-F);

• search and rescue (SAR);
  

• tonnage measurement (Tonnage Convention); Safe Containers (CSC); and

• special trade passenger ship instruments (SPACE STP, STP).
  

Facilitation Committee

The Facilitation Committee considered the Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (FAL Convention).  

The FAL Committee's RSE concluded that the FAL Convention is able to address MASS operations into the instrument without major amendments. The results of the RSE mainly demonstrate that sections 1, 2 and 4 of the FAL Convention require a review or interpretation to accommodate MASS operations. Most requirements in section 3 of the FAL Convention have no application to MASS, however some provisions may require amendments. Sections 5, 6 and 7 do not affect MASS and are applicable in their current wording.

Legal Committee

The Legal Committee’s work on the scoping exercise generally concluded that MASS could be accommodated within the existing regulatory framework of LEG conventions without the need for major adjustments or a new instrument. While some conventions can accommodate MASS as drafted, others may require additional interpretations or amendments to address potential gaps and themes that were revealed through the RSE. 

It was noted that both the Maritime Safety and Legal Committees had concluded that the role and responsibilities of the master and the remote operator were high‑priority issues that must be addressed as a foundation for further work. Some specific legal terms required consideration in the context of harm caused by autonomous technology, like the concepts of "fault", "negligence" and "intention". 

The LEG RSE concluded that consideration of these issues would best be addressed jointly between the committees, so that both technical and legal aspects and questions of liability are taken into account, while keeping in mind the different purposes and functions of conventions under the purview of LEG and those under MSC. 

The most important of these were: