Legal Assessment of Seaworthiness in Autonomous Cargo Ships: Is It Time for a Change?

Öz

Nowadays, the exponential growth in technological advances in the shipping industry appears to justify the proposition of that autonomous merchant ships and traditional ones are on the eve of an era in which they will start sailing together in the seas. Since it is expected that the autonomous ships shall enhance economic, ecological and social sustainability, so that they ensure safe and environmentally friendly operations, whether or not the existing international conventions could pose a hurdle to the autonomous ships in the sense of seaworthiness is becoming more and more the focal point of the discussions. In this paper, a comprehensive illustration of the concept of seaworthiness particularly in the light of case law will first be submitted, and following that, the concept of autonomous ship will be enunciated as well as a discussion of whether it could be considered as a ship. Considering these, this paper will seek an answer to the question of whether, or how, the autonomous ships could fulfil the requirement of properly manning laid down in Article III (1-b) of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules. It is followed by a comparative analysis of how the carrier’s duty to provide a seaworthy ship could be aligned with autonomous shipping in the scope of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules, the Hamburg Rules and the Rotterdam Rules.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Seaworthiness
• Autonomous Ships
• Remotely Controlled Ships
• Unmanned Ships
• International Conventions

Otonom Kargo Gemilerde Sefere Elverişliliğin Hukuki Değerlendirilmesi: Değişim Zamanı Mı?

Öz

Günümüzde, denizcilik sektöründe giderek artan teknolojik gelişmeler, otonom ticari gemilerin ve geleneksel gemilerin denizlerde birlikte yelken açmaya başlayacakları bir çağın arifesinde olunduğu önermesini haklı çıkarıyor gibi görünmektedir. Otonom gemilerin ekonomik, ekolojik ve sosyal sürdürülebilirliği geliştireceği, bu suretle de güvenli ve çevre dostu operasyonları garanti edeceği ve bu yönde avantajlar sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir. Buna karşılık, gerek ulusal gerekse uluslararası düzenlemeler gemide insan unsuru dikkate alınarak tasarlandığından, otonom gemilerin kullanılmaya başlanması pek çok tartışmayı da beraberinde getirecektir. Taşıyanın sefere elverişli bir gemi bulundurma yükümlülüğünün otonom gemiler bakımından nasıl yorumlanması gerektiği de bu tartışmaların odak noktasında yer almaktadır. Bu makale de, öncelikle sefere elverişlilik kavramı ve bunun unsurları bilhassa içtihat hukuku ışığında kapsamlı bir biçimde incelenecek olup, ardından otonom gemiler tanımlanacak ve bu tür gemilerin gemi olarak kabul edilip edilmeyeceği tartışılacaktır. Akabinde, otonom gemilerde Lahey/Lahey-Visby Kuralları m. III (1-b)’de yer alan gemiye gereği gibi gemi adamı sağlamak ibaresinin nasıl ele alınması gerektiği ve bu şartın bu tür gemilerde nasıl karşılanacağı ya da karşılanıp karşılanamayacağı incelenecektir. Son olarak da, otonom gemilerde taşıyanın sefere elverişli bir gemi bulundurma yükümlülüğüne ilişkin Lahey/Lahey-Visby Kuralları, Hamburg Kuralları ve Rotterdam Kuralları kapsamında karşılaştırmalı bir değerlendirme sunulacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sefere Elverişlilik
• Otonom Gemiler
• Uzaktan Kumandalı Gemiler
• Mürettebatsız Gemiler
• Uluslararası Sözleşmeler

Kaynakça

1. Ahvenjärvi, S.: “The Human Element and Autonomous Ships”, Trans-Nav Journal 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, p. 517.
2. Aikens, R. - Lord R. - Bools M.: Bills of Lading, 2nd ed., Abingdon 2016.
3. Aladwani, T.: “Effect of Shipping Standards on Seaworthiness”, EJCCL, 2011, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, p. 33.
4. Allen, C.: “Determining the Legal Status of Unmanned Maritime Vehicles: Formalism vs Functionalism”, JMLC, 2018, Vol. 49, Iss. 4, p. 477.
5. Apostol-Mates, R. - Barbu, A.: “Human Error-The Main Factor in Marine Accidents”, Mircea Cel Batran Naval Academy Scientific Bulletin, 2016, Vol. 19, Iss. 2, p. 451.
6. Baatz, Y.: “Charterparties” in Maritime Law, Baatz Y. (ed.), pp. 117-177, 3rd ed., Abingdon 2014.
7. Barclay, C.: “Technical Aspects of Unseaworthiness”, LMCLQ, 1975.
8. Bertram, V.: “Towards Unmanned Ships”, DNV GL, Norwegian University of Science and Technology 2013, p. 1.

9. Burmeister, H.C. - Bruhn, W.C. - Rødseth, Ø.J. - Porathe, T.: “Can Unmanned Ships Improve Navigational Safety?”, Paris Transport Research Arena 2014.
10. Burmeister, H.C. - Bruhn, W.C. - Rødseth, Ø.J. - Porathe, T.: “Autonomous Unmanned Merchant Vessel and its Contribution towards the E-Navigation Implementation: The MUNIN Perspective”, e-Navi, 2014, Vol. 1, p. 1.
11. Çağa, T. - Kender, R.: Deniz Ticareti Hukuku II: Navlun Sözleşmesi, B. 10, İstanbul 2010.
12. Carey, L.: “All Hands off Deck? The Legal Barriers to Autonomous Ships”, CML Working Paper Series, 2017, N. 17/06.
13. Chalmers, M. - Archibald, J.G.: The Marine Insurance Act 1906, 3rd ed., London 1922. (Cited by Soyer, Warranties (2017), 65).
14. Chacón, V.H.: The Due Diligence in Maritime Transportation in the Technological Era, New York 2017.
15. Chwedczuk, M.: “Analysis of the Legal Status of Unmanned Commercial Vessels in U.S. Admiralty and Maritime Law”, JMLC, 2016, Vol. 27, Iss. 2, p. 123.
16. Daum, O.: “The Implications of International Law on Unmanned Naval Craft”, JMLC 2018, Vol. 49, Iss. 1, p. 71
17. Dean, P. - Clack, H.: “Autonomous Shipping and Maritime Law” in New Technologies, Artificial Intelligence and Shipping Law in The 21st Century, Soyer Baris and Tettenborn Andrew (ed.), pp. 67-90, Abingdon 2020.
18. Defossez, D.: “Seaworthiness: The Adequacy of the Rotterdam Rules Approach”, University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal, 2015, Vol. 28, Iss. 2, p. 237.
19. Djadjev, I.: The Obligations of the Carrier Regarding the Cargo, the Hague-Visby Rules, New York 2017.
20. Eder, B. - Bennett, H. - Berry, S. - Foxton, D. - Smith, C.F.: Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading, 23rd ed., London 2015.
21. Foster, N. R.: “The Seaworthiness Trilogy: Carriage of Goods, Insurance, and Personal Injury”, Santa Clara Law Review, 2000, Vol. 40, Iss. 2, p. 473.
22. Gilmore, G. - Black C.L.: The Law of Admiralty, 2nd ed., New York 1975.
23. Girvin, S.: “The Carrier’s Fundamental Duties to Cargo under the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules”, JIML, 2019, Vol. 25, p. 443
24. Girvin, S.: “The Obligation of Seaworthiness: Shipowner and Charterer”, CML Working Paper Series, 2017, No. 17/11.
25. Girvin, S.: Carriage of Goods By Sea, 2nd ed., Oxford 2011.
26. Griggs, P.J.: “Coverage, Warranties, Concealment, Disclosure, Exclusions, Misrepresentations, and Bad Faith”, Tulane Law Review, 1991, Vol. 66, Iss. 2&3, p. 423.
27. Henderson, A.: “Murky Waters: The Legal Status of Unmanned Undersea Vehicles”, Naval Law Review, 2006, Vol. 53, Iss. 1, p. 55.
28. Hoem, A. - Porathe, T. - Rødseth, Ø. - Johnsen, S.: “At Least As Safe As Manned Shipping? Autonomous Shipping, Safety and Human Error”, ESREL: Safety and Reliability-Safe Societies in a Changing, Trondheim 2018.
29. Hooydonk, E.V.: “The Law of Unmanned Merchant Shipping- An Exploration”, JIML, 2014, Vol. 20, Iss. 3, p. 403.
30. Kalpsüz, T.: Deniz Ticareti Hukuku, C. I: Giriş - Gemi, Ankara 1971.
31. Kara, H.: “Gemilerde Yapay Zekâ Kullanımı ve Buna Dair Hukuki Sorunlar”, SDÜHFD, 2020, C. 10, S. 1, p. 17.
32. Karan, H.: The Carrier’s Liability under International Maritime Conventions the Hague, Hague-Visby, and Hamburg Rules, New York 2004.
33. Komianos, A.: “The Autonomous Shipping Era, Operational, Regulatory, and Quality Challenges”, TransNav Journal, 2018, Vol. 12, Iss. 2, p. 335.
34. Kraska, J.: “The Law of Unmanned Naval Systems in War and Peace”, The Journal of Ocean Technology, 2010, Vol. 5, Iss. 3, p. 44.
35. Kretschmann, L.: “Analysing the Economic Benefit of Unmanned Autonomous Ships: An Exploratory Cost-Comparison Between an Autonomous and a Conventional Bulk Carrier”, RTBM, 2017, Vol. 25, p. 76.
36. Leau, P.: “Dead in the Water: The Nautical Fault Exemption of the Hague-Visby Rules”, Singapore Law Review-Juris Illuminae, V. 7, 2015/16.
37. Mandaraka-Sheppard, A.: Modern Maritime Law: Managing Risks and Liabilities, Vol. 2, 3rd ed., Abingdon 2013.
38. Mclaughlin, R.: “Unmanned Naval Vehicles at Sea: USVS, UUVS, and the Adequacy of the Law”, JLIS, 2012, Vol. 21, Iss. 2.
39. Nolan, D.: “Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd V Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd, The Hongkong Fir (1961)”, Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract(Hart) 2008, p. 269.
40. Pritchett, P.: “Ghost Ships: Why the Law Should Embrace Unmanned Vessel Technology”, Tulane Maritime Law Journal, 2015, Vol. 40, Iss. 1, p. 197.
41. Rasmussen, J.: “Human Errors: A Taxonomy for Describing Human Malfunction in Industrial Installations”, Journal of Occupational Accidents, 1982, Vol. 4, Iss. 2-4, p. 311.
42. Reynolds, F.: “The Hague Rules, The Hague-Visby Rules, and the Hamburg Rules”, MLAANZ Journal, 1990, Vol. 7, p. 16.
43. Rodriguez Delgado, J.: “The Legal Challenges of Unmanned Ships in the Private Maritime Law: What laws would you change?”, en Maritime, Port and Transport Law between Legacies of the Past and Modernization, 2018, Vol. 5, Iss. 1, p. 493.
44. Rødseth, Ø. - Nordahl, H.: “Definitions for Autonomous Merchant Ships”, NFAS, Trondheim 2017.
45. Safari, F. - Sage, B.: “Legal and Liability Analysis for Remote Controlled Vessels”, MUNIN: G.N. 314286.
46. Soyer, B.: “Autonomous Vessels and Third-Party Liabilities: The Elephant in the Room” in New Technologies, Artificial Intelligence And Shipping Law in The 21st Century, Soyer B. - Tettenborn A. (eds.), pp. 105-115, Abingdon 2020.
47. Soyer, B.: Warranties in Marine Insurance, 3rd ed., Abingdon 2017.
48. Soyer, B.: Warranties in Marine Insurance, 1st ed., London 2001.
49. Sözer, B.: “Teknolojik Gelişmelerin, Taşıyanın Gemiyi Sefere Elverişli Halde Bulundurmak Borcunun Kapsamına ve İçeriğine Etkileri”, Deniz Ticareti Hukukunda Yeni Sorunlar Sempozyumu – I March 2019.
50. Sözer, B.: “Is it a ship or not? If not- then what in Maritime Liabilities” in A Global and Regional Context, Soyer B. - Tettenborn A. (eds.), pp. 118-131, Abingdon 2019.
51. Sözer, B.: Deniz Ticareti Hukuku: Giriş-Gemi-Donatan ve Navlun Sözleşmeleri (Ders Kitabı), C. I, 3. Baskı, İstanbul 2014.
52. Sözer, B.: Deniz Ticareti Hukuku: Gemi-Donatan-Taşıyan ve Deniz Ticareti Hukuku’nda Sorumluluk Rejimi, İstanbul 2011.
53. Sözer, B.: Taşıyanın Gemiyi Sefere Elverişli Halde Bulundurmak Borcu, Ankara 1975.
54. Stevens, F.: “Carrier Liability for Unmanned Ships: Goodbye Crew, Hello Liability” in New Technologies, Artificial Intelligence and Shipping Law in The 21st Century, Soyer B. - Tettenborn A. (eds.), pp. 148-161, Abingdon 2020.
55. Taşdelen, N.: “Deniz Yoluyla Yapılan Taşımalarda Taşıyanın Başlangıçtaki Elverişsizlikten Doğan Sorumluluğu”, Bilgi Toplumunda Hukuk Ünal Tekinalp’e Armağan, C. I, İstanbul 2003.
56. Tetley, W.: Marine Cargo Claims, Vol. 1, 4th ed., Toronto 2008.
57. Tetley, W.: Marine Cargo Claims, 3rd ed., Montreal 1988.
58. Tetley, W.: International Maritime and Admiralty Law, Cowansville 2002.
59. Thommen, T. K.: “Carriage of Goods by Sea: The Hague Rules and Hamburg Rules”, JILI, 1990, Vol. 32, Iss. 3, p. 285.
60. Todd, P.: Principles Carriage of Goods by Sea, Abingdon 2016.
61. Topsoy, F.: Deniz Ticareti Hukuku I: Giriş, Gemi, Donatan ve Deniz Ticareti Sözleşmeleri, İstanbul 2020.
62. Treitel, G. - Reynolds, F.: Carver on Bills of Lading, 2nd Edition, London 2005.
63. Veal, R. - Tsimplis, M.: “The Integration of Unmanned Ships into the Lex Maritima”, LMCLQ, 2017, p. 303.
64. Wagenaar, W.A. - Groeneweg, J.: “Accidents at Sea: Multiple Causes and Impossible Consequences”, IJMM, 1987, Vol. 27, Iss. 5&6, p. 587.
65. White, R.: “The Human Factor in Unseaworthiness Claims”, LMCLQ, 1995, p. 221.
66. Wilson, J.F.: Carriage of Goods by Sea, 7th ed., London 2010.
67. Xing, W. - Zhu, L.: “A Pioneering Study of Third-Party Liability Insurance for Unmanned/Autonomous Commercial Ships”, Journal of Business Law, 2019, Vol. 6, p. 442.
68. Yetiş-Şamlı, K.: “Lahey-Lahey/Visby, Hamburg ve Rotterdam Kuralları’nda Sefere Elverişlilik”, IÜHFM, 2013, C. LXXI, S. 2, p. 479.
69. Zhang, P. - Phillips E.: “Safety First: Reconstructing the Concept of Seaworthiness under the Maritime Labour Convention”, Marine Policy, 2016, Vol. 67, p. 54.
70. Farach, M.: A Sea Trolley Problem: “An Exploration of the Impact of the Unmanned Vessels on Maritime Law”, Master’s Thesis, The City Law School, London 2020.
71. Kampantais, N.: “Seaworthiness in Autonomous Unmanned Cargo Ships”, Master’s Thesis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam 2016.
72. Kassem, A. H.: “The Legal Aspects of Seaworthiness: Current Law and Development”, Doctoral Dissertation, Swansea University, Swansea 2006.
73. Tütüncü, A.: Geminin Başlangıçtaki Elverişsizliği Dolayısı İle Taşıyanın Sorumluluğu, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul 1985.
74. Danish Maritime Authority: “Analysis of Regulatory Barriers to Autonomous Ships”: Final Report, Copenhagen 2017.
75. European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA): “Annual Overview of Marine Casualties and Incidents”, 2018.
76. Japan P&I Club: “Coastal Vessels-Prevention of Damage to Harbour Facilities and Related Cases”, P&I Loss Prevention Bulletin No. 4, March 2008.
77. UNCITRAL: “Working Documents Report of the Working Group on International Legislation on Shipping on the Work of its Fourth (Special) Session”, Geneva 25 September-6 October 1972, A/Cn.9/74, (accessed, on 15 January 2021).
78. Veal, R. - Tsimplis, M. - Serdy, A. - Ntovas, A. - Quinn, S.: “Liability for Operations in Unmanned Maritime Vehicles with Differing Levels of Autonomy”, University of Southampton, Final Report 2016.
79. CMI: “Summary of Responses to the CMI Questionnaire”, Documents Produced, CMI IWG Submission to LEG 107, (accessed, on January 28, 2021).
80. CMI: “Letters to Presidents of NMLAs regarding IWG on Vessel Nomenclature”, (accessed, on January 28, 2021).
81. DNV GL: “The Future of Remotely Operated Machinery”, (accessed, on 10 January 2021).
82. European Parliament: “Report with Recommendations to the Commis-sion on Civil Law Rules on Robotics”, 2017, (accessed, on 17 February, 2021).
83. IMO: “IMO takes first steps to address autonomous ships”, (accessed, on December 27, 2020). Kongsberg: “Autonomous Ship Project, Key Facts about Yara Birke-land”, (accessed, on December 17, 2020).
84. Maritime Connector: “International Maritime Organization & Conventions: Hague-Visby Rules”, (accessed, on 24 February, 2021).
85. MUNIN, “Rationale Behind the Unmanned Ship”, MUNIN Brochure 2013, (accessed, on December 5, 2020). MUNIN: “Research in Maritime Autonomous Systems Project Results and Technology Potentials”, Final Brochure, 2016, (accessed, on December 22, 2020).
86. MUNIN: “D9.2: Quantitative Assessment”, 2015, Ga‐No: 314286 (accessed, on December 28, 2020).
87. MUNIN: “The Autonomous Ship”, (accessed, on 28 December, 2020).
88. Rolls-Royce: “Rolls-Royce Demonstrates World’s First Remotely Ope-rated Commercial Vessel”, 20 June 2017, (accessed, on December 15, 2020).
89. Safety4sea: “Yara Birkeland delivered to its owners”, 30 November 2020, (accessed, on February 18, 2021).
90. UNCITRAL: “Text and Status”, (accessed, on 10 January, 2021).
91. Actis Co. Ltd. v. The Sanko Steamship Co. Ltd. (The Aquacharm) (1982) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 7.
92. The Southwark, 191 U.S. 1, 15, 24 S. Ct. 1, 48 L. Ed. 65 (1903).
93. The Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd V Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (1961) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 159.
94. The Muncaster Castle (1960) 1 QB 536.
95. The Westerdok (1962) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 180.
96. President Of India V West Coast Steamship Co (The Portland Trader) (1963) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 278.
97. The Murphy V. National Bulk Carriers, Inc. (1970) 310 F. Supp. 1246, 1249 (E.D. Pa.).
98. The Eurasian Dream (2002) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 719.
99. The Makedonia (1962) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 316.
100. The Reed V. Page (1927) 1 K.B. 743, At 754.
101. The Elder Demspter & Co. V Paterson Zochonis & Co. (1924) A.C. 522.
102. The Thorsa (1916) P. 257.
103. The Stanton V Richardson (1872) L.R. 7 C.P. 421, (1874) L.R. 9 C.P. 390.
104. The Gudermes (1991) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 456, 472–474, (1993) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 311.
105. The Aconcagua (2010) Ewca Civ 1403, para. 367, (2011) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 683.
106. The Standale (1938) 6 Lloyd’s Rep. 145.
107. Kopitoff V Wilson (1876) 1 Qbd 377.
108. The Starsin (2004) 1 A.C. 715.
109. Bradley V Federal Steam Navigation Co. (1927) 27 Lloyd’s Rep. 395.
110. The Roberta (1937) 58 Lloyd's Rep. 231.
111. Boudoin V. Lykes Brothers Steamship Co. Inc. (1955) 348 U.S. 336.
112. Handley V. United States (1958) 157 F. Supp. 616 (S.D.N.Y.).
113. Robinson V. S.S. Atlantic Starling (1966) 369 F. 2d 69 ( 5th Circuit).
114. The Rover (D.C.) 33 Fed. 515, P. 521.