On the Legal Status of Unmanned Ships

LI Rui

Abstract:Due to the rise of unmanned technology,unmanned ships are playing an increasingly important role in various fields,which has triggered the discussion on its legal status,that is,whether an unmanned ship constitutes a“ship”in international law.This article will analyze the international conventions that have a high degree of relevance to“ships”,namely,the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea,the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea,and the International Convention on Standards of Training,Certification,and Watchkeeping.Legal status that unmanned ships may face will also be discussed.

Key Words:Unmanned ships;Legal system;United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea;International Maritime Organization

With the rise of unmanned technology,unmanned ships have played an increasingly important role in marine monitoring,marine scientific research and other fields.Their applications in civilian fields have also increased significantly.Both domestic and foreign companies are promoting the research and development of technologies related to unmanned ships.For example,Rolls-Royce in the United Kingdom is developing intelligent sensing systems for unmanned ships,while South Korea has developed a common technology platform for unmanned ships,and Denmark has also launched unmanned ship research and development projects.In China,Harbin Engineering University and Shenzhen Hispeed Boats Technology Co.have developed the world’s fastest unmanned ship;Zhuhai Yunzhou Intelligent Technology Co.,Ltd.has built the world’s largest surface test platform (225 square nautical miles).In addition,China Classification Society (CCS)issued the 2015 Rules for Intelligent Ships,which provides a guideline for the subsequent development of unmanned ships.Due to the use of special power drives and identification systems,unmanned ships do not need crews on board to operate the ship like traditional manned ships,which leads to the discussion on its legal status,that is,whether unmanned ships constitute the definitions of“ship”in international law.This article will analyze the international conventions that are highly relevant to“ships”and discuss the challenges that unmanned ships pose to the existing legal system as well as the legal obstacles that unmanned ships may face.

I.Unmanned Ships

A.Definition of Unmanned ships

Unmanned ships are,according to Paul Pritchett,vessels that“operate on the surface of the water and navigate by remote control,autonomous means,or a hybrid of the two.”1Paul W.Pritchett,Ghost Ship:Why the Law Should Embrace Unmanned Vessel Technology,Tulane Maritime Law Journal,Vol.40,No.1,2015,pp.197～225.To analyze the legal status of unmanned ships,it is necessary to analyze the concepts and terms first.

At present,the term of“unmanned ship”has not been unified,and its usage varies from country to country.For example,the U.S.Navy’s combat manual defines unmanned surface vehicles (USVs)as automatic or remote-controlled vehicles launched from ground,underground,or aerial platforms,2Scott Savitz,Irv Blickstein et al.,U.s.Navy Employment Options for Unmanned surface Vehicles (UsVs),Rand Corporation,2013.while the American scholar Daniel Vallejo defines a USV as“a craft built to navigate the ocean and provide defense on maritime fronts.”3Daniel Vallejo,Electric Currents:Programming Legal Status into Autonomous Unmanned Maritime Vehicles,Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law,Vol.47,2015.European States mostly apply“autonomous ships”to USVs.For instance,Maritime Autonomous surface ships -UK Code of Practice inherits the term of the International Maritime Organization(IMO),namely,“maritime autonomous surface ships”(MASS),or ships that can operate without manning.The Maritime Unmanned Navigation through Intelligence in Networks of Germany defines“autonomous vessels”as vessels“equipped with modular control systems and communication technology to enable wireless monitoring and control,including advanced decision support systems and the capabilities for remote and autonomous operation.”4Maritime Unmanned Navigation through Intelligence in Networks,at http://www.unman ned-ship.org/munin/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/MUNIN-final-brochure.pdf,7 September 2019.European academics also use the concept of“unmanned ship”:for example,the British scholar Robert Veal says“unmanned ships are those which are capable of controlled movement on the water in the absence of any on board crew”.5Robert Veal and Henrik Ringbom,Unmanned Ships and the International Regulatory Framework,Journal of International Maritime Law,Vol.23,2017,pp.100～118.At the same time,research in China mostly uses“intelligent ship”,defined as“ships which automatically perceive and obtain information and data on ship itself,marine environment,logistics and port by making use of sensors,communication,the Internet of Things,the Internet and other technical means,and achieve intelligent operation in terms of ship navigation,management,maintenance and cargo transportation based on computer technology.”6Art.1.1.3,Rules for Intelligent Ships 2015,at https://www.ccs.org.cn/ccswzen/font/fontAction!article.do?articleId=4028e3d65494918801569776b4ec03e6,13 January 2020.The articles of Chinese scholars that employ the terms of“unmanned ships”and“MASS”agree with the definitions of foreign scholars and IMO.

The Maritime Safety Committee (MSC)of the IMO held its 99th session in May 2018,and defined MASS as“a ship which,to a varying degree,can operate independently of human interaction.”7Maritime Safety Committee Session 99 (16 -26 May 2018),at https://www.ifsma.org/resources/MSC-99-REPORT.pdf,5 September 2019.Emphasizing“to a varying degree”,the IMO intends to expand the scope of autonomous ships.Such a definition can take into consideration the ships equipped with crew,remote control and fully autonomous ships,so that“autonomous ships”can be subcategorized according to the actual situation later,which will appropriately alleviate the inconvenience caused by the lag of legislation.

This also reflects the differences in the focus of the definition of“unmanned ship”in different States and different fields.“Autonomous”highlights the operation mode,while“unmanned”focuses on the unmanning of the ship.By analyzing the provisions of international treaties on ships,we will find that it is“whether there is a crew on the ship”that has a greater impact on the ship’s characterization and navigation requirements,rather than the“operation mode of the ship”.In addition,due to the differences in the levels of the current autonomous ships,some require remote control,and some can achieve full automatic navigation.According to the classification by the IMO (to be discussed below),there may be crew members on the ship,that is,there may be“autonomous ships with crew”.8Clement Renault,Autonomous ≠ Unmanned:How the Maritime Industry Can Invent Its Own Path in the Autonomous Space,at https://medium.com/shone-blog/autonomousunmanned-ab3b7da565ad,5 September 2019.The focus of this article is on the legal status of the ships not equipped with crew;thereby the more direct and appropriate phrase of“unmanned ship”will be adopted.In addition,perusing the comprehensive academic views on this term,one can notice the definition of“unmanned ship”should emphasize both the particularity of“unmanned”and the mode of operation.Thus,this paper will apply Paul Pritchett’s definition of ships that“operate on the surface of the water and navigate by remote control,autonomous means,or a hybrid of the two.”

B.Operation Modes of Unmanned ships

The operation modes of unmanned ships can be roughly divided into two categories,namely,remote control and fully autonomous.The former means ships are controlled by a computer on the shore or the“mother ship”,and the latter uses a combination of sonar,radar and computer algorithms to complete the scheduled route without any human-ship interaction.9Les Elkins,Drew Sellers et al.,The Autonomous Maritime Navigation (AMN)Project:Field Tests,Autonomous and Cooperative Behaviors,Data Fusion,Sensors,and Vehicles,at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rob20367/epdf,7 September 2019.

Scholars generally classify the operation modes of the unmanned ship as being remotely controlled by the shore station or guided by the autonomous decision system on board.In this case,the subcategories by various agencies and companies present more obvious differences among levels of ship autonomy.For example,the first level of the autonomy defined by Lloyd’s Register is that the crew on board make all decisions though the decision is affected by the system on the ship;and the sixth level,the highest level,refers to full autonomy,that is,all decisions are made by the system in an unsupervised situation.10LR Defines“Autonomy Levels”for Ship Design and Operation,at http://www.lr.org/en/news-and-insight/news/LR-defines-autonomy-levels-for-ship-design-and-operation.aspx,21 September 2019.The 2015 Rules for Intelligent Ships divides the development of intelligent ships into four stages,namely,the capability of sensing,the capability of assisting decision-making of the crew,the capability of partial autonomous navigation under remote control,and the capability of complete unmanned navigation.

The IMO proposes there are four levels of autonomy.The first level is for ships with autonomous processing and decision-making support with the crew on board to operate and control the functional systems.The ship’s operation can be autonomous and unsupervised notwithstanding the crew is ready to take over.The second level refers to a ship with crew on board and capable of remote control,that is,the ship is controlled from somewhere else with the crew being able to control and operate on board.The third level means ships have no crew on board but are capable of being remotely controlled from other locations;ships of the fourth level are full autonomous ships,whose operating system can autonomously make decisions and take actions.11Maritime Safety Committee Session 99 -16 -26 May 2018,at https://www.ifsma.org/resources/MSC-99-REPORT.pdf,5 September 2019.Based on these standards,some scholars have proposed a non-linear model of autonomy level and manning on board,that is,the higher the autonomy level,the fewer the staff on board,and the highest autonomy level is without crew on board.12Henrik Ringbom,Regulating Autonomous Ships -Concepts,Challenges and Precedents,Ocean Development &International Law,Vol.23,2019,pp.141～169.

II.Regulations of Unmanned Ships in International Conventions

The IMO mentioned at its 100th meeting in December 2018 that currently more than 95% of ships are still in the first level of autonomy13Maritime Safety Committee Session 100 (3-7 Dec 2018),at http://ifsma.org/resources/MSC-100-REPORT.pdf,5 September 2019.(see above for details),that is,the ship is still equipped with crew.It is not appropriate,however,to stop discussions on the legal issues of unmanned ships.Unmanned ships have many advantages over manned ships.In addition to efficient sailing and high speed,the use of unmanned ships can greatly reduce marine accidents (75% to 95% of marine accidents are caused by human error).14The Autonomous Revolution,at https://maritime-executive.com/features/the-autonomousrevolution,20 September 2019.In the long run,the cost of using unmanned vessels is also lower than that of traditional manned vessels (wages,living expenses,and personal accident compensation of the crew account for 40% of the total cost of operating the vessel).15Alan M.Weigel and Sean T.Pribyl,The Future is Now:Unmanned and Autonomous Surface Vessels and Their Impact on the Maritime Industry,at https://www.blankrome.com/publications/future-now-unmanned-and-autonomous-surface-vessels-and-their-impactmaritime-0,5 September 2019.In the process of developing the technology,unmanned ships will also face incompatibility with international laws,regulations and legal provisions.For example,the specific requirements of international law for the safety of traditional manned vessels and the qualifications of crew members should not be taken for granted.The first problem to be solved is to clarify the international legal status of unmanned ships,based on which there will be further explanation of the provisions of international law related to unmanned ships.To determine whether an unmanned ship is a“ship”in the sense of international law,it is necessary to return to the definition and interpretation of“ship”in international treaties,namely,the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter referred to as the“UNCLOS”)and the conventions and the regulations issued by the IMO.

A.Definition and Requirements for“ship”in the UNCLOs

The first thing that needs to be clarified is the term“ship”in the UNCLOS.The UNCLOS uses both“ship”(such as Articles 91 and 94 which provide for the nationality of ships and duties of the flag State)and“vessel”(such as Articles 211 and 292 concerning pollution from vessels and the prompt release of vessels and crews),but did not clarify the legal status of“vessel”or“ship”,not to mention the differences between the two.A Collection of International Maritime Treaties adopts different Chinese translations for“ship”and“vessel”.16HU Zhengliang and ZHU Jianxin eds.,A Collection of International Maritime Treaties,Vol.5,Dalian:Dalian Maritime University Press,2015.(in Chinese)As for the meaning of the word itself,according to the Oxford Dictionary,“vessel”means“a ship or large boat”,while“ship”refers to“a large boat for transporting people or goods by sea”.As defined by Wikidiff,“vessel”refers to any surface vehicle,including“ships”.17What Is the Difference Between Ship and Vessel?,at https://wikidiff.com/ship/vessel,28 August 2019.Therefore,“vessel”is used to describe any floating object (even if the definition is not fully accepted)18In the case Lozman v.City of Riviera Beach,the judge of the U.S.supreme court did not ratify“the floating home”as“vessel”.See Gotthard Mark Gauci,Is It a Vessel,a Ship or a Boat,Is It Just a Craft,or Is It Merely a Contrivance,Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce,Vol.47,2016,pp.479～500.that can transport people or goods.The more complicated and larger one is called“ship”.

So,is there a clearer differentiated definition of the two in other international conventions? The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea(hereinafter referred to as the“COLREGs”)defines“vessels”as“every description of water craft,including nondisplacement craft,WIG craft and seaplanes,used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water”;in the 1996 International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea,“ship”means“any seagoing vessel and seaborne craft,of any type whatsoever”;the Maritime Labour Convention defines“ship”as“a ship other than one which navigates exclusively in inland waters or waters within,or closely adjacent to,sheltered waters or areas where port regulations apply.”It seems“ship”and“vessel”are interchangeable in international treaties,regardless of the operating mode or whether the ship is equipped with crew.Studies by international scholars have also recognized that unmanned ships can be regarded as“ships”under the UNCLOS,regardless of their size,operating mode,and function.19Robert Veal,Unmanned Ships and the International Regulatory Framework,Journal of International Maritime Law,Vol.23,2017,pp.100～118.Therefore,the two terms used in the UNCLOS referring to ships are not significantly different;unmanned ships can also be classified as“ships”under the UNCLOS and thus enjoy the rights of ships.

Article 5(1)of the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the High Seas (hereinafter referred to as the“GCHS”)stipulates:

Each state shall fix the conditions for the grant of its nationality to ships,for the registration of ships in its territory,and for the right to fly its flag.ships have the nationality of the state whose flag they are entitled to fly.There must exist a genuine link between the state and the ship;in particular,the state must effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative,technical and social matters over ships flying its flag.

With no specific definition of“ship”,the UNCLOS inherits the provisions of GCHS,namely,“a genuine link between the State and the ship”and“the State must effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative,technical and social matters over ships flying its flag”.Article 94(2)(b)of the UNCLOS,in particular,provides:“every State shall assume jurisdiction under its internal law over each ship flying its flag and its master,officers and crew in respect of administrative,technical and social matters concerning the ship”;paragraph 3 of the same article states that:

Every state shall take such measures for ships flying its flag as are necessary to ensure safety at sea with regard,inter alia,to:

(a)the construction,equipment and seaworthiness of ships;

(b)the manning of ships,labour conditions and the training of crews,taking into account the applicable international instruments;

(c)the use of signals,the maintenance of communications and the prevention of collisions.

These three regulations also correspond to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (hereinafter referred to as the“SOLAS”),the COLREGs,and the International Convention on Standards of Training,Certification,and Watchkeeping (hereinafter referred to as the“STCW”)issued by the IMO.

Paragraphs (b)and (c)of Article 94(4)of the UNCLOS have a greater impact on unmanned ships since they stipulate:

(b)that each ship is in the charge of a master and officers who possess 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.

These provisions come from relevant items in a working paper on the high seas submitted by nine Western European States at the second part of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.20Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 1973-1982,Document:A/CONF.62/C.2/L.54,Belgium,Denmark,France,Germany (Federal Republic of),Ireland,Italy,Luxembourg,Netherlands and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:Working Paper on the High Seas,at https://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/1973_los/vol3.shtml,7 September 2019.Concerning the safety of life at sea,the provision in the working paper is:

Take the necessary measures to ensure that the master and officers are fully conversant with and are required to observe the appropriate applicable international regulations concerning the safety of life at sea,the prevention and control of marine pollution,the prevention of collisions and the maintenance of communications by radio.

The final version in the UNCLOS adds“to the extent appropriate,the crew”beyond the main scope of“the master and officers”,expanding the relevant responsible parties,thus protecting the sea and the safety of life at sea to the maximum extent,as well as preventing collisions at sea.

So,does the UNCLOS make“having crew on board”a necessary condition for ships? According to the text itself,that the flag State shall take necessary measures with regards to“the master,officers and,to the extent appropriate,the crew”does not mean that their presence on board is a constituent element of the ship.First,when defining the flag State’s duties,the UNCLOS should include a broader scope in order to stipulate as many measures as possible for the flag State.Encompassing the master,officers,and crew is in line with the purpose of the UNCLOS.Furthermore,neither Article 91 of the UNCLOS (“Every State shall fix the conditions for the grant of its nationality to ships,for the registration of ships in its territory,and for the right to fly its flag”)nor Article 94(2)(b)(“In particular every State shall assume jurisdiction under its internal law over each ship flying its flag and its master,officers and crew in respect of administrative,technical and social matters concerning the ship”)provides specific definition of ship.The definition and jurisdiction of ship are prescribed to the internal law of the flag State.21Judging from the legislation of other countries,although there is no clear standard for ships in Anglo-American case law,there exist basically two standards:one is navigation,and the other function,in other words,whether the device can transport or operate.First,one needs to determine whether the surface device is capable of navigation,which is also an inherent feature of a ship;if yes,then decide whether it can transport.International courts often do not require the device to accomplish the actual transportation but acquire the capability of transportation.In summary,unmanned ships meet the concept of ships in the UNCLOS.

B.Requirements for“ship”in the sOLAs

The main content of the SOLAS concerns the safety of life of ocean-going ships,along with the ship’s structure,equipment,and operational requirements for personnel.The SOLAS applies to ships flying the flag of a Contracting Government(ships of war and troopships,cargo ships of less than 500 tons gross tonnage,ships not propelled by mechanical means,wooden ships of primitive build,pleasure yachts not engaged in trade,fishing vessels not included);the requirements for ships also apply to unmanned ships.This paper selects two of the most characteristic elements related to navigation safety for analysis,namely,minimum safety manning requirements and maritime life rescue requirements.

1.Minimum Safe Manning Requirements

The biggest challenge in the development of unmanned ships is how to ensure the safety of the ship when no one is on board.Although Article 94 of the UNCLOS stipulates that flag States have an obligation to ensure the safety of ships at sea,the SOLAS more directly and specifically stipulates the minimum manning requirements.

Regulation 13 of Chapter 5 of the SOLAS stipulates that States parties should maintain“all ships shall be sufficiently and efficiently manned”from the perspective of life safety at sea.In the footnote,it specifically quotes the Principles of Minimum Safe Manning (hereinafter referred to as the“PMSM”)adopted by the IMO,which enumerates the reference elements for determining the minimum safe manning of a ship,including:

(a)size and type of ship;

(b)number,size and type of main propulsion units and auxiliaries;

(c)level of ship automation;

(d)construction and equipment of the ship;

(e)method of maintenance used;

(f)cargo to be carried;

(g)frequency of port calls,length and nature of voyages to be undertaken;

(h)trading area(s),waters and operations in which the ship is involved;

(i)extent to which training activities are conducted on board;

(j)degree of shore side support provided to the ship by the company;

(k)applicable work hour limits and/or rest requirements;and

(l)the provisions of the approved ship’s security Plan.22Principles of Minimum Safe Manning,at http://www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/Documents/A%20-%20Assembly/1047%2827%29.pdf,15 September 2019.Here raises the question:does the unmanned ship meet these safety protection requirements,and to what extent?

First of all,it should be clear that neither the SOLAS nor the PMSM has regulated the“minimum”of safe manning.The SOLAS only mentions that ships should be sufficiently manned rather than what the minimum standards are.The PMSM does not mention the minimum requirement of safe manning on board or expressly require that safe manning must be on board.This seems to mean that when a ship is properly configured,its minimum manning number can be zero.In addition,the“level of ship automation”is also one of the criteria for determining the minimum manning of a ship.It can be seen that when the level is high,the number of safe manning can be reduced accordingly.

Secondly,the minimum manning requirements reflected in the SOLAS are to protect the personal safety of the crew on board.Unmanned ships are not equipped with crew members,and it is illogical to specially provide safe manning for crew members that do not exist on unmanned ships.The PMSM stipulates that minimum safe manning should be determined by:

The capability to:

(a)maintain safe navigational,port,engineering and radio watches in accordance with regulation VIII/2 of the 1978 sTCW Convention,as amended,and also maintain general surveillance of the ship;

(b)moor and unmoor the ship safely;

(c)manage the safety functions of the ship when employed in a stationary or near-stationary mode at sea;

(d)perform operations,as appropriate,for the prevention of damage to the marine environment;

(e)maintain the safety arrangements and the cleanliness of all accessible spaces to minimize the risk of fire;

(f)provide for medical care on board ship;

(g)ensure safe carriage of cargo during transit;

(h)inspect and maintain,as appropriate,the structural integrity of the ship;and;

(i)operate in accordance with the approved ship’s security Plan;and the ability to:

(i)operate all watertight closing arrangements and maintain them in effective condition, and also deploy a competent damage control party;

(ii)operate all onboard fire-fighting and emergency equipment and lifesaving appliances,carry out such maintenance of this equipment as is required to be done at sea,and muster and disembark all persons on board;and

(iii)operate the main propulsion and auxiliary machinery including pollution prevention equipment and maintain them in a safe condition to enable the ship to overcome the foreseeable perils of the voyage.23Principles of Minimum Safe Manning,at http://www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/Documents/A%20-%20Assembly/1047%2827%29.pdf,15 September 2019.

The SOLAS has requirements for safe manning because safe manning plays an irreplaceable and exclusive role.Among the above items,items (6)and (11)relate to the safety of the crew;unmanned ships are not equipped with crews and the need for medical services and life-saving equipment is weakened or even dissolved.The other 10 requirements are not directly related to the safety of the crew and can be erased by the technology of unmanned ships.For example,a fire during sailing would be extremely dangerous for a traditional manned ship,but when a fire occurs on an unmanned ship,the vents can be closed directly and carbon dioxide can be released without having to consider the evacuation of persons on board.24ZHANG Yunfei,PAN Deng,CAI Yuliang and LIU Jinhua,Unmanned Ships and International Maritime Convention,Guangdong shipbuilding,Vol.36,2017,pp.86～89.(in Chinese)In other words,the safe manning requirements in the PMSM are not commensurate with unmanned ships.It is neither feasible nor necessary to set up safe manning on unmanned ships according to the standard of traditional manned ships.Some scholars also believe that when unmanned ships are equipped with technology that can enable ships to complete certain tasks without the assistance of the crew,the minimum manning requirement not only fails to play its role,but also becomes an obstacle to technological development.25Paul W.Pritchett,Ghost Ships:Why the Law Should Embrace Unmanned Vessel Technology,Tulane Maritime Law Journal,Vol.40,No.1,2015,pp.197～226.The peculiarity of unmanned vessels determines that the minimum safe manning criterion should not be applied in its entirety.

In March 2017,the Comité Maritime International (CMI)published a questionnaire concerning potential obstacles to the development of unmanned ships,such as the liability for the unmanned ship when a collision occurred;26CMI Questionnaire on Unmanned Ships,at https://comitemaritime.org/work/unmannedships/,15 September 2019.it also covers the interpretation of“minimum safe manning”in Article 14 of the SOLAS by the internal laws of each State.The questionnaires collected showed the attitudes and positions of States in this regard.Among them,there are States that support comprehensive discretionary judgments on safe manning.For example,the German Safety Manning Ordinance regulates safety manning from the perspectives of ensuring navigation safety and safety alert.It does not provide a minimum number of onboard personnel,only requiring shipowners to report to the competent authority their safety manning.27CMI IWG Questionnaire Unmanned Ships GERMANY,at https://comitemaritime.org/work/unmanned-ships/,15 September 2019.The United Kingdom has also stated that there is no specific regulations on the number of minimum safe manning;whether a ship meets safety requirements is determined by a combination of factors such as the nature of the voyage,the size,the construction and technical equipment of the ship,and the training on board.Article 47(1)(a)of its Merchant Shipping Act states:“requiring ships to which this section applies to carry such number of qualified officers of any description,qualified doctors and qualified cooks and such number of other seamen or qualified seamen of any description as may be specified in the regulations.”28CMI IWG Questionnaire Unmanned Ships UK,at https://comitemaritime.org/work/unmanned-ships/,15 September 2019.There are also States that have a strict regulation on the minimum safe manning.For instance,the United States Code,Volume 46,Part 5 and the Code of Federal Regulation,Volume 33,Part 15 reflect the implementation of Article 14 of the SOLAS:although the former only stipulates that the ship should have the required number of officers and does not require them to be“on board”,the relevant jurisprudence of the US courts demands that the crew must be on board,which thereby reduces the possibility of discretion on the minimum safe manning.29CMI IWG Questionnaire Unmanned Ships US,at https://comitemaritime.org/work/unmanned-ships/,15 September 2019.

In addition,some States believe that the nature of unmanned ships does not meet the requirements for safe manning.For example,the Spanish maritime authority requires ships to have corresponding safe manning,and controlling ships on shore does not meet the requirements of safe manning.Moreover,China adopts more specific standards in the Rules of the People’s Republic of China for the Minimum Manning on Vessels (hereinafter referred to as the“RMMV”):firstly,the minimum safe manning standards for ships should be in consideration of the ship’s type,tonnage,technical status,navigation time,navigation environment and crew on duty,rest system and other factors;furthermore,the minimum manning standards for ships are specified in Appendix III based on the tonnage and sailing status of the ship,which applies to motor ships of Chinese nationality and should also apply to unmanned ships .

Chinese scholars generally hold the view that both the requirements in the SOLAS and the Convention for safe manning are for manned vessels,because unmanned vessels did not exist when the two conventions were drafted.30WANG Xin and CHU Beiping,Legal Barriers Confronted by Unmanned Ships under Trialing and Reaction,Chinese Journal of Maritime Law,Vol.28,2017,pp.59～67.(in Chinese)It is true that there are international provisions that are extremely incompatible with unmanned ships,in which case maybe we can interpret them from the perspective of“consequentialism”:if the unmanned ship’s control,communication,and navigation system can meet the requirements for navigation safety stipulated in the SOLAS,etc.,there is no need to strictly apply the minimum safe manning requirements.

2.The Obligation to Save Life at Sea

In addition,in accordance with Regulation 33 of Chapter 5 of the SOLAS,the master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance is bound to proceed with all speed to help persons that are in distress at sea.31Regulation 33 of Chapter 5 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea:Distress messages:Obligations and procedures 1.The master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea,is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance,if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so.If the ship receiving the distress alert is unable or,in the special circumstances of the case,considers it unreasonable or unnecessary to proceed to their assistance,the master must enter in the log-book the reason for failing to proceed to the assistance of the persons in distress,taking into account the recommendation of the Organization,to inform the appropriate search and rescue service accordingly.2.The master of a ship in distress or the search and rescue service concerned,after consultation,so far as may be possible,with the masters of ships which answer the distress alert,has the right to requisition one or more of those ships as the master of the ship in distress or the search and rescue service considers best able to render assistance,and it shall be the duty of the master or masters of the ship or ships requisitioned to comply with the requisition by continuing to proceed with all speed to the assistance of persons in distress.3.Masters of ships shall be released from the obligation imposed by paragraph 1 on learning that their ships have not been requisitioned and that one or more other ships have been requisitioned and are complying with the requisition.This decision shall,if possible be communicated to the other requisitioned ships and to the search and rescue service.4.The master of a ship shall be released from the obligation imposed by paragraph 1 and,if his ship has been requisitioned,from the obligation imposed by paragraph 2 on being informed by the persons in distress or by the search and rescue service or by the master of another ship which has reached such persons that assistance is no longer necessary.5.The provisions of this regulation do not prejudice the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Assistance and Salvage at Sea,signed at Brussels on 23 September 1910,particularly the obligation to render assistance imposed by article 11 of that Convention.So,if the master and crew are not on board,does the operator need to operate the unmanned ship to fulfill the obligation to save life at sea?

According to the results of the questionnaire of the Comité Maritime International,most States consider that the excuse of“the ship being provided with no master or crew”could not be regarded as a defense for failing to fulfill the obligation to save life at sea.To name just a few,Spain believes that providing assistance to persons in distress at sea is a sacred rule and should be observed at all times,so the obligation to rescue persons in distress should also apply to unmanned ships.Finland holds that“no master and crew on board”does not rule out the unmanned ships’ responsibility of providing assistance to persons in distress at sea.The unmanned ships are obliged to save life at sea.They can be used as a platform to rescue the distressed persons.Relevant measures to remotely operate the unmanned ships to fulfill their obligations should also be formulated and taken.The United States,in its domestic law,also has provisions pertaining to the obligation of vessels to provide assistance at sea.As for unmanned ships,an unmanned ship remotely operated by an operator on shore can sail at a reasonable speed to assist the distressed person.The unmanned ship can provide effective assistance to the distressed person even if no crew is on board,such as positioning the distressed person,providing shelter for the distressed person,and reporting to the shore bases the onsite situation by recording the scene.As provided in the Maritime Traffic Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the“MTSL”),when passing vessels discover that people’s lives are endangered,they shall do their best to rescue the people in distress insofar as their own safety is not seriously endangered,and promptly report to the competent authority the situation at the scene,their own names,call numbers and positions.32Art.36 of the Maritime Traffic Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China:when vessels or installations in the vicinity of the scene of an accident receive a distress signal or discover that people’s lives are endangered,they shall do their best to rescue the people in distress insofar as their own safety is not seriously endangered,and promptly report to the competent authority the situation at the scene,their own names,call numbers and positions.China does not limit the obligation to save life at sea to the master and the crew on the ship.Some States,however,argue that since there is no subject of obligations on unmanned ships,there is no need to fulfill the obligation to provide assistance at sea.For example,the United Kingdom believes that assistance should be provided by the master not the ship herself,and it should be applied only to the master who is“capable of providing assistance.”The distance between the ship and the distressed person and the ship’s own technical capability should be taken into consideration when it comes to the determination of whether the master is capable or not.But if the unmanned ship herself is unable to rescue the people in distress at sea,relevant entities of the unmanned ship should not be held responsible for failing to perform the obligation.Japan even considers that the unmanned ship does not have to provide assistance on the grounds of“without any crew on the ship.”Japan also holds that it is the“master”that should be accountable for rescuing the distressed person.And Article 33 of the SOLAS does prescribe that the master“should be on board,”so if no master and crew are on board and the rescue is unreasonable under such a circumstance,relevant parties of the unmanned ship could be exempted from corresponding liabilities arising from failing to fulfill the obligation.

In fact,in accordance with the general obligation under the SOLAS,the Contracting Governments should take all necessary measures to ensure the safety of life at sea.There is no master on the ship,which could be regarded as neither a defense nor an exemption as prescribed in the law.Taking this as a reason for the defense would not exempt the ship from liability.Conversely,it would lead to an even larger liability,which is not conducive to widely putting unmanned ships into use in the international community.Therefore,not just the master and the crew members are supposed to be responsible for the unmanned ship;other people,such as ashore operators,designers,ship-owners,etc.,should also be included.And they should fulfill corresponding obligations when the ship is at sea.

There are some provisions in the SOLAS that are difficult to apply to unmanned ships,not just the aforementioned two requirements,namely,the minimum safe manning requirements and the obligation to save life at sea.Let’s take a look at the“Adoption of Amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea,1974,as Amended,”which was adopted on 5 December 2000 and entered into force on 1 July 2002.According to Regulation 33(17)of Chapter II-2 in this amendment,“continuously manned central control station is a central control station which is continuously manned by a responsible member of the crew.”But it would be contrary to the design purpose of an unmanned ship if it is equipped with a manned central control station.A ship is required to be equipped with life-saving appliances to“the satisfaction of the Administration”as provided in Chapter III of the SOLAS.For unmanned ships,such a requirement is hard to meet because crew members have not been on board for a long time.Provided that the maintenance personnel are boarded,whether the life-saving appliances for them can satisfy the Administration still remains uncertain.In accordance with Chapter IV of the SOLAS,each ship is required to be staffed with personnel that meet the satisfaction of the Administration and are competent for distress and safety of radio communications.There should be a person designated to be in charge of radio communications.While in the case of unmanned ships,radio communications are charged by staff on shore,which makes it hard to satisfy the Administration.Most of these regulations have presupposed that“there is a crew on board.”If these regulations are blindly applied to unmanned ships,there will be a setback in the development of unmanned ships.These regulations could apply to unmanned ships only if it is feasible and necessary to apply.

Certainly,the SOLAS also leaves some room for the application of special types of ships,such as unmanned ships.Chapter I-4 of the SOLAS stipulates:

The Administration may exempt any ship which embodies features of a novel kind from any of the provisions of Chapters II-l,II-2,III and IV of these Regulations if the application of which might seriously impede research into the development of such features and their incorporation in ships engaged on international voyages.

Additionally,in Resolution A.1047 (27),it is also pointed out that the Administration may retain or adopt arrangements which differ from the provisions herein recommended and which are especially adapted to technical developments and to special types of ships and trades.However,at all times the Administration should satisfy itself that the detailed manning arrangements ensure a degree of safety at least equivalent to that established by the PMSM.33Resolution A.1047 (27),Annex 1(1)1.2,at http://www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/Documents/A%20-%20Assembly/1047%2827%29.pdf,15 September 2019.However,these amended clauses are mainly focusing on the construction and installation of ships.The obligations of unmanned ships to ensure the safety of navigation and the safety of life at sea still have not been reduced or exempted after the amendment.Regulations related to measures adopted to ensure the safety of navigation and the safety of life at sea could be further amended and added in the future.

C.Challenges to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at sea Brought by Unmanned ships

As provided in the UNCLOS,the master,officers and,to the extent appropriate,the crew should be fully conversant with and should observe the applicable international regulations concerning the prevention of collisions.34Art.94 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.The COLREGs,especially relevant regulations on ships,formulated by the International Maritime Organization,could provide some reference in the determination of the legal status of unmanned ships.Rule 1(a)of the COLREGs stipulates that“these Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels.”The term“vessel”as stipulated in the COLREGs includes“every description of water craft,including non-displacement craft and seaplanes,used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.”Based on judgments made by maritime courts and academic viewpoints,Professor CAI Cunqiang concludes that“every description of water craft”as provided in the COLREGs could be interpreted as ships that are used only for water transportation (including various types of cargo ships and passenger ships),or particular ships that can be used for water transportation but do not because they are engaged in other activities and tasks (including various types of engineering operation ships,scientific research ships,military ships or government official ships).35CAI Cunqiang,Interpretation of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at sea,Beijing:China Communications Press,1995,p.15.(in Chinese)Neither the clause“whether there is a crew on board”nor“how the ship is driven”could be regarded as a key component of constituting a ship.Therefore,from a theoretical perspective,the COLREGs does not exclude unmanned ships from application.

1.The Obligation of Ships to Keep a Lookout

As set out in Part B(5)in the COLREGs,every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.Both the statistics of maritime collision accidents and the collision cases considered by the court have implied that“unattended lookouts”or“irregular lookouts”account for most collision accidents.36CAI Cunqiang,Interpretation of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at sea,Beijing:China Communications Press,1995,p.137.(in Chinese)Provisions pertaining to the obligation of ships to keep a lookout could be found in the COLREGs and the STCW.The COLREGs emphasizes that a lookout should be conducted by sight and hearing because it would be much easier for people to conduct a lookout.Part B(5)of the COLREGs,indeed,stipulates that a lookout requires the perception of a human being,but it does not require the observer to be on board.Therefore,the person who remotely controls the unmanned ship could fulfill the obligation to maintain a proper lookout and keep the ship sailing through operating the sensors and cameras installed on the unmanned ship.Currently,with the rapid development of the unmanned technology,the automatic obstacle avoidance algorithms used by unmanned ships have been continuously optimized.The facilities that have been installed on unmanned ships,including GPS,radars,cameras and sensors,have improved in terms of accuracy.37ZHANG Caihong and HU Yanjun,Optimization of Long-range Target Tracking and Automatic Obstacle Avoidance Algorithms for Unmanned Vehicles,ship science and Technology,Vol.41,No.8A,2019,pp.22～24.(in Chinese)All these facilities installed on unmanned ships to avoid obstacles can be deemed as“all available means”taken to maintain a lookout.If equipped with necessary sensors and corresponding programming to identify front and rear ships38Rob McLaughlin,Unmanned Naval Vehicles at Sea:USVs,UUVs,and the Adequacy of the Law,Journal of Law,Informaation and science,Vol.21,2012,pp.100～115.,unmanned ships will perform much better than a human being in terms of the automatic perception and response capabilities.Collisions could also be reduced by unmanned ships.The COLREGs was enacted in 1972,and had been revised many times in 1981,1987,1989,1993,2001,and 2007.Legislators did not expect the development of unmanned ships when they formulated the COLREGs.Because the technological development is ahead of the legislation,it is reasonable that the COLREGs does not cover other technical forms of maintaining a lookout.In fact,some scholars have suggested that unmanned ships are faster than manned ships.Collisions will be unlikely to happen on unmanned ships,and they will only collide in extremely narrow arcs.The probability of collision will be much lower than that of manned ships.Also,Dr.Anita M.Rothblum has proposed that about 75% to 96% of marine casualties are caused,at least in part,by some form of human error..39Anita M.Rothblum,Human Error and Marine Safety,at http://bowles-langley.com/wpcontent/files_mf/humanerrorandmarinesafety26.pdf,2 September 2019.Compared with manned ships,unmanned ships require lower costs and provide greater safety.The observer may not necessarily be on board the ship according to Part B(5)of the COLREGs.The natural person,who is not on board,could still operate the unmanned ship to maintain a lookout and keep sailing by means of remote control.Even if the unmanned ship is fully automatic,which means it requires no operation from humans when it is under seaway,all the sensors and obstacle avoidance systems that have been equipped on the ship could also be seen as available means required for a lookout.

2.Conduct of Vessels in Sight of One Another

Another issue in applying the COLREGs to unmanned ships is whether unmanned ships should also comply with the“Conduct of Vessels in Sight of One Another”as stipulated in Section II of Part B in this regulation.Vessels in sight of one another need to follow certain rules to keep out of the way.For example,when two power-driven vessels are crossing,involving the risk of collision,the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side should keep out of the way.What we called“in sight of one another”means that vessels should be deemed to be in sight of one another only when one can be observed visually from the other.To put it differently,vessels cannot be applied to the Conduct of Vessels in Sight of One Another if one cannot be observed visually from the other.As analyzed above,measures taken to avoid obstacles,which are commonly used at the moment,did not exist when the regulation was drafted.Visual identification was a widely used method at that time.The“vision”of unmanned ships is not the equivalent of the human eyes to manned ships.Additionally,in practice,it may happen that two ships cannot see each other at the same time.For example,a ship with a strong light does not see a ship with a weak light approaching to her,but the ship with a weak light has already seen the ship with a strong light.Therefore,it would be much more difficult to determine when the two ships began to see each other.Whether the“vision”could be replaced by or evaluated by other technical means should be taken into consideration in the subsequent legislation and amendments to the existing legal provisions.

D.Examination of Crew Qualifications in the International Convention on standards of Training,Certification and Watchkeeping for seafarers

The STCW aims to ensure the safety of life and property at sea and to protect the marine environment.It sets up qualification standards for masters,officers and watchkeeping personnel on a sea-going ship (except for seafarers on warships,fishing vessels,pleasure yachts not engaged in trade,and wooden ships of primitive build)so as to ensure that seafarers on board ships are qualified and fit for their duties.The STCW has made it clear that seafarers should be“on board,”which implies that it is inapplicable to unmanned ships.It occurs to people that the existing international legal system only determines the qualifications of crew members of manned ships.There is neither a standard for determining the qualifications of the operators and designers of unmanned ships nor a management method.China,therefore,has put forward a new idea.A new standard for determining whether relevant personnel on unmanned ships are qualified should be set up because the STCW is not so applicable to unmanned ships.The STCW,however,could be used for reference while formulating specific items for the new standard.40WANG Yifei,The Legal Research on Unmanned Ships,Master’s Thesis of China University of Political Science and Law,2018.(in Chinese)

III.Laws and Regulations on Unmanned Ships in China

China decides to gradually develop the technology related to unmanned ships in phases.Currently,unmanned ships in China are in a stage of possessing the capability of sensing and of assisting decision-making.41LIU Wei and SHANG Jiafa,The Study of the Development of Intelligent Ships and China’s Development Strategy,ship science and Technology,Vol.39,2017,pp.189～193.(in Chinese)How to bring the domestic legislation into line with the international legislation should be considered with great importance when developing the technology in relation to unmanned ships.China is a party to the UNCLOS,the SOLAS,the COLREGs,and the STCW;therefore,China’s vessels should comply with the aforementioned conventions.Vessels registered in China should also conform to China’s domestic laws and regulations.The following analysis will be based on two aspects,including“whether unmanned ships are subject to China’s domestic laws and regulations”and“legal obstacles to the development of the technology related to unmanned ships under China’s domestic law.”

First of all,whether unmanned ships are subject to China’s domestic laws and regulations should be considered.The term“ship”as referred to in the Maritime Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the“ML”)refers to“sea-going ships and other mobile units,but does not include ships or craft to be used for military or public service purposes,nor small ships of less than 20 tons gross tonnage.”The master is responsible for the management and navigation of the ship,and the term“crew”as clarified in this law refers to the entire complement of the ship,including the master.The ML,nonetheless,does not state that a ship must have master and crew members on board,otherwise it won’t be regarded as the“ship”as defined in this law;therefore theoretically,unmanned ships could apply to this law.The MTSL is applicable to“all vessels,installations and personnel and to the owners and managers of such vessels and installations that navigate,berth or operate in the coastal waters of the People’s Republic of China.”42Art.2 of the Maritime Traffic Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China.The term“vessel”in the MTSL means“all types of displacement or non-displacement ships,rafts,seaplanes,submersibles and mobile platforms.”43Art.50 of the Maritime Traffic Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China.And the term“ship”in the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China Governing the Registration of Ships refers to“any self-propelled or non-self-propelled vessel and any other mobile unit on water with the exception of life boats and life rafts equipped on board ships and boats or rafts of less than 5 meters in length.”44Art.56 of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China Governing the Registration of Ships.All these regulations do not consider“crew”as an integral part of a ship.China,therefore,does not exclude unmanned ships from applying to its domestic laws and regulations.

Secondly,with regard to crew qualifications and requirements for minimum safe manning,China’s domestic laws and regulations are specified as follows:the MTSL stipulates that vessels shall be manned with qualified crew members according to a standard quota to ensure the vessels’ safety,such as personnel who have mastered the techniques of collision avoidance,signaling,communications,fire control,life-saving and other operations.45Arts.6 and 8 of the Maritime Traffic Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China.Similarly,the RMMV stipulates that ship-owners should provide the ship with qualified crew members based on a thorough consideration of the ship’s type,tonnage,technical status,navigation time,navigation environment,crew duty,etc.46Art.6 of the Rules of the People’s Republic of China for the Minimum Manning on Vessels.However,neither of these two regulations has clarified what does the“minimum standard”mean,nor do they specify whether the crew members must work on the ship or not.The Regulation of the People’s Republic of China on Seamen (hereinafter referred to as the“RPRCS”)is applicable to the registration,assumption of office,training and professional security of seamen and the provision of seaman service within China.47Art.2 of the Regulation of the People’s Republic of China on Seamen.The term“seaman”as mentioned in this Regulation includes masters,officers and ratings,among which“rating”refers to a seaman other than master or officer.48Art.4 of the Regulation of the People’s Republic of China on Seamen:the term“seaman”as mentioned in this Regulation refers to the personnel who has been registered as a seaman and obtained a seaman’s service book,including masters,officers and ratings.“Master”as mentioned above refers to the personnel who has acquired the qualification for holding the post of master in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation and is in charge of and take command of a ship.“Officer”as mentioned above includes chief mate,second mate,third mate,chief engineer,second engineer,third engineer,fourth engineer and communication personnel who have acquired the qualifications for holding corresponding posts in accordance with this Regulation,and other senior technical personnel and managerial personnel who hold posts on a ship.“Rating”as mentioned above refers to a seaman other than master or officer.Theoretically,the term“seaman”can be interpreted to include the remote operators and designers of unmanned ships.The remote operators and designers of unmanned ships should bear the same responsibility that a seaman assumes during the period when he or she is working on board a ship.For example,as stipulated in Article 20 of the RPRCS,a seaman should carry the valid certificates required by this Regulation and observe the reporting system of the ship.The existing provisions in this respect can shed some light on the amendments in the future while implementing domestic laws and regulations or setting national standards.

At the same time,the Action Plan on Developing Intelligent Ships (2019-2021)(hereinafter referred to as the“APDIS”)was issued in December 2018 by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the PRC,the Ministry of Transport of the PRC,and the State Administration of Science,Technology and Industry of National Defence of the PRC.The APDIS aims to promote collaborative innovation and integrated development in the shipbuilding industry and other related industries.The key tasks as mentioned in the APDIS are not just to make a breakthrough in key intelligent technologies,but also to set up and revise the normative standards.Apart from domestic legislative regulations,China could also make reference to the 2015 Rules for Intelligent Ships specified by China Classification Society,a public institution directly affiliated to the Ministry of Transport of the PRC.The 2015 Rules for Intelligent Ships is applicable to ships for which China Classification Society Intelligent Ship class notation is required.As required by the 2015 Rules for Intelligent Ships,the ship-owner or the ship management company should develop corresponding management regulations,training plans and operational procedures for intelligent systems.Requirements for personnel who operate the intelligent system,including responsibilities,qualifications and training plans are also specified.The abovementioned international conventions and domestic legislative regulations are mainly targeted at traditional manned vessels,while the 2015 Rules for Intelligent Ships is a set of specifications formulated only for unmanned ships,covering the hull structures,navigation,cargo management and the use of intelligent systems.The technical requirements set out in the Rules for Intelligent Ships can also provide some reference for China in its future domestic legislation in this regard.

However,China’s domestic legislation on ships is still lagging behind the technology related to unmanned ships.For one thing,the existing legislation does not clearly state that unmanned ships without crews on board could be applied to relevant regulations.Unmanned ships could only be applied to China’s domestic regulations on ships by means of judicial interpretation.Also,the existing regulations related to ships,especially the provisions concerning the requirements of crew and ship technology,are not so compatible with unmanned ships given the fact that,previously,unmanned ships were not under consideration while formulating the regulations.For example,the RPRCS stipulates that the master should keep watch at the control bridge and directly take command of the ship if necessary.Also,the provisions,which are in relation to the training that the crew needs to go through and the standard that a competent crew needs to meet,may not apply to the“crew”of unmanned ships.China has now started to formulate and publish management regulations for intelligent ships,but these regulations should be unified with the previous legislation on ships.In order to avoid the situation where the technology is ahead of the legislation and no laws are available to regulate the emerging things,the existing laws and regulations need to be revised based on the current and future development of unmanned ships.Experts specialized in technologies related to unmanned ships should be hired to participate in the process of legislative and legal revision.There might be no laws and regulations available to unmanned ships due to the lag of legislation,and in order to make sure that won’t happen,the legal status of unmanned ships should be made clear in domestic law.The requirements for the structure and crew of unmanned ships should also be specifically listed in the form of an appendix.

The development of the technology related to unmanned ships will inevitably lead to discussions on the navigation rights of unmanned ships and the civil liability for shipping.From the perspective of integrating domestic law with international law,provisions on ships stipulated in international laws should also be taken into consideration when China revises its provisions on ships.Relevant cases and regulations of other States could be used for reference.

IV.Conclusion

By analyzing international conventions such as the UNCLOS,the SOLAS,and the COLREGs,the term“ship”or“vessel”as defined in the above conventions does not exclude unmanned ships;nonetheless,provisions in the above conventions,such as the requirement of the minimum safe manning,the measures for preventing collision,and the crew qualifications,do bring certain challenges to the development of unmanned ships.Some of the existing provisions of the conventions were formulated without considering that the intelligent systems of unmanned ships require professional operation.If the standards on the crew qualifications as set out in some conventions are blindly applied to unmanned ships,it may produce an ineffective result or even a problem of logical confusion.Unmanned ships are characterized by high efficiency,fast speed,and low costs in long-term investments.Many navigational accidents caused by human negligence would not happen on unmanned ships.The international legal status of unmanned ships should be clarified so as to resolve the legal problems faced in the application of unmanned ships,which is the top priority of developing unmanned ships.The discord between the lagging legislation and the technological development could be relieved,and the potential legal risks of using unmanned ships could be reduced as well if all States in the world could take actions.Firstly,States all around the world need to work together to update,amend,and interpret the existing international conventions and regulations.Some States have begun to advocate for amending certain international conventions,including the SOLAS,the COLREGs,and the STCW.49Maritime Safety Committee Session 100 (3 -7 Dec 2018),at http://ifsma.org/resources/MSC-100-REPORT.pdf,5 September 2019.Secondly,States should be open-minded to draw on international conventions and other States’ legislation so as to modify their domestic laws and regulations and establish national standards for unmanned ships.The current status and future development of the technology related to unmanned ships should be considered while formulating the law.Relevant domestic laws and regulations and national standards for unmanned ships could normalize the use of unmanned ships on a national scale and lay a sound legal foundation for the development of unmanned ships.