Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships under International Law: Emerging Legal Challenges : Author: Roshan Safeeqa A
The maritime industry is experiencing a major technological change as a result of the development of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS). Such ships are capable of carrying out navigation and other operational tasks with different levels of human involvement. The use of autonomous shipping could lead to greater efficiency, lower operating costs and better maritime safety. At the same time it does raise questions about the legal rules which have always been based on the idea that a human master and crew are actually on board.
ARTICLE
Introduction:
The maritime industry is experiencing a major technological change as a result of the development of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS). Such ships are capable of carrying out navigation and other operational tasks with different levels of human involvement. The use of autonomous shipping could lead to greater efficiency, lower operating costs and better maritime safety. At the same time it does raise questions about the legal rules which have always been based on the idea that a human master and crew are actually on board.
The main legal issue is therefore not simply whether ships can navigate autonomously, but rather who should be held legally responsible in the case of a collision, a pollution incident or some other maritime accident. The recent efforts of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), along with developments in maritime case law, show that there is a need for a coordinated international legal framework.
MASS under the Existing International Legal Framework:
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS) provides the fundamental legal framework governing international navigation. Articles 90-94 deal with navigation, nationality of ships and the duties of the flag State. Article 94 requires the flag State to exercise effective jurisdiction and control over ships flying its flag, including matters concerning safety and prevention of collisions.[1]
However, UNCLOS was developed when ships were ordinarily operated by persons physically present on board. MASS creates uncertainty concerning concepts such as the “master”, “crew” and human control when navigation is performed remotely or autonomously.
The IMO’s regulatory scoping exercise identified issues concerning the master and crew, remote operators, watchkeeping, search and rescue and the application of existing maritime conventions to MASS.
The Master and Human Responsibility:
Traditional maritime law places significant responsibilities on the master concerning navigation, safety and emergency response. In a MASS environment, the person exercising operational control may instead be located in a Remote Operations Centre.
The IMO has therefore examined the way in which the conventional idea of the master should apply to autonomous ships. In May 2026, the IMO has adopted the International Code of Safety for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS Code) as a non-mandatory instrument that has entered into force on 1 July 2026. The MASS Code offers a goal-oriented approach that is applicable to different areas, such as human supervision, remote control, and risk management.[2]
However, the major legal problem remains open: when an autonomous system takes a decision on its own that leads to damage, who should be held responsible for the outcome of the situation—the remote operator, the shipowner, the technology manufacturer, or someone else?
Collision Liability and Attribution of Fault:
Collision liability presents perhaps the most difficult issue. Under conventional maritime law, liability may arise from the conduct of the master, crew, owner or operator. With MASS, a collision could instead result from defective software, inaccurate sensors, communication failure, cybersecurity interference or an autonomous algorithm’s decision.
In Fugro Geotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. M.V. Surya 2 (2024), was an important case decided by the Bombay High Court on compensation for damage due to a ship collision, and the court held that the damage was maritime claim in nature according to Section 2(1)(b) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. It passed an order for the arrest of the ship.
More recently, in Surendran v. Elsa 3 Maritime Inc., (2026), the Kerala High Court considered limitation of liability following the sinking of MSC ELSA 3 and examined the relationship between limitation proceedings and admiralty jurisdiction.[4]
COLREG and Autonomous Navigation:
The Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREG) establishes rules concerning lookout, safe speed, risk of collision and manoeuvring. These rules are traditionally applied through human navigational judgment.[5]
The difficulty with MASS is whether an autonomous system can satisfy concepts such as maintaining a “proper lookout” or taking action according to ordinary standards of good seamanship. The question is therefore not merely whether artificial intelligence can technically perform a manoeuvre, but whether an automated decision can legally satisfy a rule originally formulated around human judgment.
Cybersecurity and Jurisdictional Problems:
The MASS automation systems depend greatly on sensors, software, satellite communication, and remote-control infrastructure. These attacks can result in disrupting navigational or control systems, thus increasing the chances of collision, contamination, or even death. The MASS Code accordingly addresses risk management, system integrity, connectivity and cybersecurity.
A further difficulty arises where a ship is registered in one State, remotely operated from another and navigating near a third State. Determining jurisdiction and responsibility following a cyber-related incident may consequently become complex.
Suggestions and Recommendations:
First, the IMO should develop the 2026 MASS Code into an obligatory international code through gradual evolution, making use of practical experience to cover the gaps in regulation.Uniform international rules would reduce conflicting national approaches.
Second, international law should clearly define the responsibilities of the master and remote operator, including responsibility for navigation, emergency intervention and compliance with COLREG.
Third, a specific liability and attribution mechanism should address autonomous decision-making. Where a casualty occurs, responsibility should be assessed among the owner, operator, remote master, manufacturer, software developer and other relevant actors according to their respective roles and negligence.
Fourth, cybersecurity should form part of the legal concept of seaworthiness. Operators shall have safe communication systems, conduct regular cybersecurity assessments, and establish procedures for reporting and investigating cyber incidents.
Finally, MASS regulation should be technology-neutral and risk-based. Regulation should focus on the safety risks created by autonomous operations rather than unnecessarily restricting particular technologies. Human intervention should remain available when autonomous systems encounter circumstances beyond their validated operational limits.
Conclusion:
MASS challenges a fundamental tenet of traditional maritime law that assumes the physical presence of a human being on board who is able to make immediate navigational decisions. UNCLOS, SOLAS and COLREG remain vital but more clarification is required on the master, remote operator, collision liability, cybersecurity and autonomous decision-making.
The IMO MASS Code represents an important step towards addressing these challenges. However, the future legal framework must ensure that increasing autonomy does not create decreasing accountability. The success of autonomous shipping should therefore be measured not only by how independently a vessel can operate, but also by how clearly the law can identify responsibility when autonomous navigation fails.
[1] United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982, Articles 90-94.
[2] Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS Code), 2026.
[3] Fugro Geotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. M.V. Surya 2 (2024), Bombay High Court.
[4] Surendran v. Elsa 3 Maritime Inc., F.A.O. (Admiralty) (2026) Kerala High Court.
[5] International Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREG), 1972.