Maggie Wu (吳詩敏)[1] Lin Tzu-Ching (林子靖)[2]
Until the law is adjusted, operators largely rely on unmanned vehicle technology innovative experimentation to obtain room to operate; navigating or operating within a commercial port area, or carrying out inspections with a remotely piloted drone, is separately restricted by the Commercial Port Act. This part explains what the innovative experimentation regime means and where its limits lie, together with the rules and case law on port operations, for the reference of the unmanned vehicle industry.
The innovative experimentation regime: what it means and where its limits lie
Article 3, subparagraph 1 of the Unmanned Vehicles Technology Innovative Experimentation Act (無人載具科技創新實驗條例; “the Experimentation Act”) expressly includes ships within the meaning of an unmanned vehicle, and Article 22, paragraph 2, subparagraph 4 lists “Article 91, paragraph 2, Article 92, Article 93, Article 95, Article 97 and Article 98 of the Shipping Act” among the laws whose application may be excluded during an experiment. Since the legislature considered exclusion necessary, it may be inferred that it did not then take it for granted that unmanned vessels fell outside the Shipping Act altogether.[3]
What is excluded, however, repays attention. Articles 91 to 98 of the Shipping Act all sit in Chapter 10, Penal Provisions, and are all administrative penalty provisions under which the maritime authority imposes a fine; Articles 91 to 94 additionally allow an order prohibiting navigation or requiring rectification within a stated period. The proviso to Article 22, paragraph 2, subparagraph 7 of the Experimentation Act further states that the exclusion “does not include provisions on civil or criminal liability”. In other words, what an approved experiment excludes is only the administrative fine payable on breach; the substantive obligations of the Shipping Act as to registration, survey, tonnage measurement and documentation are not lifted. This is exemption from penalty, not exemption from liability, still less the acquisition of lawful status as a ship; if an unmanned vessel collides or causes loss during the experiment, its civil liability is unaffected.
Timing is more striking still. The proviso to Article 9, paragraph 2 of the Experimentation Act provides: “However, where the content of the innovative experiment is found at a review meeting by the central competent authority for the relevant industry to require amendment of the relevant law, the extension shall not be limited to one occasion, and the whole period of the innovative experiment shall not exceed four years.” The legislature thus assumed, when designing the provision, that the need for legislative amendment would emerge during the experiment, and took four years to be enough to complete it. More than seven years have passed since the Act came into force in June 2019, and the Shipping Act still contains no definition of, or management rules for, unmanned vessels. The competent authority has not been inactive, however: it has chosen to proceed first by way of administrative guidance. The Maritime and Port Bureau, MOTC has issued the Safety Management Guidelines for Unmanned Surface and Underwater Vehicles in Designated Test Waters and the General Safety Management Guidelines for Unmanned Surface and Underwater Vehicles, governing the test phase and the operational phase respectively (see Part Five). The problem is therefore not that the law cannot keep pace with the technology, but that the gap in the law is being filled by administrative guidance — guidance that has no statutory authorisation and no penalty provisions, that cannot create the status of a ship, and that still less can relieve anyone of the substantive obligations of the Shipping Act or of civil liability. What an operator obtains is administrative consent to test in designated waters, not the status of a ship in law.[4]
Restrictions on operations in a port area
(1) An unmanned vessel navigating or operating in a port area
Article 15, paragraph 3 of the Commercial Port Act (商港法) provides: “Ships and floating craft shall not navigate or operate within a port area without the consent of the commercial port operating enterprise, the Maritime and Port Bureau or the designated agency.” A person in breach is subject to a fine of not less than NT$100,000 and not more than NT$500,000 under Article 66, paragraph 1, subparagraph 2 of the same Act; an unregistered ship or floating craft may in addition be confiscated under paragraph 2 of that article.
Taipei High Administrative Court, Local Administrative Actions Division, Judgment 112-Jian-Zi-94 explains that the purpose of the provision is to safeguard the safety of shipping within the port area, that “operation” includes fishing vessel operations, and states expressly that Article 66, paragraph 1, subparagraph 2 of the Commercial Port Act “does not require that obstruction to navigation or other actual harm be caused”. In that case the party had merely moored a raft at the entrance to Wuqi Fishing Harbour within the Taichung Port commercial port area, with a person aboard holding a fishing rod, and was fined NT$100,000. On that view, carrying out survey or inspection work with an unmanned vessel in a port area should be treated as “operation” for which consent must be obtained in advance; and even if an unmanned vessel is not treated as a ship, the competent authority may still regard it as floating craft.[5]
(2) Aerial inspection with a remotely piloted drone
Another common practice in port areas is to inspect hulls or facilities with a remotely piloted drone. Article 36-1 of the Commercial Port Act (商港法) prohibits remotely piloted drone flight activity within designated areas of a commercial port area without prior permission; the Regulations Governing Applications for and Management of Remotely Piloted Drone Flight Activity within Designated Areas of Commercial Port Areas (“the Port Drone Regulations”), made under paragraph 3 of that article, impose three restrictions, set out in Table 1.
Table 1 Three restrictions on remotely piloted drone flight activity within designated areas of commercial port areas
| Restriction | Content | Effect on commercial inspection |
| Permitted grounds (Article 3, paragraph 1) | Only a government agency or institution, a school or a juridical person may apply, and only where it is needed for the performance of official duties, port operation and management business, publicity for policy activities, or public environmental monitoring research | An inspection company is a juridical person, but commercial inspection carried out on instructions from a shipowner is not among the four grounds listed |
| Application procedure (Article 3, paragraphs 2 and 3) | The application must be made 7 days before the flight activity, with the following six documents: the application form, the registration certificate, a copy of the drone operator certificate and proof of liability insurance; where the flight path covers an area under Article 99-13, paragraph 1 or 2 of the Civil Aviation Act, a certificate of consent from the Civil Aviation Administration or from the relevant special municipality or county (city) government respectively (subparagraph 5); and where the flight path covers an area leased by a port unit or a public or private enterprise within the port area, the consent of that unit or enterprise (subparagraph 6). A government agency performing statutory duties of disaster prevention and rescue, investigation or correction is, with consent, exempt from that procedure (paragraph 3) | The lead time is long and some documents must first be obtained from third parties, which sits badly with inspection work arranged at short notice |
| Distance restriction (Article 7, paragraph 1, subparagraph 3) | The drone must stay at least 30 metres away from buildings, ships, petrochemical storage tanks, power facilities and other objects that may obstruct the line of sight; paragraph 2 of the same article relaxes subparagraphs 2 and 3 only where necessary for the performance of disaster prevention and rescue, investigation or correction duties | Hull inspection by its nature requires close approach to the ship, and the 30-metre restriction makes this application largely impracticable inside a port area |
Flying without permission, or in breach of the management requirements, attracts a fine of not less than NT$300,000 and not more than NT$1.5 million under Article 65-1 of the Commercial Port Act; in a serious case the drone may also be confiscated.
Conclusion
What approval of an innovative experiment excludes is only the administrative fine payable on breach. This is exemption from penalty, not exemption from liability, still less the acquisition of lawful status as a ship. As to port operations, consent must be obtained in advance whether or not the unmanned vessel is treated as a ship; and inspection by remotely piloted drone within a port area is further constrained by the permitted grounds and the distance restriction.
(The next part of this series asks: what administrative guidance has the Maritime and Port Bureau issued for unmanned vehicles? Which test waters can currently be applied for? And what should be borne in mind when applying?)
[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] Promulgated on 19 December 2018; in force from 1 June 2019.
[4] Safety Management Guidelines for Unmanned Surface and Underwater Vehicles in Designated Test Waters, issued by the Maritime and Port Bureau, MOTC, by Letter Hang-Bo-Zi No. 1141711673 of 30 December 2025 and amended by Letter Hang-Bo-Zi No. 1151710667 of 14 July 2026; General Safety Management Guidelines for Unmanned Surface and Underwater Vehicles, issued by the same Bureau by Letter Hang-Bo-Zi No. 1151710748 of 24 July 2026. Both are published in the “Unmanned Vehicles Section” of the Bureau’s website (accessed 2 November 2026). Both are administrative guidance, not regulations, and carry no penalty provisions; Chapter 6 of the General Guidelines further provides that the approval documents, use certificates and remote operator certificates issued under them are, “after a dedicated statute or related legislation takes effect”, to be replaced, extended or continued in use under a conversion mechanism to be announced by the maritime authority.
[5] Taipei High Administrative Court, Local Administrative Actions Division, Judgment 112-Jian-Zi-94 (11 January 2024).