125

1 INTRODUCTION

Carriage of goods by sea is as old as sea navigation

itself. Sea is the most convenient natural route, which

led to its use for carriage, particularly carriage of

goods. The need to carry goods affected the

development and improvement of different ship types

for carrying various types of goods. Ships are

continuously improved upon, with technological

advances continuously being made, and over the last

few years there has been increasing talk on the

concept of using autonomous ships to replace

traditional ships in different types of carriage of goods

by sea.

Almost all current traditional ships possess a

certain level of autonomy and can perform certain

functions “on their own” [2]. However, the goal of

many participants in the maritime industry is to

develop and put into use fully autonomous ships, so

the realization of using the new generation of ships is

becoming increasingly relevant.

Comparison of Problems Related to the Carriage of

Goods by Sea Between Traditional and Autonomous

Vessels

M. Pijacar

& B. Bulum

University of Zadar, Zadar, Croatia

Adriatic Institute of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Zagreb, Croatia

ABSTRACT: When performing the carriage of goods by sea, each contracting party, shipowner and charterer,

has a number of rights and obligations. In legal sources which regulate carriage of goods by sea, in particular

contracts concluded between parties, international conventions and national laws, standard clause is

shipowner's obligation to provide a seaworthy vessel. Such obligation implies that the vessel must be able to

carry and keep the contracted cargo in good condition and also have required number of qualified crew. On the

other side, charterer's obligation is to order the vessel to sail to ports/berths which are considered safe (safe port

warranty). Also, legal sources of carriage of goods by sea regulate liability issues for loading and discharging

operations, the limitation of the shipowner’s liability and application of provisions related to exclusion of

liability. All of the above represent important rights and obligations of the regulation of the carriage of goods by

sea, and so regulated thus far have been common in the carriage of goods by sea by traditional vessels.

However, the question that arises is how the problems related to the carriage of goods by sea will be regulated

when such carriage is performed by autonomous vessels. In other words, there is a question about

interpretation of the provisions of seaworthiness, safe port warranty, liability and the limitation of the

shipowner’s liability and exclusion of liability in the carriage of goods by sea by autonomous ships.

The purpose of this paper is comparison of problems related to the carriage of goods by sea between the

traditional and autonomous vessels, and regarding the regulation of seaworthiness, safe port warranty, liability,

the limitation of the shipowner’s liability and exclusion of liability. The results of this comparison lead to the

conclusion that reconsideration of the content of the listed terms is needed when we are talking about carriage

of goods by sea by autonomous vessels.

http://www.transnav.eu

the International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 15

Number 1

March 2021

DOI: 10.12716/1001.15.01.12

126

The term autonomous ship means systems which

can steer a ship and make decisions on any changes in

control settings without human intervention. In this

case, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) can deliver

the necessary decision supporting tools. Autonomous

ships can be both manned or unmanned, with

unmanned meaning that the crew is not physically on-

board [6]. The International Maritime Organization

(IMO) defines these ships as Maritime Autonomous

Surface Ships (MASS). Therefore, IMO defines

autonomous ships as maritime autonomous surface

ships and distinguishes between different degrees of

their autonomy. According to IMO, degrees of ship

autonomy are as follows: first degree of autonomy

means a ship with automated processes and decision

support, in which seafarers are on board to operate

and control shipboard systems and functions (in this

case some operations may be automated). The next

degree of autonomy implies remotely controlled ships

with seafarers on board, but the ship is controlled and

operated from another location. Next degree of

autonomy is a remotely controlled ship, where the

ship is controlled and operated from another location

and there are no seafarers on board. Finally, the

highest degree of autonomy is a fully autonomous

ship, where the operating system of a ship can make

decisions and determine actions on its own [10].

Although there are different degrees of autonomy of

autonomous ships, we will use a single term –

“autonomous ship” for all those types of ships.

The main reason for the continuous development

of autonomous systems is an increase in safety and

reduction in costs. In autonomous ships, a human

crew will initially oversee ship operations, but the

plan is to develop a fully autonomous system over

time, which will allow navigation without crew and in

which computers and artificial intelligence will be

able to take full control of the ship. Finally, the

purpose of autonomous ship development is to

replace human action, which should be faster, safer,

more accurate, more productive and/or cheaper

compared to traditional ships [14]. Also, the reduction

or complete exclusion of the human factor from

maritime accidents, which are a frequent cause of

naval accidents in traditional ships, is considered a

great advantage of the introduction of autonomous

ships.

Autonomous ships are certainly the future of

maritime industry [18], which will see a revolution of

the shipping sector, especially commercial operations

such as carriage of goods by sea. Therefore, the

question arises as to the regulation of the carriage of

goods by sea and the regulation of some standard

obligations of the contracting parties regarding the

carriage of such goods by autonomous ships.

When performing the carriage of goods by sea,

each contracting party, shipowner, and charterer has a

number of rights and obligations. In legal sources

which regulate the carriage of goods by sea, in

particular contracts concluded between parties, the

provisions of international conventions and national

laws regulate important obligations regarding the

carriage of goods by sea. Some of these provisions

regulate a shipowner’s obligation to provide a

seaworthy vessel, a charterer’s obligation to send a

ship only to safe ports and berths (safe port warranty),

liability for loading and discharging operations,

limitation of a shipowner’s liability and application of

provisions related to the exclusion of liability.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the

problems related to the carriage of goods by sea

regarding the regulation of seaworthiness, safe port

warranty, liability, the limitation of a shipowner’s

liability and exclusion of liability, and to compare the

same problems between traditional and autonomous

ships. To achieve the purpose of this paper, we will

use the comparative method and analysis method,

and we will use the same methods to compare and

analyze how the highlighted problems are regulated

when it comes to traditional ships, i.e. how they will

be regulated when it comes to autonomous ships.

To be able to more easily determine how the usual

obligations of the contracting parties will be regulated

when it comes to the carriage of goods by

autonomous ships, we will first take a look at the

ways of regulating carriage of goods by sea and

fundamental obligations of the parties when it comes

to the carriage of goods by traditional ships.

2 REGULATING CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA –

CHARTER PARTY CONTRACTS

Carriage of goods by sea is usually regulated by

concluding a contract called charter party contract.

Namely, when a shipowner agrees to make the entire

carrying capacity of his vessel available for either a

particular voyage or a specified period of time, the

contract normally takes the form of a charter party

[23]. Charter party contracts are classified by two

criteria: ship space and contract term, while they can

be contracts for a certain period of time (time charter)

and contracts for a voyage (voyage charter) [16].

With a time charter contract, a shipowner

undertakes to perform the carriage of goods within

the contracted time and with a contracted ship for the

client, and a client undertakes to pay hire during that

time. The client is authorized to freely use the ship for

commercial purposes during the term of the contract,

while the ship master is required to carry out the

orders of the client within the limits of the contract

and according to the intended use of the ship. Client’s

orders may pertain to the port of arrival or cargoes to

be carried [22].

With voyage charters, unlike the time charters, the

fundamental obligation of a shipowner is to carry

goods in one or more predetermined voyages, while a

voyage charterer pays freight. Therefore, a voyage

charter contract can stipulate a certain number of

voyages or set out a number of voyages which can be

performed within a specified time [5].

The purpose of contracting the time charter and

voyage charter is the same, and that is the carriage of

goods by sea. With the same fundamental obligation

of contracting parties, charterparty contracts have

other similar contractual provisions of the parties.

Some of these provisions relate to the regulation of

seaworthiness, safe port warranty, liability, the

limitation of a shipowner’s liability, and exclusion of

liability. Different legal sources, which regulate

127

carriage of goods by sea, in particular contracts

concluded between parties, international conventions,

and national laws, give special attention to regulating

these issues. The highlighted obligations and

problems of the parties are important for this type of

carriage [5, 16, 22, 23].

3 THE SHIPOWNER’S OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE

A SEAWORTHY VESSEL

Ship’s seaworthiness is one of the fundamental

obligations of shipowners established by the

International Convention for the Unification of

Certain Rule of Law relating to Bills of Lading (Hague

Rules) and to the Protocol to Amend the International

Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of

Law, relating to the Bill of Lading (Visby Rules) [8,

17]. The term seaworthiness can be viewed as absolute

and as relative seaworthiness. Absolute seaworthiness

includes the elements of nautical safety of the ship for

sailing in terms of the hull, machinery, ship

equipment and ship certificates, while relative

seaworthiness of a ship for sailing means that the ship

must be able to carry the agreed cargo while

maintaining the cargo in good condition and, with

regard to this, it must be equipped with all propulsion

materials and necessary means and have a required

number of qualified crew members. Seaworthiness of

a ship means that the ship must be capable of

performing the contracted obligations and must

possess a degree of fitness which an ordinary careful

and prudent owner would require his vessel to have

at the commencement of her voyage having regard to

all the probable circumstances of it. So, the condition

of the ship, its crew and equipment should be fit

enough to withhold foreseeable perils that can be

encountered during the charter service [21].

Charter parties expressly impose an obligation of

shipowners to provide seaworthy ships at the time of

delivery. Examples of the same obligation of

shipowners can be found in different examples of

charter party contracts. For example, according to

Clause 2 of the New York Produce Exchange Form

from 2015 (code name: NYPE 2015), “The Vessel on

delivery shall be seaworthy and in every way fit to be

employed for the intended service […]” [15]. Other

examples of express seaworthiness obligations can

also be found in Clause 2 of the NYPE 93 [16], Clause

1 of the Baltime 1939 (revised 2001) Uniform Time

Charter [1], Clause 2.1 of the BPTime 3 Time Charter

Party [3], and 1(b) of the Shelltime4 form Time

Charter Party [20]. Also, the standpoint of case law

when it comes to a ship’s seaworthiness is that even if

there is no express seaworthiness requirement, it is

implied by law [12].

In the carriage of goods by sea, a shipowner acts as

a navigation entrepreneur and it is necessary to

protect their contracting counterparties against the

shipowner’s possible arbitrary actions. For that

reason, among other things, it is necessary to have a

contractual stipulation on the seaworthiness of the

ship.

When determining the ship’s seaworthiness, the

greatest attention is given to the condition of the hull,

machinery, equipment, crew’s qualifications, and

ship’s certifications. Namely, the traditional ship is a

single item which consists of a hull, machinery,

equipment, and control centre that enables crew

members to decide what to do, how to do it and/or

what not to do. However, the seaworthiness of a ship

is not measured in absolute standards and the

standard of seaworthiness of a ship varies and

depends on the condition of the ship with regard to

the risk of a specific undertaking. This takes into

account the type of cargo and realistic dangers on the

voyage.

Unlike the traditional ship, an autonomous ship is

not a single item and what makes an autonomous ship

different is that the hull of the ship is still at sea, but

the control centre is on land [2]. Therefore, we can say

that an autonomous ship consists of two parts: the sea

module and the land module, where the land module

is generally referred to as a control centre. A control

centre does not necessarily have to be on land, but it

can also be on a platform located at sea [2, 6, 14, 18].

Considering the specific qualities of autonomous

ships, when determining their seaworthiness, a

question can be raised whether the attention when

determining the seaworthiness should only be given

to the sea part of an autonomous ship or should the

control centre also be included. The answer to this

depends on whether the control centre can be

accepted as an essential component of the ship or not.

We believe that a seaworthiness analysis should be

made by focusing on both parts. The truth is that the

sea part of an autonomous ship is technically capable

of performing the voyage safely, but there is an

insufficiency of the control centre’s staff engaged in

operating the ship and the part without which the

voyage would not be possible [2, 6].

Technical progress in shipbuilding has always

affected the standard of the ship’s ability to sail the

sea. Also, in the case of autonomous ships, due to all

of their specific qualities, the content of seaworthiness

will also need to be reconsidered. Seaworthiness

standards for this type of ships will depend on their

specific qualities.

4 CHARTERER’S OBLIGATION TO SEND A SHIP

TO SAFE PORTS/BERTHS (SAFE PORT

WARRANTY)

In the carriage of goods by sea, it is common to see an

express limitation that the chartered ship trades only

between safe ports and safe berths. This implies the

obligation of a charterer to send a ship to safe ports

and/or berths, the so-called safe port warranty.

Namely, charter party contracts contain a special

clause on determining trading limits, in which there is

a blank space which is to be filed by the parties, i.e.

which they use to determine the trading limits. If the

space in the contractual provision is left blank, it is

deemed that the contract does not contain trading

limits with regard to the limits of navigation.

Charterers usually give an absolute warranty that

ports to which they send a ship will be safe, but in

some charterparties the charterer’s warranty is one of

due diligence only. If charterers breach their

128

warranty, the master has a right to refuse to enter or

refuse to stay at the port in question [4].

An example of a provision on trading limits can be

found in Clause 1/b of the New York Produce

Exchange Form from 2015 (code name: NYPE 2015),

according to which the ship shall be employed in such

lawful trades between safe ports and safe places

according to contractually defined trading limits as

the charterers shall direct. Identical provisions are

contained in, for example, Clause 2 of the Baltime

Charter Party, Clause 4/c of Shelltime 4 [1, 3, 20].

The rules on safe port and safe berth are of a

fundamental character in maritime law, and the

obligation to adhere to them is unique in all contracts.

Safe port does not mean just a naturally safe port or a

port in which a ship can safely load or discharge cargo

without the risk of physical danger, but also a port in

which a ship can sail to and from and thus load or

discharge cargo without political risks [19]. Whether

the port is safe is a factual issue and depends on

numerous circumstances. For example, according to

the accepted definition of a safe port from English

case law of The Eastern City, a port will not be safe

unless a particular ship can reach it in the relevant

period of time, use it and return from it without, in

the absence of some abnormal occurrence, being

exposed to danger which cannot be avoided by good

navigation and seamanship [13]. Therefore, a safe port

is a port which offers physical, navigational, and

political safety.

Also, the definition of a safe port basically applies

when it comes to a safe berth as well. A berth means a

certain place within a port where a ship loads or

discharges cargo. Regarding this, the term safe berth,

which implies a berth to which the ship can navigate,

sail into, remain at berth, and leave within a certain

time period without some sudden dangerous

circumstances which cannot be avoided by good ship

manoeuvring and seamanship. According to the

contractual provisions, the place for loading or

discharging at the port must be provided by the

charterer, and the shipowner is required to place the

ship at that location if they can do so without danger

to the ship and if the loading of cargo can be done at

that place without danger to the ship.

In case of an absence of the contractual provision

regarding the trading limits of the ship between a safe

port and a safe berth, the position of the case law is

that such a provision is implied if this is necessary to

give a business efficiency to the contract.

When it comes to the contractual provision on

lawful trades between safe ports and safe places and

the carriage of goods by autonomous ships, in this

case it is definitely necessary to consider the criteria

for defining the terms of safe port and safe berth. The

problem with this matter is how to define “safety”. It

is not enough for an autonomous ship to be safe, but

the port and the berth to which the ship arrives or

from which it leaves also need to be safe.

Autonomous ships will be set to work under certain

conditions, and these conditions prevent the making

of a “bad decision”. In addition to this, they will also

have the advantage of being able to collect large

amounts of data on surrounding conditions, to

analyse, process, and integrate all such data and

respond in time. They will never tire, never get sick or

forget about certain dangers. However, connection

problems in the port area are possible with

autonomous ships, due to which the problems of its

safety are imposed. Also, the absence of particular

hardware and sensors necessary for the ship

approaching may make the port or berth in question

unsafe.

Until new criteria are established for determining

the term of safety, which includes the safety of the

port and berth between which autonomous ships

trade and carry goods by sea, it is up to the

contracting parties to stipulate same warranty in more

detail in their contract, within the provision on

trading limits.

5 LIABILITY FOR LOADING AND DISCHARGING

OPERATIONS

In the carriage by sea, a charterer is usually required

to bring the cargo alongside the ship and place it

under the tackle at their own expense and risk, so that

it can be lifted by ship cranes (alongside rule) [16].

The ship is then required to load and arrange the

cargo at its own expense and risk. The same rule also

applies for cargo discharging. This traditional way of

handing over the cargo for carriage to contracting

parties can be changed. Such need is especially

present in charter party contracts for carriage of mass-

produced goods, where the cargo is loaded by

mechanised means (by cranes, conveyer belts, etc.),

most often under the control of the charterer.

Therefore, cargo operations at the port are

currently being handled by humans and, under

current regime, the liability for loading and discharge

is usually imposed on the charterer.

It is expected that some autonomous ships will be

designed to have a feature of handling loading and

discharging operations automatically. It means that

during loading and discharging, there will be no

intervention of a charterer from the outside. For

example, on the Yara Birkeland ship, the world’s first

fully electric and autonomous container ship with

zero emissions, loading and discharging will be done

automatically, using electric cranes and equipment.

The ship will not have ballast tanks but will use a

battery pack as permanent ballast. The ship will also

be equipped with an automatic mooring system –

berthing and unberthing will be done without human

intervention and will not require special

implementations dockside [7].

Therefore, there is a difference between the current

way of handling liability for loading and discharging

operations of a traditional ship compared to the same

liability in an autonomous ship.

6 OTHER PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE USAGE

OF AUTONOMOUS SHIPS FOR THE CARRIAGE

OF GOODS BY SEA

In this section of the paper, we will discuss certain

provisions related to the usage of autonomous ships

129

for the carriage of goods by sea, specifically, the

limitation of a shipowner’s liability and application of

provisions related to the exclusion of liability, which

are important when we compare the same provisions

to those for the carriage of goods by sea by a

traditional ship.

6.1 Limitation of the shipowner’s liability

In maritime law, contrary to the general principle of

the law of obligations, a shipowner is not liable for

total damages, but only for damages up to certain

prescribed limits. The requirement for the application

of this law is the absence of reason for the loss thereof.

The right to the limitation of liability applies, among

other things, to contractual liability for the cargo

carried by sea under the charterparty contract.

The issue of the limitation of liability is regulated

by the International Convention on Limitation of

Liability for Maritime Claims from 1976, as amended

by the Protocol from 1996 [9]. The basis for the

limitation of liability system is a scale comprising

several layers (groups) of the limitation of liability

according to the ship’s tonnage. Limits for smaller

ships are proportionally larger per tonne than for

larger ships. The lowest foreseen limit is applied to all

ships under 500 tonnes (small ships). For ships of

more than 500 tonnes, a certain number of calculation

units is added to the limit for ships under 500 tonnes

according to certain groups. Stipulated liability limits

are applied to the totality of all claims arising from the

same event, and Special Drawing Rights (SDR) as

defined by the International Monetary Fund are used

as the calculation unit [11]. The basis for the

application of the limit amount is gross tonnage, and

this means that the amount of limited liability is

determined according to the tonnage of the ship for

which this liability occurred.

There are cases of a loss of right to the limitation of

liability, and the person who is liable will not have a

right to the limitation of liability if they prove that the

damage occurred due to their personal act or omission

committed with intent to cause damage, or recklessly

and with knowledge that such loss would probably

result. The burden of proof naturally lies with the

applicant.

Considering the presented fundamental

characteristics of the right to the limitation of a

shipowner’s liability, for contractual liability for the

cargo carried by an autonomous ship, we highlight

the same issues as in previous contractual provisions.

Considering the specific qualities of an autonomous

ship and its two component parts, the sea module and

the land module, which is generally referred to as a

control centre, there is a problem in determining the

tonnage. Specifically, the question is whether we

should take into account the weight of the control

centre too when determining a shipowner’s limitation

of liability or only the tonnage of the sea part of an

autonomous ship?

In attempting to answer this question, we will

again have to take into account the specific qualities of

an autonomous ship and, for this type of ships, the

right to the limitation of a shipowner’s liability will

depend on the specific qualities of an autonomous

ship.

6.2 Application of provisions related to the exclusion of

liability

The fundamental obligation of a shipowner in the

carriage of goods by sea is to deliver cargo to its

destination in the condition and in the quantity in

which it was taken for carriage, and to deliver it

without delays. The shipowner is liable to the other

contracting party for damages which occurred due to

a breach of this contractual obligation. A breach of the

contractual obligation implies a default, incomplete

performance or late performance, and the liability of

the carrier implies the obligation to reimburse

damages.

According to Article 4 Section 2 of the Hague

Rules, there are a number of cases in which a

shipowner (i.e. carrier, because this is term used in the

Hague Rules) will not be held liable for damages to

the cargo. These are excepted perils, i.e. exceptions

from the general principle of the liability of a

shipowner/carrier. According to the Hague Rules,

there are a number of cases in which a shipowner

shall not be held liable for damages. Some of these

excepted perils are actions and omissions of the

master, mariner, pilot, or servants of the carrier in

navigation or in ship management. For the shipowner

to be held liable for the work of the above persons,

they need to work within the scope of the

performance of their duties, while the shipowner’s

persons are independently liable for the damages

caused outside of the scope of their duties, in

accordance with the general legal principles, i.e.

without limitations. An exception from the

shipowner’s liability is the damage caused to the ship

by fire. When it comes to fire, a shipowner shall be

liable for damages only if is proven that the fire was

caused by an actual fault or privity. A decision of the

Hague Rules on the shipowner not being responsible

for the fire is based on the assessment that every fire

on a ship is not endangering only the cargo, but also

the safety of the ship, which means that this activity

falls within the nautical activity of the crew. Also, a

shipowner is exceptionally not liable for cases of

perils, dangers, and accidents of the sea or other

navigable waters. So, these imply dangers “from the

sea”, i.e. dangers which are inherent to the sea and

which are of extraordinary nature in their occurrence.

An exception from liability are acts of God [8]. These

are external events which could not be foreseen,

avoided, or prevented. At sea, they most frequently

take the shape of heavy weather.

Some of these exceptions do not provide a clear

answer on how to apply them to an autonomous ship.

For example, the exception of a shipowner for

damages caused on the ship by fire. If the fire occurs

in the control centre without any fault or privity of the

shipowner, then can we say that the shipowner will

not be responsible for the loss. Or can it be said

whether this exception only applies to the case of fire

which occurred on the part of an autonomous ship at

sea.

These and similar questions most often arise due to

the fundamental differences between a traditional and

130

an autonomous ship. As we highlighted, among other

things, the difference between them is that a

traditional ship is a single item, while an autonomous

ship is not, i.e. it has a control centre which is separate

from the rest of the ship.

7 CONCLUSION

The carriage of goods by sea using autonomous ships

requires that standard obligations of contracting

parties be regulated differently than for traditional

ships. Some of these provisions pertain to the

regulation of seaworthiness, safe port warranty, the

limitation of a shipowner’s liability, and exclusion of

liability. All highlighted obligations and problems of

the parties are important in the carriage of goods by

sea, and we compared them for traditional and

autonomous ships.

A traditional ship is a single item comprising hull,

equipment and control centre that enables members of

the crew to decide what to do or not do, whereas the

autonomous ship is not a single item because the hull

of the ship is still at sea, but the control centre is on

land or on a platform at sea. Therefore, when

determining the ability of an autonomous ship for

sailing, it is necessary to determine whether the

attention will only be given to sea part of the

autonomous ship or will the part in the control centre

also be included. When determining seaworthiness,

the greatest attention is given to the condition of the

hull, machinery, equipment, crew’s qualifications and

certifications, and due to the specific qualities of an

autonomous ship, the seaworthiness requirement will

need to be reconsidered.

We pointed out the charterer’s obligation to send

ships to safe ports/berths (safe port warranty) when

performing carriage by sea. Comparing this obligation

in traditional and autonomous ship, we highlighted

the problem of defining the term “safety” when it

comes to autonomous ships. Autonomous ships may

experience connection problems in the port area and

therefore there is an issue of their safety. Also, the

absence of particular hardware and sensors necessary

for ship approaching may make the port or berth in

question unsafe and it is necessary to determine new

criteria for defining the term of safety, which includes

the terms of safe port and safe berth between which

autonomous ships trade and carry goods by sea.

Furthermore, when it comes to the liability for

loading and discharging operations of a traditional

ship compared to the same liability of an autonomous

ship, cargo operations at the port are currently

handled by humans and under current regime, and

the liability for loading and discharge is usually

imposed on the charterer. But it is expected that some

autonomous ships will be designed with an ability to

handle loading and discharging operations

automatically. It means that there will be no

intervention of a charterer from the outside in loading

and discharging.

With regard to the limitation of a shipowner’s

liability, the same issues are pointed out with regard

to autonomous ships as in the previous contractual

provisions from the carriage of goods by sea.

Therefore, it is necessary to decide whether the weight

of the control centre should be taken into account

when determining the liability of a shipowner or

should only the tonnage of the sea part of an

autonomous ship be taken into account?

Also, provisions related to the exclusion of liability

in the carriage of goods by sea need to be amended.

For example, an exception from a shipowner’s liability

for damage caused to the ship by fire leaves an

ambiguous answer on how to apply this exception on

an autonomous ship. If a fire occurred at the control

centre, it is unclear whether we can say that the

shipowner is not liable for it or whether this exception

shall apply only in the case of a fire on the part of the

ship at sea.

Finally, a series of provisions in the carriage of

goods by sea need to be adjusted to the specific

qualities of autonomous ships and re-examined for

the purpose of performing the carriage of goods by

sea by next-generation ships.

REFERENCES

1. Baltime Form 1939 (revised 2001) Uniform Time

Charter: https://www.bimco.org, last accessed

2021/04/22.

2. Belamarić, G., Bošnjak, R.: Autonomni brodovi.

Kapetanov glasnik. 35, 29–36 (2018).

3. BPTime 3 Time Charter Party: https://www.bimco.org,

last accessed 2021/04/22.

4. Bulum, B.: Time Charter Clauses. Comparative Maritime

Law. 45, 160, 65–96 (2006).

5. Cooke, J., Young, T., Ashcroft, M., Taylor, A., Kimball, J.,

Martowski, D., Lambert, L., Sturley, M.: Voyage

Charters (Lloyd’s Shipping Law Library). Informa Law

from Routledge (2014).

6. Ćorić, D., Pajković, M.: Autonomous ship - a new type of

ship in maritime law. Presented at the 2nd International

Scientific Conference on Maritime Law, Modern

Challenges of Marine Navigation , Split, Croatia

September 27 (2018).

7. Höyhtyä, M., Huusko, J., Kiviranta, M., Solberg, K.,

Rokka, J.: Connectivity for autonomous ships:

Architecture, use cases, and research challenges. In: 2017

International Conference on Information and

Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC). pp.

345–350 (2017).

https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTC.2017.8191000.

8. International Convention for the Unification of Certain

Rule of Law relating to Bills of Lading (Hague Rules):

https://www.jus.uio.no/English/services/library/treaties/

07/7-04/hague-rules.xml, last accessed 2021/04/22.

9. International Convention on Limitation of Liability for

Maritime Claims from 1976, as amended by the Protocol

from 1996:

https://www.jus.uio.no/English/services/library/treaties/

06/6-07/limitation-liability-maritime.xml, last accessed

2021/04/22.

10. International Maritime Organization: MASS,

https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/

Autonomous-shipping.aspx, last accessed 2021/04/22.

11. International Monetary Fund: https://www.imf.org, last

accessed 2021/04/22.

12. Kopitoff v Wilson: 1 QBD 602. (1876).

13. Leeds Shipping v Société Francaise Bunge (The Eastern

City): 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 127. (1958).

14. MUNIN Project web page: http://www.unmanned-

ship.org/munin/, last accessed 2021/04/22.

131

15. New York Produce Exchange Form from 2015 (code

name: NYPE 2015): https://www.bimco.org›Sample-

copy-NYPE-2015, last accessed 2021/04/22.

16. Pavić, D.: Pomorsko imovinsko pravo. Poredbeno

pomorsko pravo. 46, 161, 329–333 (2007).

17. Protocol to Amend the International Convention for the

Unification of Certain Rules of Law, relating to the Bill

of Lading (Visby Rules):

https://www.jus.uio.no/lm/sea.carriage.hague.visby.rule

s.1968/doc.html, last accessed 2021/04/22.

18. Rolls-Royce: Rolls-Royce unveils a vision of the future of

remote and autonomous shipping, https://www.rolls-

royce.com/media/press-releases.aspx, last accessed

2021/04/22.

19. Scrutton, T.E., Boyd;, S.C.., Burrows, A.S., Foxton, D.:

Scrutton on charterparties and bills of lading. Sweet &

Maxwell, London, UK (1996).

20. Shelltime4 form Time Charter Party:

https://shippingforum.files.wordpress.com, last accessed

2021/04/22.

21. Soyer, B.: Warranties in Marine Insurance. Routledge

(2018).

22. Wilford, C., Wilford, K., Kimball, J.D.: Time Charters

(Lloyd’s Shipping Law Library). Informa Maritime &

Transport; 5th edition (2003).

23. Wilson, J.: Carriage of Goods by Sea. Longman (2010).