How revolutionary new technologies, automating and simplifying the shipping process, will fit into shipping's ancient legal and regulatory regime

无人驾驶船接管。英国是该行业的先行者，有望从这项新技术中获益最多。由于英国商船市场有望从根本上提高生产率和盈利能力，令人惊讶的是，探索相关监管和法律问题的学术文献却很少。因此，本研究项目旨在通过详细介绍无人驾驶船舶可能面临的问题来提供清晰度，然后寻求识别并提供针对这些问题的技术解决方案。研究问题：第一，无人船是否符合商船法，是否符合国内“可登记性”，是否符合国内和国际安全标准？第二，无人船对商事当事人的责任有何影响？除其他外，无人驾驶船舶是否被视为“适航”，人工智能导致的“偏差”是否被视为自愿，从而取代运输合同条款？第三，正在开发或应该开发哪些技术来增加无人船与商船和商业法兼容的潜力？创新的空间很大，可以扩大和改进已有的研究。例如，Karlis不是法律研究人员，他犯了一些法律错误。1997年的《条例》实际上已被废除；他没有引用任何权威来证明他的适航性。Veal & Tsimplis无疑是法律研究人员，但他们的工作仅限于一篇文章。在一些案例中，英国法律规定了有人的要素要求。此外，作者认为STCW只适用于“海员”，但1997年的规则将某些STCW规则强加于更广泛的“海船”类别。作者也没有参考商船通知。因此，有人认为，法律上专门的和更深入的研究可以大大补充目前的文献。最后，还有一个关于AI的新论点。卡里斯认为，具有“潜在缺陷”的人工智能将使船舶无法适航。然而，如果人工智能被认为是“类人”（即强人工智能），并且具有类似人类的易犯错误，那么这种缺陷可能会被考虑在大师判例法下，而不是“设备”判例法下。里约热内卢Tinto v Seed Shipping提供了强有力的权威，假设不健康（或不可靠）的“船长”不一定会导致船舶不适航。该项目将包括技术-法律方法。首先，它将查阅有关无人驾驶船舶和人工智能发展的科学文献，以得出法律可能适用的“规范”。其次，它将使用黑字比较方法来确定，或者更确切地说，预测法律——目前没有关于无人驾驶船舶的直接判例法。该方法具有预测性和抽象性的双重特点，具有突破性，具有重要的现实意义。

Unmanned shipping taking over. The UK is an industry first mover and looks to benefit most from this new technology. Owing to the promise of radically increasing productivity and profitability in the UK merchant shipping market, it is surprising there is a scarcity of academic literature exploring relevant regulatory and legal issues. Therefore, this research project will aim to provide clarity by detailing the issues unmanned shipping will likely face and then seek to identify and provide technological solutions to these issues.Research questionsFirstly, whether unmanned ships will comply with merchant shipping law, in terms of domestic "registrability" and compliance with domestic and international safety standards? Secondly, what impact will unmanned ships have on commercial parties' liabilities? Inter alia, will unmanned ships be considered "seaworthy" and will AI-led "deviations" be considered voluntary and thereby displace the carriage contract's terms? Thirdly, what technologies are being developed or should be developed to increase unmanned ships' potential to be compatible with merchant shipping and commercial law?OriginalityThere is significant scope for creativity and to augment and improve upon pre-existing research. For example, Karlis is not a legal researcher and makes a couple legal mistakes. The 1997 Regulations have actually been repealed; he cites no authority for his seaworthiness argument. Veal & Tsimplis are undoubtedly legal researchers, but their work was limited to an article. There are cases which suggest a manned element requirement under UK law.Furthermore, the authors argue STCW applies only to "seafarers" but the 1997 Regulations impose certain STCW rules onto a wider category of "sea-going ships". The authors also do not refer to Merchant Shipping Notices. It is submitted, therefore, that legally specialised and more in-depth research could significantly add to the current literature.Lastly, there is a novel AI argument to be made. Karlis suggests AI with an "underlying defect" would render ships unseaworthy. However, if AI is considered "human-like" (i.e. strong AI) and possess human-like fallibility, then such defects might be considered under masters case-law rather than "equipment" case-law. Rio Tinto v Seed Shipping provides strong authority for supposing unhealthy (or fallible) "masters" do not necessarily render the ship unseaworthy.MethodologyThe project will include a techno-legal approach. Firstly it will consult scientific literature on unmanned ships and AI developments in order to conclude the likely "specifications" to which the law will apply. Secondly it will use a black-letter comparative approach to determine, or rather predict, the law-currently there is no direct case-law on unmanned ships. The methodology will be radical owing to its dually predictive and abstract elements, which will have great practical significance.