نحوه اعمال محدودیت در مسئولیت کشتی‌های خودران
Keywords:
محدودیت مسئولیت, کشتی کنترل از راه دور, کشتی‌های خودران, مرکز کنترل از راه دورAbstract
حق مالکان کشتی‌ها (در بهره‌مندی) از محدودیت جهانی مسئولیت به‌عنوان یک نهاد حقوقی، سابقه‌ای چندصدساله دارد. دامنه اشخاص ذی‌حق در محدودیت مسئولیت از مالک کشتی فراتر رفته و شامل نجات‌دهنده (دریای)، شخص کرایه‌کننده (اجاره‌کننده کشتی)، مدیر، اپراتور کشتی‌های دریایی (متصدی) و همچنین هر شخصی که اقدام، سهل‌انگاری یا تقصیر وی تحت مسئولیت مالک کشتی یا نجات‌دهنده قرار گیرد، می‌شود. دعاوی مطرح شده علیه این اشخاص می‌تواند محدود باشد (به جز برخی موارد استثنا) و این محدودیت‌ها برای هر مورد جداگانه محاسبه می‌شوند. کشتی‌های بدون خدمه (بدون سرنشین) که از راه دور اداره می‌شوند و کشتی‌های خودران که خود را هدایت می‌کنند، لزوماً کارمندان صاحب کشتی را درگیر نمی‌کنند؛ در عوض، احتمالاً پیمانکاران مستقل بر ناوگانی از کشتی‌های بدون خدمه نظارت خواهند داشت. علاوه بر این، هوش مصنوعی به طور فزاینده‌ای برای تصمیم‌گیری ناوبری در کشتی‌های بدون سرنشین و کشتی‌های معمولی مورد استفاده قرار می‌گیرد. در جایی که هیچ انسانی در کشتی حضور ندارد و کشتی توسط یک پیمانکار مستقل نظارت می‌شود، اثبات تقصیر مالک کشتی برای ادعاهای تحت پوشش کنوانسیون‌های محدودیت، به طور فزاینده‌ای دشوار خواهد بود این مقاله به بررسی توسعه حق محدودیت می‌پردازد. (مقاله) بررسی می‌کند که آیا محدودیت برای اپراتورهای کشتی‌های کنترل از راه دور در دسترس خواهد بود یا خیر، مشکلاتی را در تعیین نحوه محاسبه محدودیت‌ها شناسایی می‌کند و چالش یافتن «موقعیت متمایز» را شناسایی می‌کند. در نهایت نتیجه می‌گیرد که محدودیت باید برای اپراتورهای کشتی‌های کنترل از راه دور در دسترس باشد تا اطمینان حاصل شود که مدعیان از وجود بیمه مطمئن هستند. مطلوب نیست که دسته‌های جدید کشتی‌ها از رژیمی که برای کشتی‌های متعارف موجود اعمال می‌شود، مستثنی شوند.
Downloads
References
[1] Adler v Dickson [1955] 1 QB 158 (CA).
[2] Alexandra Towing Co Ltd v Millett (Owners) and Egret (Owners) (The Bramley Moore) [1964] P 200 (CA).
[3] Allianz. (2012). Safety & shipping 1912-2012: From Titanic to Costa Concordia. https://www.agcs.allianz.com/content/dam/onemarketing/agcs/agcs/reports/AGCS-Safety-Shipping-Review-2012.pdf
[4] Arda, A. (2023). A tale of two courts: Limitation of liability and the legal position of shore-based controllers in the light of Splitt Chartering. Journal of Business Law.
[5] Arthur Guinness, Son & Co (Dublin) Ltd v The Freshfield (Owners) (The Lady Gwendolen) (Limitation) [1965] P 294 (CA).
[6] BBC News. (2020, August 16). Mauritius oil spill: Wrecked MV Wakashio breaks up. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53797009
[7] BBC News. (2021, December 27). Mauritius oil spill: MV Wakashio ship captain sentenced. Retrieved April 3, 2024, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-59800519
[8] Benecki, P. (2023, September 28). JTSB: The Wakashio went aground because the crew sought cell coverage. Maritime Executive. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://maritime-executive.com/article/report-wakashio-s-crew-went-aground-while-searching-for-cell-signal
[9] Bonner, P. (2011). Limitation of liability: Should it be jettisoned after The Deepwater Horizon? Tulane Law Review, 85(4), 1183–1217.
[10] Bouygues Offshore SA v Caspian Shipping Co (Nos 1, 3, 4, and 5) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 461 (CA).
[11] Brandon, H. V. (1977). Apportionment of liability in British courts under the maritime conventions act of 1911. Tulane Law Review, 51(5), 1025–1050.
[12] Buğra, A. (2019). Insuring remotely operated vessels: Tempestuous waters for hull insurers? (CML Working Paper Series, No. 19/08). Centre for Maritime Law, National University of Singapore. https://law.nus.edu.sg/cml/publications/
[13] Caltex Singapore Pte Ltd v BP Shipping Ltd [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 286.
[14] Carey, L. (2019). Report on BIMCO autonomous ships seminar (NUS Centre for Maritime Law Report 19/01). https://law.nus.edu.sg/cml/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2020/04/CML-R1901.pdf
[15] Carruthers, J. M. (2004). Substance and procedure in the conflict of laws: A continuing debate in relation to damages. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 53(3), 691–712.
[16] China Ocean Shipping Co v State of South Australia (1979) 145 CLR 172 (HCA).
[17] CMA CGM SA v Classica Shipping Co (The CMA Djakarta) [2004] EWCA Civ 114, [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 460.
[18] Collins, L., & Harris, J. (Eds.). (2023). Dicey, Morris & Collins on the conflict of laws (16th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.
[19] Comité Maritime International (CMI). (1997). Travaux Préparatoires of the LLMC 1976 and of the Protocol 1996.
[20] Comité Maritime International (CMI). (n.d.). The status of conventions. Retrieved June 2, 2024, from https://comitemaritime.org/publications-documents/status-of-conventions/
[21] Commonwealth of Australia v Shenzhen Energy Transport Co Ltd [2015] FCAFC 116, (2015) 234 FCR 113.
[22] Corbett, A. (2021, November 25). Wakashio owner begins limitation proceedings in Mauritius. TradeWinds. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://www.tradewindsnews.com/casualties/wakashio-owner-begins-limitation-proceedings-in-mauritius/2-1-1105851
[23] Core Advokatfirma & Cefor. (2018, December). Maritime autonomous surface ships: Zooming in on civil liability and insurance. https://cefor.no/globalassets/documents/industrypolicy/news/mass—zooming-in-on-civil-liability-and-insurance---10-december-2018.pdf
[24] Derrington, S. (2017). Of reefs and men: When the best laid plans go awry, have we an acceptable way forward? Australian and New Zealand Maritime Law Journal, 31(1), 1–10.
[25] Derrington, S., & Turner, J. (2016). The law and practice of admiralty matters (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
[26] Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Hall Russell & Co Ltd (The Esso Bernicia) [1989] AC 643 (HL).
[27] Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Company Ltd (The Ocean Victory) [2017] UKSC 35, [2017] 1 WLR 1793.
[28] Gaskell, N. (2013). Compensation for offshore pollution: Ships and platforms. In M. Clarke (Ed.), Maritime law evolving (pp. 73-. Hart Publishing.
[29] Gaskell, N. (2022). LLMC 1996: Living with limitation of liability. Australian and New Zealand Maritime Law Journal, 36, 1–51.
[30] gCaptain. (2021, November 22). Wakashio’s owner limits liability over grounding as wreck removal continues. Retrieved April 3, 2024, from https://gcaptain.com/wakashios-owner-limits-liability-over-grounding-as-wreck-removal-continues/
[31] Girvin, S. (2022). Carriage of goods by sea (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
[32] Grey, M. (2024, April 4). What can we learn from the Baltimore bridge collision? Seatrade Maritime. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/opinions-analysis/what-can-we-learn-baltimore-bridge-collisions
[33] Harding v Wealands [2006] UKHL 32, [2007] 2 AC 1.
[34] Hasan, S. (2023). Analysing the definition of ‘ship’ to facilitate marine autonomous surface ships. Australian Journal of Maritime and Ocean Affairs.
[35] Heffner, K., & Rødseth, Ø. J. (2019). Enabling technologies for maritime autonomous surface ships. Journal of Physics: Conference Series.
[36] HFW Briefings. (n.d.). Autonomous vessels: Demonstrating diverse and dynamic developments. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://www.hfw.com/Autonomous-Vessels-Demonstrating-Diverse-and-Dynamic-Developments
[37] Hunter, G. (2020, November 6). First ever standard form contract for autonomous ship operation underway. BIMCO. Retrieved April 7, 2024.
[38] IBM. (n.d.). What is explainable AI? Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://www.ibm.com/topics/explainable-ai
[39] International Chamber of Shipping (ICS). (n.d.). The Covid-19 pandemic: The crew change crisis. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.ics-shipping.org/current-issue/the-covid-19-pandemic-the-crew-change-crisis/
[40] International Maritime Organization (IMO). (1976). Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC).
[41] International Maritime Organization (IMO). (1996). Protocol of 1996 to amend the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976.
[42] International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2001). International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage.
[43] International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2012). Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC).
[44] International Maritime Organization (IMO). (n.d.). Autonomous shipping. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Autonomous-shipping.aspx
[45] International Maritime Organization (IMO). (n.d.). Responding to MV Wakashio oil spill. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Wakashio-FAQ.aspx
[46] International Maritime Organization (IMO). (n.d.). Status of treaties. Retrieved April 3, 2024, from https://gisis.imo.org/Public/ST/Treaties.aspx
[47] International Maritime Organization (IMO). Assembly. (2021). Resolution A.1163(32): Interpretation of Article 4 of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976/1996.
[48] James Patrick and Co Ltd v Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd (1938) 60 CLR 652.
[49] Kim, M., Joung, T.-H., Jeong, B., & Park, H.-S. (2020). Autonomous shipping and its impact on regulations, technologies, and industries. Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping, 4(2), 17–25.
[50] Kongsberg Gruppen. (n.d.). Kongsberg Maritime – Remote Operation Center [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved April 7, 2024.
[51] Liu, S. (2024). The contemporary evolution and reform of utilitarianism. Springer.
[52] Lloyd’s List. (2020, August 21). Learn the lessons before the next Wakashio comes.
[53] Maritime UK Autonomous Systems Working Group. (2023). MASS UK industry conduct principles and code of practice 2023 (V7). Retrieved April 7, 2024.
[54] MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Delumar BVBA (The MSC Rosa M) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 399.
[55] MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Stolt Tank Containers BV (The MSC Flaminia) [2023] EWCA Civ 1007, [2024] Bus LR 311.
[56] Mustill, L. (1993). Ships are different, or are they? Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly.
[57] N.V. Bureau Wijsmuller v The “Tojo Maru” (Owners) [1972] AC 242 (HL).
[58] Nautical Challenge Ltd v Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd (The Alexandra 1 and Ever Smart) [2022] EWHC 206 (Admity), [2022] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 470.
[59] Nippon Foundation. (2020, December). Verification testing to start on world’s first unmanned ship navigation system. Retrieved April 8, 2024.
[60] O’Dwyer, R. (2022, September 21). ASKO autonomous vessels to begin two-year trial. Smart Maritime Network. Retrieved April 7, 2024.
[61] Ocean Infinity. (2022, February 15). Remote control centre goes live.
[62] Oceanic Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Mellor (The Titanic) 233 U.S. 718 (1914).
[63] Offshore AU Pty Ltd v SAAB Seceye Leopard 1702 Remotely Operated Vehicle Lately on Board the Ship ‘Offshore Guardian’ (The Seceye Leopard) [2020] FCA 273, [2021] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201.
[64] Osler, D. (2024, April 2). Dali owners deny liability for Baltimore bridge collapse. Lloyd’s List.
[65] Osler, D. (2024, March 27). Marine insurers face billion-dollar payout on Baltimore bridge collapse. Lloyd’s List.
[66] Pearson, L. (2023). The unified interpretations of the shipowners’ right to liability – A defence of the indefensible? In CMI Yearbook 2023 Parallel Session IV.2 – Harmonising Interpretation of Art 4 LLMC 1976. Comité Maritime International.
[67] Peracomo Inc v TELUS Communications Co [2014] SCC 29, [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 315.
[68] Port of Rotterdam & British Ports Association. (2019, August). Move forward: Step by step towards a digital port [White paper]. britishports.org.uk.
[69] Ramos, M. A., Utne, I. B., & Mosleh, A. (2019). Collision avoidance on maritime autonomous surface ships: Operators tasks and human failure events. Safety Science, 116.
[70] Reynolds, B. W. B., & Tsimplis, M. N. (2012). Shipowners’ limitation of liability. Wolters Kluwer.
[71] Rødseth, Ø. J., et al. (2023). The societal impacts of autonomous ships: The Norwegian perspective. In T. M. Johansson et al. (Eds.), Autonomous ships in maritime affairs, law and governance implications (pp. Springer.
[72] Schiffahrtsgesellschaft MS Merkur Sky mbH v MS Leerort Nth Schiffahrts GmbH (The Leerort) [2001] EWCA Civ 1055, [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 291.
[73] Schoenbaum, T. J. (2018). Admiralty and maritime law (6th ed.). Thomson Reuters.
[74] Schuler, M. (2023, July 20). Wakashio report released 3 years after grounding in Mauritius. gCaptain. Retrieved April 9, 2024.
[75] Sea Robotics. (n.d.). Enhance your hydrographic survey and marine operations. Retrieved April 8, 2024.
[76] Seismic Shipping Inc v Total E&P UK plc (The Western Regent) [2005] EWCA Civ 985, [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 359.
[77] Sivori, H., & Brunton, L. (2023). Out of the box – Implementing autonomy and assuring AI. Lloyd’s Register.
[78] Soyer, B. (2023). Insuring remote-controlled and autonomous shipping: A paradigm shift in law and insurance markets required? In D. R. Thomas (Ed.), The modern law of marine insurance (Vol. 5, pp. Informa Law from Routledge.
[79] Sözer, B. (2023). Control centres in the context of unmanned ship operations – Their status and potential liabilities. In B. Soyer & A. Tettenborn (Eds.), Damages, recoveries and remedies in shipping law (pp. 154. Informa Law from Routledge.
[80] Sözer, B. (2024). Unmanned ships and the law. Informa Law from Routledge.
[81] Splitt Chartering APS v Saga Shipholding Norway AS (The Stema Barge II) [2021] EWCA Civ 1880, [2022] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 170.
[82] Steel, D. (1995). Ships are different: The case for limitation of liability. Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterl.
[83] Stones, H. (2022, February). Limitation of liability: What is an operator? Lloyd’s Shipping and Trade Law.
[84] Strong Wise Limited v Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 575.
[85] Strong Wise Ltd v Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd (The APL Sydney) [2010] FCA 240, [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 555.
[86] Suri, M. (2022). Who is an operator within LLMC? The Stema Barge II. Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly.
[87] Suri, M. (2022). Will LLMC apply to remote control centre operators? (The Stema Barge II). Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly.
[88] Tetley, W. (1992). Shipowners’ limitation of liability and conflicts of law: The properly applicable law. Journal of International Maritime Law, 23(6), 585–598.
[89] Tettenborn, A. (2019). Product liability goes high tech. In B. Soyer & A. Tettenborn (Eds.), New technologies, artificial intelligence and shipping law in the 21st century (pp. 1. Informa Law from Routledge.
[90] The “Atlantik Confidence” [2016] EWHC 2412 (Admity), [2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 195.
[91] The “Lucullite” (1929) 33 Ll L Rep 186 (Ct of Sess).
[92] The “Puthus” [1969] P 136 (CA).
[93] The “Saint Jacques II” and “Gudermes” [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 203.
[94] The “Schwan” [1892] P 419 (CA).
[95] Thomas, M. (1979). British concepts of limitation of liability. Tulane Law Review, 53(5), 1205–1233.
[96] Tszima, A., & Morgan, P. (2021). Justifying global limitation of maritime claims in the modern business environment. Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly.
[97] United Nations. (1969). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
[98] Victrawl Pty Ltd v Telstra Corp Ltd [1995] HCA 51, (1995) 183 CLR 595.
[99] Viljanen, M. (2022). Insuring autonomous vessels – Scoping issues. In H. Ringbom, E. Røsæg, & T. Solvang (Eds.), Autonomous ships and the law (pp. 212. Routledge.
[100] Williams, R. (2007). Problematic areas in the current global limitation regime. In D. R. Thomas (Ed.), Liability regimes in contemporary maritime law (pp. 280. Informa Law from Routledge.
[101] Yara. (n.d.). Yara Birkeland press kit. Retrieved April 7, 2024.
