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

无人驾驶船舶正在接管。英国是该行业的先行者，有望从这项新技术中获益最多。由于有望从根本上提高英国商船市场的生产率和盈利能力，令人惊讶的是，探讨相关监管和法律问题的学术文献稀少。因此，这项研究项目的目的是通过详细说明无人驾驶航运可能面临的问题来澄清问题，然后寻求确定并提供这些问题的技术解决方案。研究问题首先，无人驾驶船舶是否会在国内“可注册性”和遵守国内和国际安全标准方面符合商船法律？其次，无人船对商事当事人的责任有何影响？除其他事项外，无人驾驶船只是否会被视为“适航”，人工智能主导的“偏离”是否会被视为自愿，从而取代运输合同的条款？第三，正在开发或应该开发哪些技术，以提高无人驾驶船舶与商船和商法兼容的潜力？原创性在现有研究的基础上，有很大的创新空间和增强和改进的余地。例如，卡利斯不是一名法律研究员，他犯了几个法律错误。1997年的规定实际上已经被废除；他没有引用任何权威来证明他的适航性论点。毫无疑问，小牛肉和多斯皮斯都是法律研究人员，但他们的工作仅限于一篇文章。有案例表明，英国法律规定了人员配备人员的要求。此外，作者认为，STCW只适用于“海员”，但1997年的规定将某些STCW规则强加于更广泛类别的“远洋船舶”。作者也没有提到商船通知。因此，有人认为，法律专业化和更深入的研究可以显著增加目前的文献。最后，还有一个新的人工智能论点要提出。卡利斯表示，人工智能存在“潜在缺陷”，将使船只不适合航海。然而，如果人工智能被认为是“类似人类的”(即强人工智能)并具有类似人类的易犯错误，那么这些缺陷可能会被视为大师判例法而不是“装备”判例法。力拓诉种子航运案提供了强有力的权威，假设不健康(或容易出错)的“船长”不一定会导致船舶不适航。方法该项目将包括技术法律方法。首先，它将参考关于无人驾驶船只和人工智能发展的科学文献，以得出该法律将适用的可能的“规范”。其次，它将使用黑信比较方法来确定或更准确地预测法律--目前没有关于无人驾驶船只的直接判例法。由于其双重预测性和抽象性的因素，这种方法将是激进的，这将具有重大的现实意义。

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 The 1997 Regulations have actually been repealed; he cites no authority for his seaworthiness argument.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.