Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
Autonomous Systems: Land & Sea
6JUN

First global code for crewless ships

4 min read
11:59UTC

The IMO adopted the first global code for autonomous cargo ships on 22 May in London. It is voluntary until 2032 and keeps a human master legally on the hook from ashore.

TechnologyDeveloping
Key takeaway

Global rules for self-sailing cargo ships now exist, but stay voluntary until 2032 with a human master still liable.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the United Nations body that writes shipping safety rules, adopted the first code for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) on 22 May, closing its Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) 111 session in London. 1 A MASS is a cargo vessel that senses, decides and steers with a reduced crew or none aboard. The code enters force on 1 July 2026, applies to cargo ships only, and keeps a human master legally responsible even when that master sits in a control room ashore.

The small print blunts the milestone. The code is non-mandatory until a binding version targeted for 1 January 2032, and the years between open an Experience Building Phase in which flag states collect operational data and decide for themselves what to permit. The Experience Building Phase exists because no regulator yet holds enough crewless-voyage data to write binding rules. The gap is a data-collection device, but it also lets national regimes diverge.

Classification societies already run ahead of it. DNV and Lloyd's Register, the bodies that certify ships as safe and seaworthy, certify autonomous and remotely operated vessels under their own rules today. 2 That inverts the usual order: SOLAS safety rules normally precede the technology, whereas here the IMO is racing to catch up to commercial practice. The risk is a patchwork of national interpretations during the gap, plus a new shoreside regulated entity, the Remote Control Centre, whose liability questions the code defers rather than settles. Nautilus International, the seafarers' union, argues the master should stay aboard while any crew are present, a labour counterweight to the cost case for emptying the bridge.

The same autonomy stack that runs a crewless box ship runs a minehunter and a subsea-cable inspection drone, which is why a shipping safety code matters to a defence procurement reader.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

International rules for shipping are set by a United Nations agency called the IMO, which stands for International Maritime Organization. On 22 May the IMO agreed the first global rules for ships that operate with no crew on the bridge, or with a much smaller crew controlled from an office on land. These rules are currently voluntary: shipping companies can follow them or not. They become compulsory in 2032. The main sticking point is who is legally responsible if a crewless ship crashes or sinks. The new code says a human "master" on shore is still in charge, but seafarers' unions argue that is not safe if that person is managing several ships at once from a screen.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

The six-year non-mandatory gap reflects a genuine institutional constraint: the IMO operates by consensus among 175 member states with widely different coastguard and port-state control capacity. Flag-of-convenience states account for the majority of global tonnage; several lack the domestic technical regulation needed to enforce a mandatory autonomous vessel standard today.

The deferred timeline also reflects classification society lobbying. DNV and Lloyd's Register have built first-mover advantage through their own autonomous vessel class notations. A fast mandatory standard risks locking in criteria that disadvantage their proprietary frameworks or force immediate retrofits on vessels they have already certified under weaker rules.

What could happen next?
  • Precedent

    The MASS Code's goal-based, deferred-mandatory model sets the template for how the IMO will regulate other emerging maritime technologies, including hydrogen-fuelled vessels and underwater data cables.

    Medium term · Suggested
  • Risk

    Flag-state divergence on remote-master liability during the 2026-2032 voluntary period creates a regulatory arbitrage window: operators may choose flags with the weakest enforcement.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Opportunity

    Classification societies with existing autonomous-vessel class notations, particularly DNV and Lloyd's Register, gain a commercial advantage as the only bodies currently issuing certificates that comply with the MASS Code's technical objectives.

    Immediate · Reported
First Reported In

Update #1 · UK's robot navy sails for Hormuz

International Maritime Organization· 29 May 2026
Read original
Different Perspectives
EU / Horizon Europe (FAVOR regulatory programme)
EU / Horizon Europe (FAVOR regulatory programme)
The EU funded FAVOR through Horizon Europe to fill the technical and workforce gaps the MASS Code's principles-only adoption left open, with LJMU leading a consortium spanning Belgian, Dutch, and Greek partners. The timing confirms Horizon Europe's post-Brexit UK association agreement is operational: LJMU is leading an EU maritime research call for the first time since 2020.
Norwegian Maritime Authority
Norwegian Maritime Authority
Norway has operated six MASS trial zones since 2019 and its AUTOSEA framework already covers the weather and traffic diversity that Plymouth's single-zone approach cannot generate from one harbour. The MCA's 12-day post-IMO publication is fast, but Norway holds four years of certification-grade operational data that the UK trial route cannot compress away.
Nautilus International (seafarer labour)
Nautilus International (seafarer labour)
Nautilus International argued at the IMO that a master must remain aboard any vessel where crew are present, directly contesting the empty-bridge model the MASS Code permits. FAVOR's workforce-transition strand is now the academic forum where that position will be researched into a policy recommendation, giving union arguments independent evidence rather than leaving them as assertions against industry.
Milrem Robotics / VDL Defentec (European UGV industry)
Milrem Robotics / VDL Defentec (European UGV industry)
Milrem and VDL Defentec demonstrated that European UGV manufacturers can open a second cross-border production line in months rather than years when procurement demand is large enough, handing over the first Dutch-funded THeMIS units for Ukraine at Born. The Born model gives European governments a template for mandating in-country final assembly as a contract condition, bypassing single-supplier bottlenecks.
L3Harris / US defence industry
L3Harris / US defence industry
L3Harris secured AUKUS platform naming one week after the IVER4 900 entered US Navy delivery under a Defence Innovation Unit contract, using an existing certification baseline that allied vehicles could not match in April 2026. The pattern positions US primes at the hardware layer of allied undersea programmes.
UK Ministry of Defence / Royal Navy
UK Ministry of Defence / Royal Navy
The Royal Navy co-signed the AUKUS Pillar II Signature Project naming two US-built vehicles in the same week the MCA and NSO built the institutional scaffolding for a British maritime-autonomy industry. Doctrine and rule-making are running ahead of the hardware: the Herne XLAUV was still seeking certification when the fact sheet was locked.