Yeni Tip Gemilerin İşleyiş Esasları Bakımından Otonomi Kavramı ve IMO’nun Otonom Gemi Kategorileri Üzerine Düşünceler
Selim CiğerKonuyla ilgili güncel gelişmeler ışığında otonom gemilerin yakın bir gelecekte yaygınlaşacağı tahmin edilmektedir. Yeni tip gemilere mahsus kuralların kaleme alınması hususundaki çalışmaların yavaş ilerlediği dikkate alınırsa otonom gemilere bir süre daha mevcut hükümlerin uygulanması olası görünmektedir. Bu bağlamda yakın geçmişte, başta IMO’nun çalışmaları olmak üzere, mevcut hükümlerin yeni tip gemilere uygulanmasını inceleyen çok sayıda değerlendirme kaleme alınmıştır. Bu çalışmaların önemli bir kısmında mevcut hükümlerin uygulanması bakımından IMO tarafından belirlenen dört otonom gemi kategorisinin esas alındığı görülmektedir. Ancak, ilgili kategorilerin çeşitli açılardan eleştiriye açık olduğu görüşündeyiz. Zira ilgili kategoriler yeni tip gemiler ile ilgili olarak yaygın şekilde kullanılan teknik kavramlar ile uyumsuzluk gösterdiği gibi, esnekliğe kapalı şekilde tasarlanmaları sebebiyle mevcut hukuki düzenlemelerin yeni tip gemilere uygulanmasını ölçecek değerlendirmeler bakımından da yetersizdir. Gerçekten de yeni tip gemilerin işleyişine ilişkin asli unsurlardan biri olarak kabul edilebilecek otonomi seviyeleri bakımından IMO kategorilerindeki gemiler durağan otonomi prensibi ile işletilecekleri izlenimi uyandırmaktadır. Halbuki uygulamaya geçmesi için hazırlık yapılan prototipler de dâhil olmak üzere tüm otonom gemi dizaynlarında geminin sefer sırasında farklı otonomi seviyeleri arasında serbestçe geçiş yapabileceği öngörülmektedir. Böylece, yeni tip gemiler tam otonom gemi sınıfında olmasa dahi, rutin şekilde nihai olarak sevk ve idarenin makine tarafından gerçekleştirildiği yüksek otonomi seviyelerinde işletilebileceği gibi, ihtiyaçlara ve teknik kabiliyete bağlı olarak zaman zaman mürettebat veya uzaktan kumanda merkezi personeli eliyle manuel şekilde de kontrol edilebilir. Dolayısıyla mevcut hükümlerin uygulanmasını inceleyen değerlendirmeler bakımından esneklikten uzak şekilde tasarlanmış kategorilerin faydasının kısıtlı olacağı düşünülmektedir. Bunun yerine yeni tip gemi prototipleri ışığında konvansiyonel gemiler ile yeni tip gemiler arasındaki temel farklardan yola çıkarak belirlenecek parametrelerin esas alınmasının bu tür çalışmalar bakımından daha isabetli olacağı değerlendirilmektedir.
The Concept of Autonomy, Operatıon of Autonomous Vessels and the IMO’s Degrees of Autonomy
Selim CiğerContemporary developments indicate that the advent of autonomous vessels in shipping operations is near. Considering the slow progress in drafting regulations specifically applicable to these new types of vessels, it appears highly likely that they will be subject to the application of the existing regulations for quite some time. Consequently, the past decade has seen countless studies concentrating on reviewing the applicability of the existing regulations to autonomous vessels. Arguably, the most noteworthy of these studies is the IMO’s scoping exercise and its degrees of autonomy designed for this inquiry have been rather influential in shaping the understanding of the subject, which led many similar studies centring their analysis on these four specific categories. However, the categorisation adopted by the IMO is open to criticism. Indeed, not only are the four degrees of autonomy inconsistent with the technical concepts widely used in autonomous vessel design but they are also unsuitable for evaluating the application of the existing legal rules to autonomous vessels as they are of a highly static character. The latter is especially problematic as all prevailing technical designs for realising autonomous vessels expect the ship rotating freely between different degrees of autonomy. This means that, despite not being a fully autonomous vessel, in the course of a single voyage the vessel might be operated at times without any human intervention in higher degrees of autonomy as well as being manually controlled by the crew or the remote control centre personnel when the need arises. In view of such a dynamic mode of operation, it is submitted that the usefulness of the static categories is markedly limited in analysing the applicability of the current regulations to autonomous vessels and regard must be had for certain parameters to be determined in light of the central differences between the conventional vessels and the autonomous vessel prototypes currently being tested for operation.
The past decade has witnessed a marked proliferation of autonomous vessels in the commercial context. At the moment, there are at least ten different projects under which autonomous vessels of varying types and sizes are currently in the testing phase and undertaking routine cargo operations. Owing to the obvious differences between these new and conventional vessels, it makes good sense to adopt the novel regulations specifically designed for autonomous vessels. Whilst there is ongoing work on drafting rules applicable to these new types of vessels at both national and supranational levels, slow progress indicates that these vessels will probably be subject to existing regulations for quite some time. Consequently, studies evaluating the applicability of the existing legal rules to autonomous vessels have been on the rise for the past decade. Arguably, the most noteworthy of such large-scale studies is the IMO’s scoping exercise, which was concluded in 2021. The IMO’s work has been rather influential in subsequent studies on the subject. However, perhaps, the most pronounced impact of the IMO’s scoping exercise can be seen in the four degrees of autonomy, devised specifically for the IMO’s inquiry, as virtually all studies conducted on the subject refer to these categories with many adopting them as the yardstick for analysing various rules in the context of autonomous vessels. However, the degrees of autonomy devised by the IMO have not been immune to criticism. Indeed, many commentators have, rightly, pointed out the ambiguity of these categories and their inconsistency with the widely used technical concepts encompassing autonomous vessel designs. The latter is especially problematic in view of the fact that the prevailing technical designs for realising autonomous vessels expect the ship rotating freely between different degrees of autonomy during the same voyage. Accordingly, a vessel, despite not being fully autonomous, might operate at times without any human intervention in higher degrees of autonomy. Equally, the same vessel can also be operated manually by the crew or the remote control centre personnel when the need arises. However, the IMO’s degrees of autonomy are unable to reflect the dynamic autonomy levels crucial to the operation of autonomous vessels. In fact, it is submitted that no static category is without problems as any kind of categorisation involves selecting static combinations between autonomy level, manning and technical capabilities. Since pragmatism dictates including a number of categories and eliminating others, some combinations end up being superfluous because they are not different from conventional vessels and others might prove unrealistic. Moreover, the flexible nature of prospective vessel designs, which may freely mix onboard manning and remote control capability as well as dynamic autonomy levels, means that static categories are generally a poor fit for evaluating the applicability of existing regulations to autonomous vessels and lead to misleading outcomes. Accordingly, focusing on the key differences between conventional vessels and autonomous vessel prototypes that are currently being tested for operation, three questions stand out in evaluating whether an existing rule could also apply to an autonomous vessel: The first is whether the vessel is, ultimately, controlled by a human or a machine. This is significant, as the existing rules are drafted with humans in mind, who are solely making decisions related to navigation and actively participating in or supervising the control of the vessel. However, in higher degrees of autonomy, the decisionmaking and controlling processes are essentially done by the machine and humans are not involved in the process. This vital difference poses certain difficulties, especially with rules relating to fault or other legal concepts based on humans. The second question is whether the vessel has a crew on board, as traditionally the vessel is manned by the crew onboard and this is evident in certain basic rules such as requirements for seaworthiness. Finally, the third question is whether the vessel is controlled onboard the ship or somewhere else. This is also partly connected to the second question because certain rules require the physical presence of humans on board. Therefore, even if it is conceded that the crew could be transferred to land and control the vessel from the remote control centre to ensure functional equivalency, certain rules still remain incompatible with autonomous vessels. In conclusion, it is argued in this article that, instead of centring the analysis on prescribed categories, regard must be had for these three parameters in analysing the applicability of the existing regulations, which ultimately supports more reliable results.
