Abstract:
This research explores the legal challenges associated with autonomous vehicles, with a primary focus on analyzing existing legislative frameworks and evaluating their adequacy in addressing the complexities of this technology. The study proposes innovative legal solutions to achieve a balance between fostering technological advancements and ensuring legal accountability. Additionally, the research emphasizes the importance of assessing the compatibility of current legislation with the issues posed by autonomous vehicles and determining the extent to which these laws can be effectively applied to resolve emerging problems.
Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence – Legal Liability – Conventional – Autonomous Ships
Introduction:
This research primarily examines the concept of ships as defined in certain international conventions and national laws, recognizing that defining or conceptualizing ships forms the foundation for addressing legal issues.
Given the rapid technological advancements we are witnessing today,
with artificial intelligence increasingly replacing human intervention in various aspects of life, it becomes essential to assess whether the law is keeping pace with these developments
Research methodology
This research adopts an analytical research methodology aimed at examining the legal challenges associated with autonomous ships.
It includes some of the international agreements, local laws, and
doctrinal opinions. Additionally, it explores the impact of this issue on the current reality and how it can be addressed in line with existing laws, or by recommending the enactment of new
legislation, as we heavily rely on technology in many aspects of our lives. Definition of Ships:
Ships are vessels that traverse the seas without a human crew on board, with their movement controlled electronically. In essence, they are self-navigating ships that operate based on specific technologies, and they may carry passengers or cargo, making them integral to maritime trade.
It is noteworthy that international conventions related to the seas and ships have not provided a unified or specific definition for autonomous ships. For instance, the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) addressed the law of the flag and the associated challenges but did not define ships in general or autonomous ships in particular. However, some conventions have addressed the definition of “ships” within the context of maritime law, such as:
1. The 1924 Convention on the Uniform Law of Bills of Lading
Ships are defined as the means used for transporting goods. This definition emphasizes the concept of maritime trade and the transportation of goods.
2. The 1989 United Nations Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships
This convention defines ships as including seagoing vessels engaged in international maritime trade, excluding those with a gross tonnage of less than 500 tons. This definition focuses on commercial registration and international shipping.
3. The MARPOL Convention
MARPOL defines a “ship” as any type of sea-going craft operating in the marine environment, including:
• Hydrofoil boats
• Air-cushion vehicles (e.g., hovercrafts)
• Submersibles
• Floating craft
• Fixed or floating platforms
From a comparison of these definitions, it is clear that none explicitly address autonomous ships. However, the MARPOL definition is arguably the most comprehensive, as it uses the term “any type,” which could potentially encompass autonomous ships.
National legislations have tended to provide broader definitions of ships, which could include autonomous ships and address the associated legal challenges under domestic laws. Despite the variation in definitions across national jurisdictions, there is a common set of vessels universally recognized as ships, such as traditional vessels used for navigation.
According to Article 91 of UNCLOS, the conditions for the registration of ships and granting them the flag of a particular state are determined by the national laws of each state, rather than by a unified global definition. The state whose flag the ship flies has the right to decide whether a vessel falls within the definition of a ship, including whether it qualifies as manned or unmanned.
It is noteworthy that many national laws have provided broad definitions of ships, which can encompass autonomous ships as vessels subject to maritime law. For example:
• Panamanian National Law defines ships in a comprehensive manner, allowing it to classify autonomous ships under its scope.
• Canadian Law takes a simpler approach, using the criterion that a ship must be used for navigation, without delving into further details. This approach inherently includes autonomous ships under the scope of maritime law.
Based on the above, autonomous ships have not been explicitly defined as unmanned vessels. Instead, the definition of ships has been expanded to include any type of vessel, thereby enabling the application of local laws to them.
Current maritime laws were designed with traditional ships in mind and did not account for the emergence of autonomous ships. This raises the question: should older legislation be amended to address the unique challenges posed by modern vessels, or can the existing broad definitions,
which already encompass various types of ships—including autonomous ones—be utilized to regulate them effectively? “1”
Types of Artificial Intelligence Vehicles and Legal Responsibility Issues
Self-driving vehicles operate using artificial intelligence (AI) technology, and they are not all of one kind. Differentiating these types is essential to understanding the concept of legal responsibility and distinguishing between them, as some AI vehicles raise significant issues while others do not.
The classification of AI vehicles is based on the standards set by the International Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), which divided AI-powered vehicles into five levels. This classification has been adopted by legal entities such as the Australian National Transport Commission (NTC), the UK Department for Transport, and other recognized bodies. The levels are as follows:
Level 1: Driver Assistance
This level includes vehicles with systems that assist the human driver when needed.
Level 2: Partial Automation
Vehicles at this level can perform two basic control functions designed to relieve the driver. However, the driver must maintain full control over the vehicle at all times, as electronic control is only available for a short period.
Level 3: Conditional Automation
These vehicles can perform driving tasks without the support of the driver’s hands, relying on the automated system. However, the driver must remain ready to take control when required, provided safe driving conditions are ensured.
Level 4: High Automation
At this level, AI systems play a significant role in operating and driving the vehicle. Despite this, the human driver is still required to be present.
Level 5: Full Automation
These are fully autonomous vehicles that no longer require a human driver. All decisions are made by the automated system, which performs all driving tasks, eliminating the need for human oversight. “2”
AI Vehicles and Criminal Responsibility Challenges
Traditional ships rely on their crew, making it possible to hold the captain or crew criminally liable in the event of accidents. However, autonomous ships lack a direct human crew, complicating the identification of criminal responsibility
Based on the above classifications, it is possible to determine in which levels legal issues are likely to arise. For levels 1, 2, and 3, there is no need for new legislation concerning criminal liability for the driver. Incidents involving these vehicles are subject to the current rules governing criminal responsibility.
This concept can be summarized as follows: liability for accidents involving these vehicles aligns in substance, basis, and scope with the rules of criminal responsibility applicable to conventional vehicles, where fault can be attributed to the driver.
However, the notion that these vehicles are subject to current criminal responsibility rules should not be limited to the liability of the driver alone. For instance, courts may exempt a driver from criminal liability in cases where an accident occurred due to a malfunction in the vehicle’s control system, rendering the driver unable to prevent the incident.
An example of this occurred in 2008 when the Nantes Criminal Court ruled to acquit a driver involved in a fatal pedestrian accident caused by a malfunction in the cruise control system of
a Toyota RAV4. The court justified its decision on the grounds that the driver was unable to resist the force exerted on him, equating the situation to physical coercion.
Furthermore, the liability of manufacturers, producers, and programmers may arise for accidents caused by defects in the AI technologies that power these vehicles, as demonstrated in the aforementioned case.
This means that the greater the human element’s authority and control over the vehicle, the more applicable the existing rules governing criminal responsibility become. This leads to the conclusion that there is no need to amend the current regulations. Conversely, the narrower the scope of human intervention, the less applicable these rules become, necessitating the development of new legal frameworks to address the issue of criminal liability for autonomous vehicles.
From the above, it is clear that the challenges of criminal responsibility in vehicles relying on AI systems and technologies primarily arise at Levels 4 and 5. Determining liability in these cases is both complex and sensitive, as it requires identifying the party to whom fault can be attributed. This is particularly challenging given the involvement of multiple entities in the production and operation of these vehicles, all of which could potentially bear responsibility.”3″
Civil Liability in Autonomous Ships: Legal Challenges and Distribution of Responsibility
Civil liability is considered one of the most significant intersections between civil law and the implications of autonomous driving technology, as it involves various legal principles addressing liability in cases of accidents that may occur due to the use of this technology. This liability includes determining the parties involved, whether they are vehicle owners, manufacturers of autonomous systems, or users, and clarifying how damages are distributed and compensation is provided to those affected. With the advancement of technology, it is essential to develop the current legal frameworks to keep up with these changes, ensuring justice and the protection of the rights of individuals and society.
There is hope that autonomous vehicles will provide a cure for the risks associated with their traditional counterparts. We would not be like the one who unraveled her own weaving after completing it if we were to consider the occurrence of accidents as an inevitable scenario. To confirm this, one of Google’s self-driving cars caused a traffic accident. Reports stated that one
of the vehicle’s computers was responsible for what is believed to be the first minor collision involving an autonomous vehicle on a street in Mountain View, California, while it was driving itself.”4″
In 2018, a driver using Tesla’s autopilot system collided with the rear of a fire truck. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the accident was due to “the driver’s lack of attention and over-reliance on the advanced driver assistance system, which does not allow the driver to disengage from the task of control and operation, and using the system in ways that do not align with the guidelines and warnings.” 5″
With the spread of autonomous systems, it becomes essential to clarify the issue of legal responsibility. We see that international maritime laws have addressed legal matters related to the rights and obligations of ships, as well as issues concerning navigation and the importance of having certain elements, such as a crew on board, to perform tasks like rescuing anyone at risk or in a disaster.
Professor John Villasenor, a professor of electrical engineering and the intersection of technology, policy, and law at the University of California, argues that the current liability framework is sufficiently equipped to address issues associated with self-driving vehicles. He states that the general rules of liability—whether tortious, contractual, or product liability— provide a flexible framework to handle disputes arising from these technologies. Based on this, the existing frameworks do not pose an obstacle to innovation .
Kyle Graham supports the previous viewpoint, affirming the possibility of accommodating compensation claims within the framework of existing civil liability rules. He adds that the causes of action may differ, as litigation is more likely to rely on the theory of failure to warn rather than manufacturing defects, due to the decreased likelihood of identifying errors in the vehicle’s software.”5″
Thus, the absence of a human crew or at least a captain reduces the likelihood of fulfilling the duties and responsibilities related to the crew.
The implementation of some rules embedded in agreements is a significant challenge for unmanned vessels. For example, the SOLAS convention mentions rules such as crew employment (Regulation 14), voyage planning (Regulation 34), bridge visibility requirements (Regulation 22), or pilot transfer arrangements (Regulation 23).
Chapter V also includes a general obligation on captains to provide assistance to those in need (Regulation 33), and it emphasizes the captain’s freedom to make decisions concerning maritime safety or environmental protection, without being constrained by the owner, charterer, or operating company (Regulation 34-1).
According to Regulation V/14 of the SOLAS convention, it is essentially required that “all ships be equipped with adequate and effective crews from the perspective of the safety of life at sea.” The associated guidelines (IMO Resolution A.1047(27)) include broader objectives, such as ship security, cargo safety, and environmental protection, but they are not legally binding.
Therefore, there appears to be a gap regarding unmanned ships, which lack a crew on board.
The question arises: who bears these responsibilities?
According to current maritime rules, responsibility for damages is typically directed to the owners or operators of ships rather than the crew or assistants, as is the case with conventional ships that have laws regulating liability.
In the case of autonomous vessels, to determine who is responsible for civil damages resulting from accidents on board, theoretically, responsibility for accidents caused by autonomous systems could fall on several parties, such as:
1. The owner.
2. The operator.
3. The manufacturer of the autonomous system.
4. The manufacturer of faulty components.
In a case where the ship is operated by technology with human crew assistance, and the human crew fails to override the autonomous system, causing damage, responsibility would partly fall on the crew.
However, in cases where there is no human intervention, things become more complex, such as with failures in the autonomous systems or incorrect programming. Here, it is difficult to hold the owner or operator responsible under a fault-based liability system, and strict liability may be considered an appropriate alternative for autonomous vessels, although it may be
viewed as unfair because it would create a different legal system from that of conventional ships.
However, liability based on the product is a system adopted by the European Union, and this approach is beneficial for those seeking compensation for damage. We find that there are various possibilities for distributing liability in cases of damage caused by autonomous vessels, and determining responsibility depends on the type of damage and its source (technical malfunction, human error, or design flaw). The potential legal liability framework for autonomous shipping can be outlined by identifying the parties involved and possible liability pathways, as follows:
1. Main Parties:
• Component Manufacturer: Responsible for manufacturing parts used in autonomous systems.
• Shipyard: Responsible for building the vessel and installing the autonomous systems.
• Shipowner: The entity that owns the ship and is responsible for its operation.
• Aggrieved Party: The person or entity that suffers harm due to an accident or malfunction on the autonomous ship.
2. Legal Liability Pathways:
• Product Liability:
• This is borne by the component manufacturer or shipyard if the damage results from a product defect (e.g., malfunctioning software or hardware).
• Maritime Liability:
• This is borne by the shipowner when an accident occurs within the scope of maritime operations.
• Contractual Arrangements:
• There are contracts between the shipowner, shipyard, and component manufacturers, which specify the responsibilities of each party.
From the above, we see the complexity of determining liability in autonomous shipping and autonomous vessels, which requires a comprehensive study of legal frameworks to cover all possible cases”6″
Recommendations:
1. Handling Autonomous Vehicles Based on the Issue:
Autonomous vehicles should be dealt with based on the nature of the issue they raise. If the issue can be resolved using the legal provisions applicable to traditional vessels, it should be handled accordingly. In other cases, they should be viewed as non-traditional vehicles operated by an intelligent electronic program, with liability limited to the program operator or owner, depending on how each issue and case is formulated individually.
2. Adopting Tort Liability Based on Negligence:
The judiciary should consider adopting some current doctrinal opinions advocating the application of tort liability principles based on negligence, as a means to avoid the consequences of strict liability. This includes finding ways to accurately determine the level of negligence.
3. Issuing New International Maritime Legislation:
International maritime law should take practical steps to enact new legislation that includes concepts of artificial intelligence and autonomous vehicles. This will help keep pace with global developments and address potential legal challenges in the future.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, autonomous vehicles represent a qualitative leap in the world of technology and transportation. However, integrating them into the legal framework faces numerous challenges. This study has reviewed the legal liability issues arising from the use of these vehicles, both within the context of local laws and international agreements.
There is a clear need to develop flexible and comprehensive legislation that keeps pace with rapid technological advancements, without hindering innovation or undermining the legal protection of affected parties. Utilizing traditional liability rules while updating them to align with the nature of artificial intelligence could be an effective step toward achieving a balance between individual rights and promoting technological progress.
Ultimately, collaboration among legislative, judicial, and scholarly entities remains essential to establishing a comprehensive legal framework that ensures justice and keeps up with the rapid changes in this field.
Maritime University The Maritime Commons: Digital Repository of the World Maritime University ”
1″
| “ | “د.محمد سالم أبو الفرج2 | دراسة تحليلة مقارنة– السفن ذاتية القيادة التحديات القانونية- |
مركباتُ الذكاء االصطناعي المنافع والمخاطر وتحديات المسؤولي ة
” “الجنائية عما تتسبب به من حوادث3
” “المركبات ذاتية القيادة : قضايا التنظيم والمسؤولية المدنية4
Sz Hua Huang et al .V Tesla, Inc.d-b-a Tesla Motors inc.”5″
Remote and autonomous ships- The next steps “6”
Fatima Ahmed Mahjoub
University of Khartoum faculty of Law