If a remotely operated oil tanker causes a spill, the shipowner remains responsible for compensating victims under existing international rules. But another question remains unresolved: Can the person controlling the ship from shore also be sued directly for negligence?
A legal study from Koç University examines how the rise of remotely operated and autonomous vessels is exposing uncertainty within the international system governing compensation for oil pollution.
Published open access in Transnational Environmental Law, the study was conducted by Ayşegül Buğra Şar of Koç University Law School. It focuses on the legal status of remote operators under the 1992 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, commonly known as CLC 92.
The growing use of autonomous and remotely operated vessels is changing the traditional structure of maritime operations. Duties once performed by a captain and crew on board may now be undertaken by specialists working in a remote operations centre, potentially located in another country.
These operators may navigate vessels, monitor their systems, respond to emergencies and take measures to prevent pollution. Yet international conventions written for conventionally crewed ships do not clearly establish whether remote operators receive the same legal protections as masters, crew members and pilots.
Under CLC 92, liability for oil pollution damage is channelled primarily to the shipowner. The owner is held strictly liable, meaning that victims generally do not need to prove the owner was personally at fault to obtain compensation.
The convention also protects several other parties from direct negligence claims by victims. These include the ship’s crew, pilots, charterers, managers and people taking preventive measures. Such parties may generally be sued directly only when the damage resulted from an intentional act or reckless conduct committed with knowledge that pollution was likely to occur.
This channelling system is designed to make compensation faster and more predictable. Instead of forcing victims to identify and pursue every person who may have contributed to a spill, claims are directed towards the shipowner, the owner’s insurer and, where applicable, international compensation funds.
Remote operators, however, are not explicitly included in the convention’s list of protected parties. The International Maritime Organization is therefore considering whether they should fall within the channelling provision.
Şar examines two possible approaches. The first would leave the status of remote operators undefined and allow national courts to decide whether existing terms such as “crew,” “pilot” or “person performing services for the ship” can be interpreted to include them.
The study argues that this approach could produce considerable legal uncertainty. Courts in different countries may interpret the same provision differently, meaning that a remote operator could be protected from a negligence claim in one jurisdiction but personally exposed to liability in another.
The problem is complicated by the range of possible arrangements for remote operation. Some operators may be employed directly by the shipowner, while others may work for independent ship-management companies, technology providers or specialist navigation services.
Because their employment status and responsibilities can vary, simply treating every remote operator as equivalent to a conventional crew member may not produce consistent or fair outcomes.
The second approach would be for the IMO to clarify the position of remote operators expressly. The study considers clarification preferable to leaving the issue entirely to national courts but cautions against an overly broad interpretation that automatically treats every type of remote operator in the same way.
When deciding whether remote operators should be protected, the IMO should consider whether their responsibilities are comparable to those of masters, crew members and pilots, as well as whether their inclusion would support prompt and adequate compensation for pollution victims.
Protecting remote operators from direct negligence claims could also encourage qualified specialists to enter the emerging field of shore-based ship operation. Their role may be crucial not only in navigating vessels but also in preventing spills, detecting problems and coordinating emergency responses.
At the same time, critics argue that shielding operators from direct civil claims could weaken their incentive to take precautions and protect the marine environment. If the shipowner will pay regardless of who acted negligently, an operator might appear to face fewer consequences for unsafe conduct.
The study argues that protection under CLC 92 would not necessarily remove accountability. Shipowners and international compensation funds may retain a right of recourse, allowing them to seek recovery from a party responsible for causing the damage. Criminal or administrative sanctions under other international instruments and national laws may also provide deterrence.
Enforcing these rules could nevertheless be difficult when a vessel is registered in one country, operates in another country’s waters and is controlled from a remote centre located in a third country. Flag states may possess jurisdiction over ships and their crews, but exercising that authority against an operator based abroad may require cooperation from the state in which the control centre is located.
The study concludes that international rules should clearly address the legal position of remote operators before remotely operated oil tankers become widespread. Leaving the matter unresolved could produce inconsistent court decisions, complicate the allocation of responsibility and undermine legal certainty for victims, shipowners, insurers and operators alike.
The challenge is to preserve the principal strength of the current system—rapid and reliable compensation for oil pollution damage—while ensuring that those responsible for operating next-generation ships retain strong incentives to protect the marine environment.