While the International Maritime Organization finalises a MASS Code that still has no binding force, France has already legislated. Ordinance no. 2021-1330 of 13 October 2021, in force since 15 October 2021, inserted into the French Transport Code the definitions and the regime applicable to autonomous ships and maritime drones. The result is paradoxical: on several questions that international law leaves open, in particular who is the master of a ship without a crew, French law settled the matter four years ago. It remains to measure what those answers imply. Here are the six points that determine, in practice, which regime applies to your craft and who answers for it.
1. French law defines the autonomous ship, and designates its master
Article L. 5000-2-1 of the Transport Code, created by the Ordinance of 13 October 2021, provides that, for the application of the Code, an autonomous ship is a ship operated remotely or by its own operating systems, whether or not seafarers are on board. The definition is deliberately broad: it covers conning from a shore centre as well as control by the ship’s own systems, and it does not require the absence of a crew. The second paragraph carries the heaviest consequences: the person who exercises command of the autonomous ship is regarded as its master. Where the IMO MASS Code merely describes configurations, French law designates a holder of the function, wherever he exercises it from. The practical question is therefore no longer whether there is a master, but to identify, within the chosen organisation, the person who actually exercises command.
2. The maritime drone is a distinct category, and the tonnage threshold governs everything
Article L. 5000-2-2 creates a second category which must not be confused with the first. A maritime drone is a surface or underwater floating craft operated remotely or by its own operating systems, with no personnel, passengers or freight on board, and whose technical characteristics, in particular limits of size, power and speed, are defined by regulation, its gross tonnage not being allowed to reach or exceed 100. The text adds that the drone is subject to the policing powers of the State’s representative at sea and, above all, that unless otherwise provided, the provisions of the fifth part of the Code relating to ships do not apply to it. The threshold of one hundred gross tonnage units is therefore not an administrative convenience: it tips the craft from a light derogatory regime into the whole body of ship law, with its safety, manning and insurance obligations.
3. Territorial attachment follows the flag, and covers the craft without nationality
Article L. 5000-3, as amended by the same Ordinance, settles the question of applicable law in terms that close several loopholes. Subject to France’s international commitments and the powers recognised to States by international law, the provisions of the fifth part of the Code apply to ships and maritime drones flying the French flag wherever they are, and to those flying the flag of a foreign State in the maritime areas under French jurisdiction or sovereignty. The text specifies that ships and maritime drones without a flag or without nationality are assimilated to craft under a foreign flag. This assimilation is decisive for a sector in which prototypes often sail without completed registration: the absence of a flag creates no legal vacuum in French waters, it simply places the craft under the regime applicable to foreign vessels.
4. The remote master inherits powers designed for the ship
Designating a master entails the application of the master’s status, which was not rewritten for remote conning. Article L. 5531-1 of the Transport Code, in the wording deriving from Law no. 2019-1428 of 24 December 2019, provides that the master has over all persons present on board, of whatever nationality, the authority justified by the maintenance of order, the security and safety of the ship and of the persons embarked, the safety of the cargo and the proper performance of the venture. It adds that the shipowner provides the master with the means necessary to exercise that authority and does not obstruct the decisions falling within it, and that the master, as a holder of public authority, may use any means of coercion required by the circumstances and proportionate. Transposed to an operator installed in a shore centre, these prerogatives raise a concrete question: how to exercise a policing authority remotely, and what means the shipowner must provide for the obligation to be met.
5. Ship safety has a precise exclusion, in force since October 2024
The chapter of the Transport Code devoted to ship safety was amended by a more recent, often overlooked text. Article L. 5241-1, in the wording deriving from Law no. 2023-703 of 1 August 2023, provides in its III that the chapter does not apply to surface or underwater floating craft, on board which no person is embarked, commanded from a ship flying the French flag. Entry into force was set by Decree no. 2024-895 of 1 October 2024, on the day after its publication. The exclusion is narrow and requires two cumulative conditions, the absence of any person embarked on the craft and command from a ship under the French flag. An identical craft commanded from the shore, or from a ship under a foreign flag, remains within the scope of the chapter. The operational configuration therefore decides the safety regime, which makes it a point to be fixed in writing before the first campaign.
6. The shipowner remains the point of attribution, and coordination with international law remains
Whatever the configuration, attribution climbs to the shipowner. Article L. 5511-1 of the Transport Code defines the shipowner (armateur) as any person on whose behalf a ship is fitted out, and assimilates to him, for the application of that title and the following titles, the owner of the ship or any other operator to whom the owner has entrusted responsibility for operation, regardless of whether other employers or entities perform certain tasks on his behalf. In a structure where the software developer, the control centre operator and the owner of the hull are three distinct persons, this definition draws liability towards the person on whose behalf the craft is fitted out, leaving it to him to organise his recourses. That said, this national framework applies subject to France’s international commitments, in the very terms of Article L. 5000-3, which leaves entire the question of its interplay with SOLAS, the COLREGs and the future MASS Code.
These six points form the French reading grid for an autonomous navigation project, from the choice of the tonnage threshold to the designation of the master. The firm’s practical guide on autonomous ships details the compliance matrix and the clauses to negotiate with the shipyard, the operator and the insurer. Get the autonomous ships guide. For an ongoing matter, the page devoted to maritime law sets out the firm’s working method and the contact form allows you to describe a specific situation.