Georgetown Law
Technology Review

On December 15, 2016, China seized a United States Navy unmanned maritime system (UMS) in the South China Sea.1See U.S. DEP’T OF DEF., UNMANNED SYSTEMS INTEGRATED ROADMAP, FY 2013-2038, at 8 http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a592015.pdf [https://perma.cc/3JA4-HM3C] [hereinafter DoD Integrated Roadmap] (using the term unmanned maritime system (UMS) to refer to all unmanned maritime vehicles (UMVs), to include unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) and unmanned surface vehicles (USVs)). See also Maritime U.K., Being a Responsible Industry, an Industry Code of Practice, a Voluntary Code 1.0 at 15 (Nov. 2017), https://www.maritimeuk.org/documents/197/CODE_OF_PRACTICE_V1.0_- _Up_to_24m_-_Final.pdf [https://perma.cc/F6GJ-PU9H] (hereinafter Maritime U.K. Code of Practice) for an example of another acronym “MASS”- “Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship” used by the IMO, United Kingdom, and other states and organizations to refer to unmanned maritime technology. The UMS, known as an “ocean glider,” was used by the Navy to gather oceanographic data in the region.2Dan Lamothe & Missy Ryan, Pentagon: Chinese Naval Ship Seized an Unmanned U.S. Underwater Vehicle in South China Sea, WASH. POST (Dec. 17, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/12/16/defense-official- chinese-naval-ship-seized-an-unmanned-u-s-ocean-glider/ [https://perma.cc/3M6BZ9TX]. Chinese naval personnel seized the UMS within sight of Navy research vessel, USNS Bowditch, and despite protests by the United States, the Chinese did not return the UMS for several days.3Jane Perlez & Matthew Rosenberg, China Agrees to Return Seized Drone, Ending Standoff, Pentagon Says, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 18, 2016, at A-10. A little over a year later, Houthi rebels reportedly seized another United States Navy UMS off the coast of Yemen, although circumstances behind this second incident remain unclear.4Ben Werner, VIDEO: Houthi Forces Capture U.S. Navy Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Off Yemen, USNI NEWS (Jan. 3, 2018, 2:24 PM), https://news.usni.org/2018/01/03/houthi-rebels-find-likely-u-s-navy-unmannedunderwater-vehicle [https://perma.cc/RMY5-Y6B4]. These high profile incidents highlight important questions about the rights and obligations of unmanned systems vis-à-vis the international maritime agreements, notably the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),5United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397; see also U.S. DEP’T OF DEF., OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, LAW OF WAR MANUAL at § 13.1.2 (updated Dec. 2016), https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD%20Law%20of%20War%20Man ual%20-%20June%202015%20Updated%20Dec%202016.pdf [https://perma.cc/F2X2- UK3M] (Stating that the United States is not a party to UNCLOS, but it acts “in accordance with the balance of interests reflected in the LOS Convention relating to traditional uses of the oceans, such as navigation and overflight” and that the United States would “exercise and assert navigation and overflight rights and freedoms on a worldwide basis in a manner that is consistent with the balance of interests reflected in the . . . Convention.”). and the various International Maritime Organization (IMO) conventions, including the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW convention), the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), and the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS).6See generally Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, Oct. 20, 1972, T.I.A.S. 8587, 28 U.S.T. 3459, [hereinafter COLREGS]; International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, Nov. 1, 1974, 1184 U.N.T.S. 3 [hereinafter SOLAS]; International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping, Jul. 7, 1978, 1361 U.N.T.S. 2 [hereinafter STCW Convention]; International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as Modified by the Protocol of 1978, Feb. 17, 1978, 24 U.S.T. 3407, 1340 U.N.T.S. 61 [hereinafter MARPOL]. Because these agreements pre-date UMSs, at least in the modern sense of the term,7Michael Schmitt & David Goddard, International Law and the Military Use of Unmanned Maritime Systems, 98 INT’L REV RED CROSS. 568, 570 (Sep. 25, 2017) (providing a brief history of UMS and stating that “it is only in the twenty-first century that UMSs became the subject of aggressive technological progress and operational concept development.”). the extent that these and other maritime agreements govern UMSs is unclear. This paper focuses primarily on challenges that UMSs present under the COLREGS, the technical rules on maritime navigation, from a perspective recommended for the United States military.

Continue Reading