Current Trends in Maritime Law and  Arbitration

Greece VYAP – Greece Very Young Arbitration Practitioners was pleased to host an evening dedicated to the evolving landscape of Maritime Law and Arbitration, held during the Athens Arbitration Days.

Venue: PiraeusMarine Club,Piraues, Greece

The event  opened with remarks by:
⚖️ Jon Elvey, President, LMAA London
⚖️ Dr. Antonios Tsavdaridis, Head of Arbitration, Rokas Law Firm
⚖️ Stefanie G. Efstathiou, LL.M. mult., CIPP/E, Co-Chair, Greece VYAP

Two expert panels, moderated by Nicholaos Gerassimou, Vice President of the Hellenic Association of Maritime Law, will explore cutting-edge developments in the sector — from autonomous vessels and digital bills of lading to ESG compliance, P&I claims, and sanctions in maritime operations.

Speakers:
• Dr. iur. Stavroula I. Angoura LL.M. (Athemar Maritime S.A.)
• Konstantinos Grigoriadis (The London P&I Club)
• Alexia-Anna Kalafati (NorthStandard)
• Dimitrios Kyriazis (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH))
• George Lambrou FCIArb (George Lambrou Arbitration)
• Spyridon Leonis (Timagenis Law Firm)
• Zoi Maria Sofronidou (Gard AS)
• Jie Tai (Reiz Law Firm, China)

Organizer:GreeceVYAP

Stefanie Efstathiou,Co-Chair  GreeceVYAP

OpeningAddresses 19:05 – 19:20

Jonathan Elvey,President of the London   Maritime  Arbitrators  Association (LMAA)

19:20–19:35

Dr.Antonios Tsavdaridis, Head of Arbitration (RokasLawFirm)

19:35–20:45 MainPanel Discussion

Moderator

Nicholaos  Gerassimou,VicePresident of the Hellenic Association of Maritime Law

Emerging Legal  and  Technological Challenges in  Maritime  Disputes

Topics&Speakers:

• Legal Aspects  regarding the Operation of Autonomous and  Unmanned  Vessels- Stavroula Angoura, Attorney-at-Law (Athemar Maritime S.A.)
• Electronic Bills  of  Lading and Block chainin maritime  trade–JieTAI,GlobalPartner(Reiz Law Firm, China)
• From Brussels to the High Seas: the extraterritorial application of EU ESG standards in maritimeoperationsandthetenserelationshipbetweenmaritimearbitrationandEUlaw

Dimitrios Kyriazis, AssistantProfessor(AristotleUniversityThessaloniki)

• GeorgeLambrou,Independent  Arbitrator  (GeorgeLambrouArbitration)

The  Role of P&IClub  in Managing  and  Resolving  Disputes:  Sanctions  and Risk Allocation

Topics  & Speakers:

• The interplay between P&I claims handling and arbitration / Strategic considerations before trigger in garbitration/Common  pitfalls  and lessons   learned  from  recentcases?– Alexianna Kalafati, FD&D Claims Senior Advisor (NorthStandard)
• How sanctions and compliance obligations (e.g. EU, UK, US) affect contractual performance and arbitration – Zoi Sofronidou, Lawyer (Gard AS)

• The interplay between P&I claims handling and arbitration / Strategic considerations before triggering arbitration – Konstantinos Grigoriadis, Claims Manager (London P&I Club)
• Practical implications for enforcement and award recognition – Spyridon Leonis, Attorney-at-Law (Timagenis Law Firm)

Dr. Stavroula Angoura, Attorney at-law, expert in maritime law

and arbitration  introduce the subject:

“Legal Aspects regarding the Operation of Autonomous and

Unmanned Vessels’

Imagine a large commercial vessel sailing across the open ocean.

Her route is perfect. She avoids other ships. She adjusts to weather

conditions. Everything runs smoothly. And yet, there is no one on

board. No captain. No crew. Just sensors, software, and remote

supervision.

This may sound like science fiction, but it is quickly becoming a

reality. Autonomous shipping is no longer a distant vision—it is a

transformative shift that is already taking place in our oceans. For

shipowners, insurers, regulators, and everyone involved in maritime

transport, autonomous vessels represent a paradigm shift. They

challenge centuries of maritime law, which were built on the

assumption of humans physically present on the bridge.

And this brings us to the most fundamental questions:

Who is responsible if something goes wrong?

Who manages the risk?

How do insurance, charterparty obligations, and regulatory

compliance work when the crew is replaced by algorithms and AI?

Autonomous shipping is not merely about replacing people with

machines. It forces us to rethink responsibility, accountability, and

safety at sea. Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships, or MASS, are

already testing these boundaries, and today I want to guide you

through what they are, the challenges they bring, and how the law is

beginning to catch up.

1. What Are Autonomous and Unmanned Vessels?

First, it’s important to clarify the terminology, because “autonomous”

and “unmanned” are not the same.

 Autonomous ships operate independently using artificial

intelligence and advanced navigation systems. They can make

operational decisions on their own, such as avoiding collisions,

adjusting speed, or rerouting based on weather conditions.

 Unmanned ships simply mean there is no crew physically on

board.

The internationally recognized term is Maritime Autonomous

Surface Ships, or MASS, officially adopted by the International

Maritime Organization in 2017. This term covers all levels of

autonomy, from ships that are mostly crewed but use AI for

navigation, to fully autonomous vessels with no human supervision

onboard.

Currently, small autonomous vessels, often less than 20 meters, are

already in use. They serve in scientific research, environmental

monitoring, and national defense.

Looking forward, studies suggest that by 2040, autonomous ships

under human supervision could make up 11–17% of the global

commercial fleet. Most of these vessels will operate on domestic

routes and are unlikely to carry passengers or hazardous cargo like

gas or chemicals in the near term.

But deployment is not just about technology, it is about trust. Public

confidence, investor confidence, and trust from charterers and

shippers are all critical. Can we rely on a vessel to make split-second

decisions at sea without a human captain? Can we trust AI to respond

correctly in unexpected situations, such as sudden storms or system

malfunctions? These questions are central to the adoption of

autonomous shipping.

The IMO categorizes ship autonomy into four levels:

1. Level 1: Crewed ships with automated systems, where humans

monitor and can intervene.

2. Level 2: Remotely controlled ships, but with crew on board

ready to step in if necessary.

3. Level 3: Remotely controlled ships with no crew on board,

where human intervention is only from shore.

4. Level 4: Fully autonomous ships, where AI handles all

operations and humans do not intervene in real time.

As we move from Level 1 to Level 4, the legal, operational, and

insurance challenges grow dramatically. With fully autonomous

vessels, the traditional assumptions of maritime law simply no longer

apply.

2. Legal and Regulatory Challenges

Maritime law was written for humans on the bridge. Autonomous

ships raise a host of legal questions that the original drafters never

imagined. Let’s break down the main issues.

Legal Definition of a Ship

First, what is a ship? Surprisingly, there is no universally accepted

definition. Scholars and legislators have proposed various criteria:

buoyancy, the ability to move under its own power, carrying people or

goods, and operating in maritime waters.

Most experts agree that crew presence is not essential to define a

ship. National approaches vary:

 In Greece, autonomous vessels are recognized as ships.

 In France, the traditional definition of a ship includes being

“equipped and crewed,” which could have excluded autonomous

vessels.

 International conventions such as MARPOL, the Hague-Visby

Rules, and the Athens Convention generally do not require

crew, which allows MASS to be recognized legally under

existing law.

This shows that while some legal frameworks are compatible with

autonomous vessels, others may need adaptation to account for

vessels without human crews.

Liability and Remote Operators

Next, consider liability.

Who is responsible if an autonomous ship causes an accident?

Remote operators, who run the ship from a Shore Control Center, are

often seen as the controllers. But are they considered crew? Are they

legally equivalent to the captain?

Under Greek law, the answer is no. Remote operators are not part of

the crew, and cannot act as the captain. This creates practical

dilemmas. Fully autonomous ships cannot fulfill duties traditionally

assigned to the master, such as providing assistance to shipwrecked

persons or other vessels in distress.

Liability may therefore be divided among multiple parties:

shipowners, software developers, remote operators, insurers, and even

charterers. Determining fault requires careful analysis of operational

logs, software behavior, and decision-making algorithms, a level of

complexity that maritime law has not fully addressed.

Insurance, Charterparty, and Documentation

Autonomous vessels also challenge the assumptions behind insurance

and charterparty agreements. Seaworthiness traditionally requires a

properly manned ship. Now, classification societies must certify

vessels that may operate entirely without humans, raising questions

about how to inspect and verify safety.

Bills of lading and ship certificates, historically issued by the master

or agent, will need to be fully electronic. The legal authority to issue

these documents must be clarified. These changes highlight that

almost every aspect of maritime law from liability to documentation

to insurance needs to be reconsidered for autonomous operations.

3. International Efforts

Recognizing these gaps, the IMO launched the Regulatory Scoping

Exercise (RSE), completed in 2021. The exercise asked questions

like:

 Can a ship without a captain be legally recognized?

 How do watchkeeping and drills apply when there is no crew

onboard?

 Can a remote operator be considered the ship’s master?

The RSE revealed significant gaps in existing law, prompting the

IMO to develop the MASS Code, a global framework for

autonomous shipping.

 A voluntary version is expected by 2025, allowing early

adopters to operate within recommended guidelines.

 A mandatory version is planned for 2028, which will establish

international standards for safety, liability, and digital

operations.

Countries are already preparing for this future. Denmark, Singapore,

Norway, and Panama have introduced fully digital ship certificates,

enabling autonomous vessels to operate legally without paper

documentation. Classification societies, insurers, and regulatory

authorities are gradually adapting to the reality that ships may no

longer carry a traditional crew.

The MASS Code will provide a uniform framework for autonomous

shipping, covering everything from remote operation protocols to

safety standards, liability rules, and cybersecurity measures. Its

adoption is essential for avoiding a patchwork of conflicting national

rules that could otherwise hinder the deployment of autonomous

vessels worldwide.

4. Benefits of Autonomous Shipping

Despite the challenges, the benefits of MASS are enormous.

Autonomous vessels can:

 Reduce human error, which is the leading cause of maritime

accidents.

 Lower operational costs, because crew-related expenses are

reduced.

 Enable new business models, including autonomous cargo

delivery and just-in-time shipping

 Minimize environmental impact, through optimized fuel use and

route planning.

These advantages are driving significant investment in autonomous

shipping and pushing regulators, insurers, and maritime nations to

adapt quickly.

5. Challenges to Overcome

However, for autonomous shipping to succeed, several key challenges

must be addressed:

 Clear international legal frameworks to define liability and

operational standards.

 Acceptance of sensor-based navigation and AI-driven

decision-making.

 Strong cybersecurity measures to prevent hacking or system

failures.

 Properly trained remote operators who can intervene

effectively when required.

Without addressing these issues, the potential benefits of autonomous

shipping may be limited, and the risks could outweigh the rewards.

6. Conclusion

We are entering a new era in maritime transport. Ships can navigate

themselves. Operations can be managed from shore. Autonomous

vessels promise safer navigation, lower costs, and more sustainable

shipping.

But technology alone is not enough. The law must catch up. Insurance

frameworks, classification societies, international conventions, and

liability rules all need to evolve. MASS is not just a technological

innovation, it is a paradigm shift in maritime responsibility.

The next decade will determine how successfully autonomous

shipping is integrated into global trade. For regulators, insurers, and

operators alike, the challenge  is clear: adapt or risk being left behind.

The future of shipping is autonomous, and it is arriving faster

than most of us realize.