795

1 INTRODUCTION

Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS)

represent a significant technological advancement in

maritime logistics [1]. By increasing automation and

artificial intelligence [2], [3], MASS offers promising

enhancements in operation efficiency, cost saving,

navigational safety and rules compliance.

Nevertheless, their deployment presents a series of

intricate challenges that span technical, regulatory and

infrastructural dimensions [4]. As a result, the role of

administrations is becoming increasingly critical acting

as facilitators, ensuring that innovation is verified

according to the applicable regulatory framework,

making it more suitable as possible for MASS

operations [5], [6]. This paper focuses on the

contributions of administrations facilitating the

acceptance and guaranteeing safe operation of MASS,

highlighting also the necessity of harbor infrastructure

upgrades and the establishment of global and regional

standards.

The concept of smart ports [7], [8] is emerging as a

crucial enabler for MASS, leveraging digitalization, IoT

and AI- driven systems to ensure seamless integration

with autonomous vessels [9], [10]. Ports need to adopt

real-time traffic management systems, automated

docking facilities and advanced cybersecurity

measures to support MASS operations effectively [11],

[12]. At the national level, regulations such as the U.S.

Coast Guard’s Navigation and Vessel Inspection

Circular (NVIC) 01-20 guide the oversight of

autonomous and remotely operated vessels. Similarly,

the Norwegian Maritime Authority (NMA) has

developed a framework for testing and certifying

autonomous ships, setting a precedent for national

regulatory adaptation. The International Maritime

Organization (IMO) has established a working group

for MASS regulation aimed at developing a MASS

Code [13]. However, the MASS Code should become

mandatory not before 2032 and up to now the lack of

an international framework has challenged the

implementation of national policies and infrastructure

Enabling the Future of Autonomous Shipping:

Regulatory Challenges, Infrastructure Modernization

and Pathways to Integration

P. Corsi

, S. Jakovlev

, M. Figari

& E. Pocevicius

Klaipeda University, Klaipeda, Lithuania

Genoa University, Genova, Italy

ABSTRACT: The widespread adoption of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) has the potential to

transform global shipping by enhancing efficiency, safety and environmental sustainability. However, achieving

this transformation requires strong support from governmental and maritime authorities to ensure the smooth

and secure integration of these technologies into existing systems. This paper explores the crucial role of

regulatory bodies in enabling the operational acceptance of MASS, focusing on regulatory frameworks, the

modernization of port infrastructure and the need for standardization. It also examines key challenges such as

cybersecurity risks, interoperability concerns and legal liabilities associated with MASS deployment. Finally, the

paper offers recommendations for future actions to facilitate the effective implementation of autonomous

shipping technologies

http://www.transnav.eu

the International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 19

Number 3

September 2025

DOI: 10.12716/1001.19.03.12

796

improvements. Effective implementation will require

collaboration between international bodies, national

administrations and private stakeholders. This paper

aims to provide a roadmap for administrations to

address these challenges and enable the successful

integration of MASS into modern maritime operations.

2 THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

2.1 IMO Role

Following a detailed scoping exercise that began in

2017, the IMO finalized its initial regulatory framework

in 2021. This framework paved the way for the

development of the MASS Code, which is expected to

be finalized in its non- mandatory form during this

year. This version will undergo an experience-building

phase to gather feedback from the first projects and

ensure practical applicability. The mandatory version

of the MASS Code is scheduled to be completed by

2028, with adoption by 2030 and formal entry into force

on January 1, 2032. Initially, the code will apply only to

cargo ships, with the potential expansion to passenger

vessels planned for a later phase.

The IMO has identified since the first steps four

levels of autonomy, ranging from ships with

automated processes and decision support to fully

autonomous vessels. This tiered structure allows for

incremental integration of MASS and its

interconnected sub-systems into maritime operations

(see Figure 1).

Figure 1. System composition of MASS [14].

The code emphasizes safety equivalency, requiring

that autonomous vessels achieve safety standards

comparable to those of conventional ships. Other

critical areas addressed include cybersecurity

measures to protect against operational risks,

environmental compliance to meet international

sustainability goals and operational protocols for

Remote Operations Centers (ROCs). The IMO’s goal-

based Code will provide a flexible framework for

shipowners and manufacturers to innovate while

maintaining high safety and environmental standards.

However, the successful implementation of these

regulations requires close collaboration among all

stakeholders, including national administrations,

classification societies and designers. The IMO has also

established joint working groups (MSC-LEG- FAL

group) to address key legal and operational challenges,

including liability, command transitions between

remote and onboard crews and jurisdictional issues.

These ongoing efforts are critical for ensuring that

MASS operations are reliable and safe.

2.2 National Administration Role

National administrations play an indispensable role in

ratifying international conventions and making

regional laws to follow to assess the safety of

Autonomous Navigation. Due to their role, the

Administration is responsible for the mechanisms that

enable the certification and licensing of MASS

operations, supervising the establishment of Remote

Operations Centers, and coordinating with private and

public stakeholders to ensure compliance with safety

and environmental standards. For example, Norway’s

progressive approach to the Yara Birkeland project and

the United Kingdom’s Code of Practice for MASS

demonstrate the effectiveness of the process.

Administrations also face the challenge of addressing

jurisdictional issues, especially in the case of MASS

operating on international routes. International

operations will require harmonization of national laws

with international conventions. Harbor infrastructure

must be adapted to accommodate MASS, including the

integration of automated mooring systems, enhanced

VTS (Vessel Traffic Services) for remote monitoring,

and digital communication frameworks that facilitate

seamless interaction between advanced fast response

(see Figure 2) and autonomous vessels and port

authorities. Investments in cybersecurity and AI-

driven traffic management will also be necessary to

ensure safe port operations and prevent potential

disruptions.

Figure 2. General Arrangement of a high-speed maritime

vessel - a Search and Rescue (SAR) craft. These types of

vessels are typically designed for rapid response to

emergencies at sea and equipped with advanced intelligent

navigation and communication systems to perform rescue

operations.

From a regulatory perspective, frameworks such as

the EU’s Strategic Research Agenda for Smart and

Autonomous Sea Transport and Singapore’s Maritime

Autonomous Surface Ships regulatory sandbox

provide structured approaches for national

administrations to develop legal frameworks that align

with emerging international guidelines. Additionally,

the International Convention for the Safety of Life at

Sea (SOLAS) and the Convention on the International

Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea

(COLREGs) are being adapted to address the unique

challenges posed by autonomous navigation.

2.3 Classification Society Role

Some Classification Societies, to anticipate the

mandatory IMO MASS code entry into force, have

797

developed a set of rules to provide a service to

“forward-thinking” shipowners and shipyards.

Among these, RINA and China Classification Society

(CCS) offer contrasting approaches. RINA’s guidelines

[15] focus on integrating MASS technologies into

traditional maritime practices through a goal-based

approach, through a complete risk assessment keeping

into account the operational design domains and the

concept of operation of the MASS. CCS [16], on the

other hand, provides a more prescriptive approach to

some technical aspects of the Rules for Intelligent

Ships, offering specific functional notations to describe

the level of autonomy. A key difference lies in their

methodologies. RINA emphasizes flexibility and

tailored solutions for diverse MASS scenarios,

requiring detailed risk analyses and performance

validation. CCS adopts a structured approach, with

predefined criteria for system design and functionality,

emphasizing redundancy and fault tolerance.

Additionally, RINA prioritizes collaboration between

stakeholders to define testing procedures, while CCS

incorporates detailed documentation requirements

into its certification process. These differences reflect

varying philosophies but collectively contribute to the

advancement of safe and reliable autonomous

shipping. During this phase, Class societies, acting as

Recognized Organizations (RO), are actively

supporting many Flags in the development of their

national requirements for assessing the safety of the

MASS and obtaining authorization to operate in

national waters in the first phase.

3 FLAG REQUIREMENTS FOR MASS

OPERATIONS

To establish a regulatory pathway for the authorization

of MASS by flag states, it is essential to formulate an

approach that supports the issuance of “flag state

approval” and ensures compliance and equivalence

with applicable safety standards. This approach must

align with the overarching principle of achieving

equivalency in safety levels between autonomous and

traditional manned vessels. The evaluation of risks

associated with MASS operations requires

consideration of parameters such as the vessel’s

operational area, traffic density, level of autonomy, and

momentum (as a product of the speed and its mass). As

these risks increase, the certification requirements

become stricter, demanding an assessment tailored to

each scenario. For traditional vessels, flag

administrations or RO typically assess the main safety

aspects such as hull integrity, buoyancy, stability,

propulsion and steering, electrical generation, etc. In

the context of MASS, additional checks are required for

autonomous capabilities, including navigation,

communication, and automation system integration, to

ensure this meets or exceeds safety benchmarks

established for manned configurations. To propose a

solution to the above-mentioned problem, a high- level

regulatory framework is proposed to address varying

levels of operational risk:

− Low-risk scenarios: A risk analysis has to

demonstrate that the operational risks of the

autonomous configuration are mitigated to an As

Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) level.

− Medium-risk scenarios: Beyond risk analysis, the

design must undergo specific evaluations and

operational testing to verify seaworthiness for the

intended Concept of Operations (ConOps).

Successful prototypes may receive type approval,

with subsequent vessels eligible for manufacturing

certification.

− High-risk scenarios: The flag state should require

certification from an RO, with additional class

notations for autonomous capabilities tailored to

the vessel’s degree of autonomy. Compliance with

international safety conventions and land-based

crew training standards must also be verified.

This structured framework provides the necessary

legal and technical foundation to accommodate the

unique challenges of MASS, ensuring that safety,

reliability, and regulatory integrity remain paramount

in their deployment.

4 FUTURE CHALLENGES

The next challenges in establishing effective

certification schemes depend on the rapidly evolving

legal and operational intricacies linked to autonomous

and remote operations. A particularly pressing issue is

the redefinition of roles and responsibilities for both

traditional onboard crew and "remote crew" stationed

at Remote Operations Centres. While the IMO has

asserted that the master’s responsibilities remain the

same as on conventional vessels (IMO, MSC 107, 2024)

[17], MASS operations introduce unique complexities

that demand a reevaluation of what constitutes

"command" and "control." These complexities include

scenarios where the master may not be physically

present on board and whether one master can oversee

multiple MASS, particularly in environments

characterized by high density of traffic.

A MASS could be managed by several ROCs across

multiple territorial jurisdictions during a single voyage

and that highlights the importance of a unified

international regulatory framework. Adhering to

international conventions such as UNCLOS while

addressing jurisdictional conflicts and ensuring a

seamless transfer of operational control between ROCs

will necessitate innovative regulatory approaches.

Furthermore, the master’s role within the ROC

hierarchy, particularly in scenarios involving the

delegation of responsibilities to multiple remote

operators, underscores the need for detailed

procedural guidelines to ensure accountability and

safety. The deployment of MASS within naval

operations adds a layer of complexity. In current

practice, many Naval MASS are considered extensions

of their mother vessels, with its master ultimately

having the responsibility for USV’s operation. As

autonomous naval systems continue their

development, it becomes increasingly important to

clearly define liability, operational command, and

responsibility delegation. An accurate certification

framework will need to address the distinct

requirements of both civilian and military operations,

ensuring clear guidelines for their safe and effective

implementation.

Standardizing port infrastructure to support

autonomous navigation is a crucial aspect of MASS

implementation. Ports where MASS are permitted to

operate must be equipped with advanced and reliable

798

communication systems, including robust V2I (vessel-

to-infrastructure) protocols, to enable seamless

interaction between vessels and port authorities. These

communication networks will facilitate safe

navigation, berthing, and cargo handling for

autonomous vessels. To achieve high-precision

navigation and docking, Real-Time Kinematic (RTK)

positioning and Differential GPS (DGPS) are essential.

RTK enhances positioning accuracy by providing real-

time corrections to GPS signals, achieving centimeter-

level precision crucial for autonomous ship

maneuvering in confined port areas. Similarly, DGPS

improves positional reliability by correcting satellite

signal errors, ensuring precise localization, and

reducing navigational risks [18]. These technologies

play a vital role in enabling automated docking,

optimized traffic flow, and collision avoidance [19],

[20], [21], thereby enhancing the overall efficiency and

safety of MASS operations.

Enhanced cybersecurity measures are also essential

to ensure the safe integration of MASS within existing

maritime operations [22], [23]. Autonomous vessels

and smart port systems are vulnerable to cyber threats,

requiring robust encryption, intrusion detection

systems, and continuous monitoring of

communication networks [24]. In this regard, the new

IACS Unified Requirements (UR) E26 and E27— which

focus on cybersecurity and software integrity in ship

operations—must be further extended to cover MASS

operations comprehensively. Collaborative efforts,

such as those led by the IMO and global port

authorities, aim to establish standardized autonomous

shipping corridors and harmonized port operation

protocols. These initiatives are essential for developing

a cohesive international framework and fostering

confidence in MASS deployment across the maritime

industry. Additionally, automated docking systems

and real-time traffic management solutions must be

integrated into port infrastructures. These systems

utilize AI-driven navigation, automated mooring

technologies, and dynamic route optimization to

facilitate efficient and secure MASS movements within

ports. As automation advances, continuous innovation

in port technologies will be pivotal to ensuring

seamless MASS integration into modern maritime

logistics.

5 CONCLUSION

The integration of MASS into global shipping

operations holds the potential to revolutionize the

maritime industry, offering enhanced efficiency,

improved safety, and greater environmental

sustainability. However, the realization of these

benefits requires a comprehensive approach that

addresses regulatory, infrastructural, and operational

challenges. Central to this transformation is the role of

administrations in creating the conditions necessary

for the effective deployment of MASS. Existing

frameworks, SOLAS and COLREG, were developed

with traditional, crewed vessels in mind and are

insufficient to govern autonomous operations. To

integrate MASS seamlessly, these frameworks must be

revised and expanded to address the unique

requirements of autonomous technologies.

Administrations must lead efforts to establish

comprehensive guidelines for the certification,

inspection, and operational approval of MASS,

ensuring these systems meet rigorous safety and

reliability standards. Additionally, these updates must

address cybersecurity and remote monitoring

protocols, safeguarding vessels against emerging

technological vulnerabilities. The successful

deployment of MASS is heavily reliant on the

modernization of port infrastructure. Autonomous

ships require advanced facilities such as automated

docking systems, enhanced sensor networks, and

robust communication platforms to operate efficiently.

Transitioning to "smart ports" equipped with real-time

data- sharing capabilities will optimize logistical

processes and reduce operational inefficiencies.

Furthermore, the digital infrastructure supporting

these operations must prioritize cybersecurity to

protect against potential cyber threats, ensuring the

uninterrupted functionality of both port operations

and autonomous systems.

The adoption of MASS introduces several

operational challenges. Safety remains a primary

concern, particularly in maritime environments where

traditional crewed vessels and autonomous ships

coexist. Standardized communication protocols and

interaction frameworks are essential to prevent

collisions and ensure safe navigation. Interoperability

between MASS and existing maritime systems is

another critical issue that requires the development of

universal standards for communication, data

exchange, and system integration. Without these,

operational inefficiencies and conflicts are likely to

arise. Collaboration among stakeholders is

indispensable in addressing these challenges.

Governments, technology developers, maritime

operators, and international organizations must work

together to ensure a unified approach to the integration

of MASS. This collaboration will facilitate the pooling

of resources, expertise, and insights, accelerating the

adoption of autonomous technologies while mitigating

risks. By addressing these challenges, administrations

can create an environment that fosters the successful

integration of MASS into global shipping operations.

The recommendations outlined in this paper provide a

roadmap for enabling this transformation,

emphasizing the need for proactive governance,

infrastructure modernization, and collaborative efforts

among stakeholders. With the right strategies and

partnerships in place, the maritime industry can

unlock the full potential of MASS, reshaping global

logistics and positioning itself as a leader in

technological innovation.

REFERENCES

[1] Ø. J. Rødseth, L. A. L. Wennersberg, and H. Nordahl,

“Improving safety of interactions between conventional

and autonomous ships,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 284,

Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.115206.

[2] M. Waltz and O. Okhrin, “Spatial–temporal recurrent

reinforcement learning for autonomous ships,” Neural

Networks, vol. 165, pp. 634–653, Aug. 2023, doi:

10.1016/j.neunet.2023.06.015.

[3] I. Kurt and M. Aymelek, “Operational adaptation of ports

with maritime autonomous surface ships,” Transp Policy

(Oxf), vol. 145, pp. 1–10, Jan. 2024, doi:

10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.09.023.

799

[4] H. Ali, G. Xiong, Q. Tianci, R. Kumar, X. Dong, and Z.

Shen, “Autonomous ship navigation with an enhanced

safety collision avoidance technique,” ISA Trans, Oct.

2023, doi: 10.1016/j.isatra.2023.10.019.

[5] Ç. Karatuğ, Y. Arslanoğlu, and C. Guedes Soares,

“Determination of a maintenance strategy for machinery

systems of autonomous ships,” Ocean Engineering, vol.

266, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.113013.

[6] P. Corsi, S. Jakovlev, and M. Figari, “Ship maneuverability

modeling for Autonomous Navigation,” in 2024 IEEE

Workshop on Complexity in Engineering, COMPENG

2024, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.,

2024. doi: 10.1109/COMPENG60905.2024.10741395.

[7] K. Wang, Q. Hu, M. Zhou, Z. Zun, and X. Qian, “Multi-

aspect applications and development challenges of digital

twin-driven management in global smart ports,” Case

Stud Transp Policy, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1298–1312, Sep. 2021,

doi: 10.1016/j.cstp.2021.06.014.

[8] G. D’Amico, K. Szopik-Depczyńska, I. Dembińska, and G.

Ioppolo, “Smart and sustainable logistics of Port cities: A

framework for comprehending enabling factors, domains

and goals,” Sustain Cities Soc, vol. 69, Jun. 2021, doi:

10.1016/j.scs.2021.102801.

[9] P. Lee, G. Theotokatos, E. Boulougouris, and V. Bolbot,

“Risk-informed collision avoidance system design for

maritime autonomous surface ships,” Ocean

Engineering, vol. 279, Jul. 2023, doi:

10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.113750.

[10] E. Veitch and O. Andreas Alsos, “A systematic review of

human-AI interaction in autonomous ship systems,” Saf

Sci, vol. 152, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105778.

[11] X. Li, P. Oh, Y. Zhou, and K. F. Yuen, “Operational risk

identification of maritime surface autonomous ship: A

network analysis approach,” Transp Policy (Oxf), vol.

130, pp. 1–14, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.10.012.

[12] S. Jakovlev, A. Andziulis, A. Daranda, M. Voznak, and

T. Eglynas, “Research on ship autonomous steering

control for short-sea shipping problems,” Transport, vol.

32, no. 2, 2017, doi: 10.3846/16484142.2017.1286521.

[13] “IMO, MSC108. Roadmap revised for the development

of a code to regulate autonomous ships (MASS)”,

London.,” London, 2024.

[14] L. Wang, Q. Wu, J. Liu, S. Li, and R. R. Negenborn,

“State- of-the-art research on motion control of maritime

autonomous surface ships,” J Mar Sci Eng, vol. 7, no. 12,

Dec. 2019, doi: 10.3390/JMSE7120438.

[15] RINA, “Guide for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships

(MASS),” 2021.

[16] “CCS China Classification Society, Rules for Intelligent

Ships, Beijing.,” 2024.

[17] “IMO, MSC 107. Development of a goal-based

instrument for MASS, Report of the MSC-LEG-FAL Joint

Working Group,” 2024.

[18] L. Filina-Dawidowicz, V. Paulauskas, D. Paulauskas,

and V. Senčila, “Assessment of Vessel Mooring

Conditions Using Satellite Navigation System Real-Time

Kinematic Application,” J Mar Sci Eng, vol. 12, no. 12,

Dec. 2024, doi: 10.3390/jmse12122144.

[19] Z. Zhou and Y. Zhang, “A system for the validation of

collision avoidance algorithm performance of

autonomous ships,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 280, Jul.

2023, doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.114600.

[20] C. Wu, W. Yu, G. Li, and W. Liao, “Deep reinforcement

learning with dynamic window approach based collision

avoidance path planning for maritime autonomous

surface ships,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 284, Sep. 2023,

doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.115208.

[21] K. Zhang et al., “A real-time multi-ship collision

avoidance decision-making system for autonomous ships

considering ship motion uncertainty,” Ocean

Engineering, vol. 278, Jun. 2023, doi:

10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.114205.

[22] P. Beaumont, “Cybersecurity Risks and Automated

Maritime Container Terminals in the Age of 4IR,” 2018,

pp. 497–516. doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-4763-1.ch017.

[23] A. Daranda, A. Andziulis, and S. Jakovlev, “Fake vessels

identification in the AIS,” in Transport Means -

Proceedings of the International Conference, 2015.

[24] V. Kampourakis, V. Gkioulos, and S. Katsikas, “A

systematic literature review on wireless security testbeds

in the cyber-physical realm,” Oct. 01, 2023, Elsevier Ltd.

doi: 10.1016/j.cose.2023.103383.