Maggie Wu (吳詩敏)[1]　　Lin Tzu-Ching (林子靖)[2]

The legal position of an unmanned vessel turns on the interlocking application of the Shipping Act, the Commercial Port Act, the two unmanned vehicle statutes and the Maritime and Port Bureau’s administrative guidance. Drawing together the analysis in the preceding five parts, this part sets out five steps operators can take under the law as it stands, together with the situations in which the relevant rules should be reviewed before committing resources, for the reference of the unmanned vehicle industry.

Recommendations for operators

Drawing together the analysis in the preceding five parts, operators may take the following five steps under the law as it stands:

1. Establish how the product is characterised in law. An operator should first establish whether the product carries persons or goods, and determine its gross tonnage, propulsion power and intended use, so as to judge which category under the Shipping Act it may fall into, or whether the exclusions in Article 4 apply, keeping a record of the basis for that judgment in case the competent authority or an insurer asks.
2. Make good use of the innovative experimentation regime, and understand its limits. Under the Unmanned Vehicle Technology Innovative Experimentation Act (無人載具科技創新實驗條例; unofficial translation, “the Experimentation Act”) an operator may apply to the Ministry of Economic Affairs for an innovative experiment. Approval is limited to one year; an extension must be applied for 60 days before the period expires and is in principle limited to one occasion of not more than one year, save that where the central competent authority for the relevant industry finds that the law should be amended, the extension is not limited to one occasion and the whole period may not exceed four years (Article 9). The approval decision must state the rules whose application is excluded (Article 8, paragraph 3). As noted in Part Four, however, the exclusion is confined to administrative fines: substantive obligations such as registration and survey, and civil liability, are not lifted with it, and an operator should still assess its insurance and contractual risk allocation separately.
3. Complete the preparations for testing and operation under the Bureau’s administrative guidance. Before testing in designated waters, an operator should have ready, under the Safety Management Guidelines for Unmanned Surface and Underwater Vehicles in Designated Test Waters, its vehicle safety verification, information security verification, operator qualifications, test plan and emergency response and rescue plan, and should apply to the authority managing those waters under that authority’s own rules. On entering the operational phase, it must in addition register the vehicle, arrange personnel training and certification and make the required reports before and after operation, under the General Safety Management Guidelines for Unmanned Surface and Underwater Vehicles.[3]
4. Allocate responsibility for port permissions by contract. Where work in a port area is carried out on instructions, the contract should state which party is to apply for consent or permission, who bears the cost of and responsibility for a stoppage if permission is not obtained, and where responsibility lies if a penalty is imposed. Where the need for inspection arises out of the port operating enterprise’s own port operation and management business, an application made by that enterprise stands a better chance of meeting the grounds set out in the Port Drone Regulations.
5. Keep track of the testing grounds and of regulatory adjustment. Article 7 of the Act for Strengthening National Defense Self-Reliance and Promoting the Unmanned Vehicle Industry (強化國防自主暨無人載具產業發展條例; unofficial translation, “the Unmanned Vehicle Act”) requires the competent authority, within one year of that Act taking effect, to plan with local governments at least three testing grounds for joint military and civilian use, for flight control, navigation control and other testing; Article 5, paragraph 2, subparagraph 5 requires the industry development guidelines to address regulatory adjustment and the division of work between ministries. Whether the Shipping Act will be amended to add a definition of, and management rules for, unmanned vessels is the point to watch.

Conclusion

There is at present no express provision of law on whether an unmanned vessel is a ship, and no court has expressed a view directly. Defence use is excluded under Article 4, subparagraph 1 of the Shipping Act and raises fewer problems; civil operators face three uncertainties at once — an unclear definition, documentary requirements premised on personnel, and restrictions on port operations. Until the law is adjusted, an operator would do well to complete its preparations for testing and operation under the Bureau’s administrative guidance, to obtain exclusion of particular rules through an innovative experiment where that is needed, and to allocate the risk of permissions and penalties by contract; but it should bear in mind that what these regimes relieve it of is administrative control and fines, not civil liability.

In concrete terms, an operator in any of the following situations would do well to review the relevant rules before committing resources:

• the product is an unmanned surface or underwater vehicle to be sea-trialled, delivered or put into service in Taiwanese waters, and it has not yet been established whether registration and survey under the Shipping Act are required;
• inspection, survey or patrol work is to be carried out on instructions within a commercial port area using an unmanned vessel or a drone;
• an innovative experiment is to be applied for and an analysis of the rules to be excluded must be prepared; or
• upstream or downstream contracts for Ministry of National Defense unmanned boat procurement are being taken on while a civil version is also being planned.

If a collision or property damage occurs during operations with an unmanned vessel, it should be established at an early stage whether the Maritime Act or the Civil Code applies and whether liability insurance responds. Because the legal position of an unmanned vessel turns on the interlocking application of the Shipping Act, the Commercial Port Act and the two unmanned vehicle statutes, the answer will vary with hull type, intended use and operating waters, and the importance of clarifying the position in advance should not be underestimated.

[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] 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.