Maggie Wu (吳詩敏)[1] Lin Tzu-Ching (林子靖)[2]
No court has yet expressed a view directly on whether an unmanned vessel is a ship. This part sets out how the courts have determined what a ship is in ship-collision cases, and explains the differences between the thresholds in Article 3, subparagraph 1 of the Shipping Act, Article 1 of the Maritime Act and the collision chapter in Article 3, subparagraph 4 of the Maritime Act, for the reference of the unmanned vehicle industry.
How the courts have determined what a “ship” is
A search of the Judicial Yuan’s judgment database for 無人船 (unmanned vessel), 無人艇 (unmanned boat) and 水面無人載具 (unmanned surface vehicle) (searched on 5 October 2026) returned no decisions for the latter two terms; the decisions returned for 無人船 merely quote press reports or investor questions in a securities or commercial context. A further search combining 無人載具 (unmanned vehicle) with 船舶 (ship) returned four decisions, three of them insurance disputes concerning a remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV) carried on the research vessel Legend, and one a procurement fraud case; none addressed the legal characterisation of an unmanned vehicle as such. What can be drawn on at present is therefore the way the courts have determined what a ship is in ship-collision cases, of which Taiwan High Court Civil Judgment 93-Hai-Shang-Shang-Zi-12 is a good example.[3]
(1) The facts
Taiwan High Court 93-Hai-Shang-Shang-Zi-12 concerned a cargo ship under construction at a shipyard. No watchkeeping personnel were stationed on board during a typhoon (only two technicians were aboard, carrying out a cold store test); the vessel parted its moorings, drifted and struck three naval vessels lying alongside. The shipyard argued that the cylinders of the main engine had not been installed and that survey and registration had not been completed, so that the vessel was not a ship.
(2) Analysis
Two points in the court’s treatment of what constitutes a “ship” are worth noting.
First, applying Article 1 of the Shipping Act as it then stood, the court held that the vessel, “its purpose being to be used for navigation on or under the water, and having the capacity to navigate”, satisfied the definition of a ship, and observed that “the survey and registration of a ship and the procedures for obtaining a certificate of survey or of nationality are merely provisions on the administrative management of ships, and are not necessary conditions of becoming a ship under Article 1 of the Shipping Act referred to above”. The court therefore applied a functional test, directed to whether the vehicle is capable of navigating on or under the water rather than to whether administrative formalities have been completed. On the definition as it stood before amendment, an unmanned vessel ought to qualify as a ship.
Secondly, Article 3, subparagraph 4 of the Maritime Act (海商法) provides that “the following ships are not subject to this Act, except in the case of collision: … 4. ships other than those provided for in Article 1”. On that basis the court held that “for the provisions of the Maritime Act on collision to apply, it is required only that both or all of the parties to the collision are ships; it is not confined to ships as provided for in Article 1 of the Maritime Act”. Warships are outside the Maritime Act under subparagraph 2 of the same article, but because of the proviso “except in the case of collision”, a collision between a warship and a merchant ship is still dealt with under the Maritime Act.
It must be said, however, that Article 3, subparagraph 1 of the Shipping Act as it now stands has added the requirement of “carrying persons or goods”, and a court applying the words strictly might reach a different conclusion. The thresholds are also not aligned: Article 3, subparagraph 1 of the Shipping Act requires the carriage of persons or goods and is the strictest; Article 1 of the Maritime Act requires only a ship “navigating at sea, or navigating on or under waters connected with the sea”; and the threshold for the collision chapter in Article 3, subparagraph 4 is wider still, extending to ships other than those in Article 1. It follows that even if an unmanned boat is not treated as a ship for registration and survey, the collision chapter of the Maritime Act is still very likely to apply once a collision occurs. That gap is the point most easily overlooked when arranging insurance and drafting contracts.
Conclusion
The courts apply a functional test when determining whether something is a ship, directed to whether the vehicle can navigate on or under the water rather than to whether administrative formalities have been completed. Article 3, subparagraph 1 of the Shipping Act as it now stands has, however, added the requirement of carrying persons or goods, and a court applying the words strictly need not reach the same conclusion. The thresholds in the relevant provisions are not aligned: even if an unmanned boat is not treated as a ship for registration and survey, the collision chapter of the Maritime Act is still very likely to apply once a collision occurs. That gap is the point most easily overlooked when arranging insurance and drafting contracts.
(The next part of this series asks: what exactly does the unmanned vehicle technology innovative experimentation regime exclude? And what restrictions apply when an unmanned vessel navigates or operates within a commercial port area?)
[1] Maggie Wu (吳詩敏) is the Managing Partner of Stellex Law Firm (有澤法律事務所). LL.M., Soochow University; LL.M., Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.
[2] Lin Tzu-Ching (林子靖) is the Managing Partner of Pan & Lin, Attorneys-at-Law (則誠法律事務所). LL.M., Graduate Institute of Law and Interdisciplinary Studies, National Chengchi University; LL.M. in Environmental and Energy Law, Georgetown University Law Center.
[3] Taiwan High Court Civil Judgment 93-Hai-Shang-Shang-Zi-12 (17 February 2006).