4 Conclusions on the robustness of the maritime convention-based system towards new technological developments
Summing up the above discussions, it must be concluded that the existing unified system of maritime conventions seems robust and ought to be able to withstand the current development in new technologies. Essentially, the conventions have been drafted to be largely technology-neutral and this now serves them well. The new technologies may be disruptive regarding other parts of the relevant legal framework, but they leave the application of the current convention-based private law liability regime largely unscathed. In other words: this part of the law is not a barrier to further technological advancement.
Admittedly, new parties entering the scene, such as entities to whom land-based crew may be outsourced (scenario 1), do affect the legal analysis. They may challenge the application of certain rules and they enable the use of the venue or law of the jurisdiction in which they are placed, in particular if met with a direct claim under tort law rules. Likewise, the shift to higher levels of automation and ultimately to fully autonomous systems (scenario 2) will probably cause a shift towards a greater focus on the producer of the vessels and the AI-systems in question. The underlying analysis is not novel as such, but until the grey zones have been ironed out by firm case law, the unified system may experience a certain level of flux.
Still, it should be remembered that large parts of the unified maritime liability regime have survived the conversion from sails to fuel and from sextants to GPS. Seen in that light, the new technologies are not so daunting. Indeed, it seems that any difficulties in the continued application of the maritime convention system would probably be due to changing actors and business models caused by increased specialization and outsourcing, rather than to the technological developments in themselves. So, taking a helicopter view of the maritime convention system, this writer must conclude that the system as such seems rather robust. Future case law will indicate whether this point of view stands to be corrected.