Advances and challenges in the regulation of autonomous navigation in the maritime sector: a systematic literature review

Advances and challenges in the regulation of autonomous navigation in the maritime sector: a systematic literature review | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Advances and challenges in the regulation of autonomous navigation in the maritime sector: a systematic literature review María Belén Orozco-Lopez, Edwin Paipa-Sanabria, Luis Fernando Castano-Londono, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7872130/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The development of autonomous and unmanned navigation has recently driven the transformation of the maritime sector. The safe incorporation, for the operational deployment of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) and Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USV) in coexistence with conventional systems, implies significant challenges in both technological and regulatory terms. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is spearheading global efforts to define a regulatory framework that addresses the emerging realities stemming from these technologies and the increasing interest in their broader commercialization. The development of these autonomous and unmanned vessels has become a central focus of research and development within the technological domain. The literature encompasses a wide array of studies concerning the various subsystems and algorithms essential for autonomous navigation in the execution of tasks or missions within aquatic environments. Nevertheless, analyses pertaining to the regulatory framework governing the operation of these vessels in real-world applications or contexts appear to be lagging. The limited number of results obtained from searching bibliographic databases for this specific topic underscores the necessity for a meticulous search to identify articles addressing autonomous vessels from legal, political, ethical, or social standpoints. Consistent with trends observed in other fields, technological advancements outpace scholarly discussions pertaining to these considerations. It is evident that scientific and technological development does not encompass all facets. Consequently, the presence of limitations and restrictions engenders numerous needs, challenges, gaps, and unanswered questions. In contrast to articles focusing on the advancement of autonomy, the scholarly literature addressing the implications and requirements for the operation of these vessels within the maritime, riverine, and lacustrine contexts remains notably sparse. Many authors address the topic tangentially, with their work focusing on algorithms for collision prevention or avoidance that adhere to COLREG specifications. Nevertheless, the debate is not nonexistent. Several authors have conducted analyses on the operation of MASS and USV in light of the current regulatory framework. The interaction of the new technologies with conventional vessels and the evolving role of the human element in vessel operation are also subjects of ongoing reflection. This systematic literature review addresses the regulation of autonomous vessels, aiming to pinpoint key aspects that shape the ongoing debate to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the subject across its various dimensions. The operational deployment of these vessels in real-world scenarios will become a reality in the near future, necessitating convergence between technological advancements and the regulatory framework. To date, the absence of the latter has not hindered the progression of the former. Considering the potential impacts and benefits arising from the coexistence of new and conventional technologies, it is anticipated that the political and social discourse will evolve to ensure the timely and appropriate implementation of regulations. Regulatory Framework Legal Framework IMO Autonomous Navigation MASS USV Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 1. Introduction The increasing development of autonomous navigation systems in the maritime sector has spurred a transformation in the conceptualization of contemporary maritime transport. Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) and Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) represent a significant technological innovation. The autonomous vessel market is projected to experience a volume growth at a rate of 26.7% between 2024 and 2035, reaching cumulative revenues of $ 3.48 billion USD by the year 2035, (BIS Research, 2018 ). Consequently, a significant increase in demand for autonomous systems technologies is anticipated, particularly within the maritime industry and for ships. Nevertheless, their implementation and operability present considerable challenges regarding regulatory frameworks across various jurisdictional levels. The inherent complexity of the maritime environment, coupled with the influence of the legal framework characterized by the convergence of multiple jurisdictions and the critical need to safeguard navigational safety has compelled the international community to develop regulatory frameworks specifically tailored to these emerging technologies. The International Maritime Organization (IMO), as the preeminent global regulatory body for the maritime sector, has initiated a process to update existing normative instruments and formulate new regulatory provisions specifically designed for these autonomous vessels. Within the regional context, various economic and political entities have initiated the establishment of their own normative frameworks. To accomplish this task, the specific characteristics of their jurisdictional waters and the distinct requirements of their constituent states concerning vessels have been taken into consideration. Furthermore, the integration of diverse technologies in these vessels, such as remote and autonomous control, artificial intelligence, and data fusion, among others, has been factored in (Fan et al., 2020 ; Wróbel et al., 2023 ). At the national and international levels, states face the intricate task of integrating international and regional provisions into their respective maritime legal frameworks, giving due consideration to fundamental aspects such as safeguarding national security, protecting the marine environment, and promoting economic growth. The adaptation of existing regulations is progressing on multiple fronts. Foundational regulations, such as 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 serving as a basis for the development of autonomous systems, although they necessitate significant modifications (Parlov, 2023 ; Vagale et al., 2021 ). Furthermore, to address these emerging needs, specific regulatory frameworks are under development, including the "Interim Guidelines for Trials of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS)" proposed by the IMO in 2019, which aim to ensure the safe testing of autonomous vessels while safeguarding the environment (Vagale et al., 2021 ). The IMO's roadmap for developing a MASS Code projects the completion and adoption of a non-mandatory code by May 2025. Subsequently, the development of a framework for an experience-building phase will occur during the first half of 2026. In 2028, development of the mandatory MASS Code would commence, based on the non-mandatory code, and incorporating amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) for the code's adoption. Finally, a mandatory code would be adopted by July 1, 2030, at the latest, with its entry into force by January 1, 2032 (International Maritime Organization - IMO, n.d.). According to authors who have researched the normative framework within the maritime sector, the maritime industry has undergone a significant evolution, achieving milestones such as the automation of vessel operations in contrast to conventional crew-manned operations. The emergence of MASS presents intricate regulatory challenges for international maritime navigation, particularly concerning collision prevention. The 1972 COLREGs necessitate a critical review to accommodate new technological scenarios, considering the interaction between traditional and autonomous vessels. Developing a legal framework that integrates the human element, technological advancements, and operational factors is fundamental, establishing clear criteria to classify and regulate these novel vessel types that represent an unprecedented paradigm in maritime navigation (Chang et al., 2024 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ). Chang et al. (Chang et al., 2024 ) highlight that the primary impediment to the widespread adoption of MASS is precisely the absence of a suitable regulatory framework, underscoring the critical importance of developing comprehensive regulations that address the emerging challenges in maritime autonomy. While significant progress has been made in research for the technological development of autonomous vessels, the academic discussion concerning the regulatory and normative framework remains nascent. The IMO, classification societies, and other entities within the maritime sector have been addressing this issue for several years. Nevertheless, as has been the case with other technologies, the regulatory development for the operation of these vessels in real-world scenarios is demonstrably lagging behind the pace of technological advancement. This systematic literature review aims to examine the advancements in the development of a regulatory framework for the construction and operation of unmanned surface vehicles. A corpus of 300 to 400 documents related to the topic was collected through a search conducted in October 2024. However, only 32 of these documents were identified as studies concerning the generation or updating of a regulatory framework applicable to autonomous vessels. This finding corroborates the trend observed by authors such as Horne (Horne et al., 2023 ), whose review included approximately 20 documents. The low ratio between the total documents found and those selected based on key content indicates a slow growth in academic output focused on establishing new regulations or adapting existing ones to the specific characteristics of autonomous vessels. This analysis, crucial for understanding the current state and evolving trends in this field, was developed through the following research questions. These questions aim to identify pertinent information concerning the origin, characteristics, and scope of current and emerging regulations, thereby providing a comprehensive understanding of their impact on the maritime sector. RQ1 Which countries or regions are leading the development of the regulatory framework for autonomous maritime vessels? RQ2 What types of autonomous vessels are included in the development of the regulatory framework? RQ3 Which entities have been working on the development of the regulatory framework for autonomous vessels? RQ4 What are the existing or developing regulations related to autonomous vessels? This document comprises the following sections: (2) State of the Art, which presents a consolidation of the literature found and the key aspects investigated; (3) Methodology, which describes the steps used to collect and process the information; (4) Results, which presents the findings of this systematic literature review, organized to address the four key research questions; (5) Discussion, which analyzes the findings presented in the preceding section; (6) Limitations and future work, outlines the constraints encountered during the systematic literature review and suggests avenues for future research to enhance the scope and rigor of the study; and (7) Conclusions, which ultimately highlights the primary aspects of the research work. 2. State of the art The operation of autonomous vessels and the safe integration of this technology within real-world environments necessitate the identification of existing challenges and the definition of an appropriate regulatory framework. Consequently, it is crucial to obtain adequate insights to comprehend the operational contexts of these vessels and to establish clear guidelines for their development and operation. The IMO has developed certain insights by defining a roadmap and activating various mechanisms to address and disseminate matters related to MASS and their regulation. Furthermore, classification societies provide input focused on ensuring the quality and safety of autonomous shipping, and their integration into the existing regulatory framework. With respect to academic literature, studies addressing the regulatory framework and the challenges associated with the commercial operation of autonomous vessels are limited in number. A preliminary search of academic literature, conducted in advance of this systematic literature review, yielded 14 relevant publications spanning the period from 2019 to 2024. These publications focus on various legal, political, and social dimensions of the regulatory framework and the operation of autonomous vessels. The topics analyzed within these publications include global and specific national contexts, challenges and recommendations for the adaptation of the existing regulatory framework, and changes in the role of the human element. As demonstrated in Table 1 , these publications can be classified into three categories: literature reviews, studies of the legal and regulatory framework of autonomous vessels, and studies concerning aspects of the human element. Table 1 Studies related to autonomous shipping and their respective approaches. Type of study Approach Reference Literature review Applicability of the regulatory framework to remote controlled or autonomous commercial vessels in Australia Horne et al. (Horne et al., 2023 ) Operator training for autonomous and unmanned ships Emad et al. (Emad et al., 2022 ) Influencing aspects of MASS operation decision making Lynch et al. (Lynch et al., 2024 ) Opportunities and challenges in MASS adoption Alamoush et al. (Alamoush et al., 2024 ) Compliance, adaptation and development of regulations for maritime autonomous navigation Orzechowski et al. (Orzechowski et al., 2024 ) Legal and regulatory framework analysis Legal status Legal status and regulation of Unmanned Maritime Vehicles Veal et al. (Veal et al., 2019 ) Legal status of MASS operator Choi and Lee (Choi & Lee, 2021 ) Challenges for the development of a regulatory framework Limitations of the IMO “Scoping Exercise” Ringbom (Ringbom, 2019 ) Impact of maritime autonomous navigation Kim et al. (Kim et al., 2020 ) Compatibility of autonomous ships with the current regulations Parlov (Parlov, 2023 ) Adaptations of COLREG according to the autonomy degree Jo et al. (Jo et al., 2024 ) Analysis of human element aspects Perception of the impact of autonomous navigation on the maritime sector Mallam et al. (Mallam et al., 2020 ) Identification of skills and knowledge requirements of remote-control center operators. Bachari-Lafteh et al. (Bachari-Lafteh & Harati-Mokhtari, 2021 ) Decision making and processes in operation (regulation on safety and operation of MASS) Lynch et al. (Lynch, Banks, Roberts, Radcliffe, et al., 2023) The thematic organization presented in Table 1 demonstrates the approaches that have arisen from key concerns and challenges identified in the literature due to the development of maritime autonomous navigation. To the extent of our knowledge, this categorization of approaches constitutes a contribution to the current state of the art, as it offers a comprehensive perspective on the study of the regulatory development of autonomous navigation. The themes addressed in each of these articles, categorized as either literature reviews or thematic studies, are described in general terms below. 2.1. Literature reviews The five literature review studies included in this state-of-the-art review cover subjects such as the applicability of the current regulatory framework to autonomous vessels in Australia (Horne et al., 2023 ), the training of operators for autonomous and unmanned ships (Emad et al., 2022 ), the influential aspects in MASS operator decision-making (Lynch et al., 2024 ), opportunities and challenges in the adoption of MASS within the maritime transportation sector (Alamoush et al., 2024 ), and the compliance, adaptation, and development of regulations for autonomous vessels (Orzechowski et al., 2024 ). These works are briefly described below. Horne et al. (Horne et al., 2023 ) analyze the applicability of existing regulatory frameworks to commercial and defense autonomous vessels in Australia. The study presents a systematic literature review to identify available studies on the current and future regulation of autonomous vessels in Australia and other nations. The authors highlight the limitations in developing a regulatory framework at the local level due to the scarcity of literature that allows for understanding the applicability of the existing regulation. They also point out the limitations in constructing a global regulatory framework, owing to variations in definitions and approaches at the international level. Furthermore, they explore how other nations address this issue, analyzing the international landscape of challenges in the adoption of regulations, including the legal treatment of autonomous vessels and the definition of "vessel" in the laws of various countries. However, the analysis found that the studies conducted have a greater focus on international legislation. Finally, they analyze how the topic of trust, the role of assurance in relation to trust, and certification in the regulatory philosophy pertaining to autonomous vessels have been addressed in the literature. The authors emphasize the need for further advances in the study of the challenges and opportunities of the regulatory aspects of maritime autonomous navigation, suggesting that the lack of clarity and definitions may limit the deployment of the technology in the future. In Emad et al. (Emad et al., 2022 ), the authors conduct a literature review on the current state of maritime education and training for future operators of autonomous and unmanned ships. They assert that some research has also demonstrated an increase in certain types of accidents resulting from human interaction with automation. The lack of adequate training for users and operators of autonomous systems has been identified as a significant cause of these accident types. To address this, they explore attempts to align training programs with the introduction of automation in commercial aviation, mining, nuclear power generation, rail and road transport, and maritime ports. The authors affirm that, for the latter in particular, changes will occur in the design, operation, services, shipping interaction, and maintenance across all aspects of the port industry. Trained operators and individuals with a broad understanding of the process are needed, especially in information technology (IT) and analytical problem-solving. Furthermore, projects such as IoT solutions and operational pilots in container terminals have been implemented, seeking to improve operational efficiency, safety, cybersecurity, costs, and emission reduction. They mention some of these trends, such as the Advanced Autonomous Waterborne Applications (AAWA) project, Maritime Unmanned Navigation through Intelligence in Networks (MUNIN), Revolt, and YARA Birkeland. Moreover, they emphasize the importance of adequate training for new recruits and naval officers before their deployment on autonomous ships, as its introduction often entails the reassignment of functions. They also highlight the need for training in differentiating between terms such as automation and autonomy. Confusion in definitions has led to terms like autonomy and automation being used interchangeably in different industrial contexts. The authors also note that operator training has been delivered through cognitive skills, communication skills, and operational skills, indicating that this trend will likely continue. Lynch et al. (Lynch et al., 2024 ) conduct a literature review to identify factors influencing the decision-making in the operation of MASS. The authors identify themes such as decision support systems, reliability, transparency, equipment, role distribution, situation awareness, and responsibility. The article focuses on decision-making by operators working with unmanned MASS (IMO autonomy level 3). They assert that the system should be able to make most decisions independently, while always being monitored by the remote operator. Furthermore, they point out the various challenges and limitations associated with the human role in remote vessel operation. In some cases, the operator may disengage from their function, lose concentration, have difficulty regaining awareness in the event of an unexpected situation, or lose the ability to identify the vessel's condition through biomechanical sensations. Alternatives to address some of these problems are described, along with their respective limitations. The authors agree that decision-making systems are employed in complex situations to support the human operator, always ensuring that the latter remains central to the operation. Therefore, the function of the systems lies in providing useful information to the operator for making decisions, minimizing errors. The article also describes the factors necessary for the proper functioning of the human-machine team. The role of trust is highlighted, and emphasis is placed on other elements required to improve decision-making. These elements include the human's degree of awareness of the processes, a shared mental model, the division of tasks, and the challenge of responsibility. Additionally, the importance of situation awareness (SA) is emphasized, as it describes the decision-maker's perception of the state of the environment. Decision support systems (DSS) and the way information is presented affect the operator's ability to perceive and understand the situation. The authors finally state that, to design MASS systems, it is crucial to investigate how information should be presented to operators without overloading them. The use of Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) and Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) is recommended to identify and mitigate design errors. Responsibility in human-machine teams should be investigated using systemic approaches, considering broad influences on the safe operation of MASS. In Alamoush et al. (Alamoush et al., 2024 ), the opportunities and challenges in the adoption of MASS within the maritime transport sector are presented. Among the opportunities and drivers, they mention cost savings, operational safety, efficiency, sustainability, and maritime supply chain optimization. However, the authors acknowledge that despite the incentives, barriers still exist, such as acceptance by companies and the public. A primary concern is the stigma surrounding the replacement of human labor by machines, so the authors argue that these machines should support tasks, not replace personnel. To improve the perception of MASS among seafarers, it is necessary to increase their confidence in the capabilities of these systems, so that they begin to trust automation. This can be achieved by considering various key elements that facilitate the entire process, such as perceived usefulness, ease of use, reliability, and safety, among others. Furthermore, it is essential to involve all MASS stakeholders, including those who navigate the vessels and training institutions, in the design and implementation. Moreover, MASS manufacturers could benefit from automation experiences in other sectors, such as the vehicular and aeronautical industries, which have similar technological perspectives and concerns. On the other hand, the authors mention that current regulations for conventional ships are based on the STCW Convention (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers), which includes provisions on crewing and competencies. However, significant regulatory barriers arise when crewing and bridge functions are transferred to Remote Control Centers (RCCs). In response, the IMO itself suggests alternatives such as developing new regulations, adapting existing ones, and implementing interim or provisional regulations to gain experience while working on official ones. Some of the other barriers include safety in the face of natural contingencies and intentional threats. In this regard, they contend that risk analysis is a crucial step that must be taken seriously regarding MASS to establish the probability of various events and incidents (such as collisions, groundings, or strandings) and assess the consequences (such as damage to people, the environment, other vessels, or infrastructure). In the work by Orzechowski et al. (Orzechowski et al., 2024 ), the need to comply with existing regulations and establish new technical requirements for autonomous vessels is highlighted. The authors focus on the factors influencing the interim regulation of autonomous navigation in Europe. Their findings include the identification of readiness needs in four categories: technological, infrastructural, institutional, and socioeconomic. Technological readiness is defined both in terms of the technology's ability to operate in a predefined manner and its capacity to adapt to future modifications. Both aspects are crucial determinants of the success or failure of the new technology. The authors also identify three main factors driving technological readiness: the general technology of autonomous vessels, the safety aspects inherent in the operation of autonomous applications, and the development of research and innovation. In addition to vessel technology, autonomous inland navigation vessels will only be able to operate if the infrastructure is sufficiently and adequately adapted to support the new technology. This will require significant changes in digital and physical infrastructure, as the way vessels operate and communicate with their environment will change significantly. Institutional readiness refers to the capacity of organizations, both public and private, to respond and adapt to autonomous navigation technology in inland waterways. Furthermore, socioeconomic readiness could be a decisive factor for the large-scale implementation of autonomous vessels in Europe. Factors influencing socioeconomic readiness include social acceptance, business preparedness, and the availability of skilled labor. Social acceptance of this technology and business preparedness will largely depend on trust in the technology and effective risk mitigation through regulations. In this sense, regulation is indirectly crucial for the commercial viability of autonomous vessels. 2.2. Thematic Studies The thematic works identified in the categorization presented in Table 1 are grouped into two types of approaches: the analysis of the legal and regulatory framework, and aspects related to the human element. The first part focuses on the legal status of vessels and operators, as well as the challenges for the adaptation and definition of an appropriate regulatory framework. The second part explores human-machine interaction, the adaptation of work organizations, and the professional profiles needed to operate autonomous ships. A description of the corresponding studies is presented below. 2.2.1. Analysis of the Legislative and Regulatory Framework Studies on the legislative and regulatory framework can be classified into two categories: analyses of the legal status of vessels (Veal et al., 2019 ) and operators (Choi & Lee, 2021 ), and analyses of the challenges for the adaptation and definition of the regulatory framework in response to the new reality generated by autonomous navigation (Jo et al., 2024 ; Kim et al., 2020 ; Parlov, 2023 ; Ringbom, 2019 ). A description of these studies is presented below. Legal status of vessels and operators The studies by Veal et al. (Veal et al., 2019 ) and Choi and Lee (Choi & Lee, 2021 ) offer an analysis of aspects related to the legal status and regulation of unmanned vessels and the MASS remote operators, respectively. Veal et al. (Veal et al., 2019 ) analyze in depth the legal status and regulation of Unmanned Marine Vehicles (UMV), addressing several key aspects of their implementation and development. The study clarifies that, although legal status is relevant, it is not critical for operation. Furthermore, the consideration of a UMV as a "vessel" or not, mainly affects its navigation rights and the applicable regulatory framework. In addition, the document emphasizes that the absence of specific regulations does not mean that the UMV or entities developing related activities are beyond the reach of the law, especially on the high seas and in jurisdictional areas of the state that deploys them. In this regard, general legal principles on civil and criminal liability remain applicable. Remotely controlled UMV are considered to adapt better to the existing legal framework, unlike fully autonomous systems. The authors also highlight risk management and self-regulation as fundamental elements. The study proposes a risk management approach adapted to the different types and sizes of operations, rather than a total risk avoidance approach. Self-regulation through risk assessment and codes of conduct can be effective to demonstrate the responsibility of the UMV industry and as a transitional tool while a formal regulatory framework is developed. This allows for the generation of trust and acceptance of this technology, both in public perception and among maritime authorities. The human factor remains a central element in the success of unmanned marine technology. The text emphasizes that, although new land-based roles will be created for UMV navigation and programming, the experience of traditional seafarers will continue to be vital. The adaptation to this new technology should be gradual and has the potential to improve the safety and efficiency of maritime operations, considering that automation in the maritime sector appears inevitable. Choi and Lee (Choi & Lee, 2021 ) analyze the legal status of remote operators, who will play a crucial role in MASS. Traditionally, the captain and crew on board represent the ship owner in the performance of their duties. The concept of the remote operator is addressed based on key factors such as the definition of remote operator and the autonomy level of the MASS. The remote operator is defined as the person responsible for decision-making, who possesses adequate qualifications to monitor navigation, and who represents the vessel before the authorities. Regarding the autonomy level, the authors analyze the legal status of the remote operator using the four levels defined by the IMO as a reference. On R-MASS (remotely controlled with crew on board), there is a captain on board, and the remote operator does not have final authority. However, if the status of captain is granted to the remote operator and the crew assists them, the remote operator can assume that authority. On RU-MASS (remotely controlled without crew on board), the remote operator fully assumes the role of final authority, equivalent to a captain according to current laws. On the other hand, on A-MASS (fully autonomous), artificial intelligence systems make primary decisions under normal conditions, but the remote operator can intervene directly when necessary. For this study, the authors identify the IMO's trajectory regarding regulation by analyzing the MASS regulatory scoping exercise. This analysis covers the definitions of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) and the Legal Committee (LEG). According to the MSC, the MASS Code should include objectives, requirements, and corresponding regulations applicable to the four autonomy levels given by the IMO. However, a major challenge arises in the legal framework concerning the status of the remote operator. Although they are not on board like the captain or seafarers, they perform similar functions, so their qualifications should be the same and applied according to the purpose of the vessel, contributing to factors such as the vessel's seaworthiness and safety. Additionally, the authors include an analysis of the remote operator and seaworthiness, from the perspective of the human element's role and the definitions established in international conventions such as SOLAS and COLREGs. The study concludes that, for R-MASS, the status of seafarer or equivalent should be required, while for RU- and A-MASS, remote operators should be considered as captains or equivalents with final authority in vessel operations. Challenges for the development of a regulatory framework The implementation of autonomous navigation poses complex regulatory and legal challenges that demand thorough analysis. In this context, studies by Ringbom (Ringbom, 2019 ), Kim et al. (Kim et al., 2020 ), Parlov (Parlov, 2023 ) and Jo et al. (Jo et al., 2024 ) provide insights into the need to adapt and develop regulatory frameworks to ensure the safety and efficiency of autonomous vessels. Ringbom (Ringbom, 2019 ) conducts a critical analysis of the limitations of the IMO's "Regulatory Scoping Exercise." The author points out that this exercise demonstrates significant limitations in its current approach. This assertion is based on the fact that a general review of existing provisions is insufficient to address future regulatory challenges, especially when the details of technological development are not yet fully defined. For example, fundamental elements such as automated surveillance or machine-based decision-making are not adequately addressed. Furthermore, it argues that the binary approach (fully autonomous or not) ignores the reality that autonomy can be implemented in different degrees, which requires a more flexible and nuanced regulatory framework. Regulatory challenges emerge from the early stages of maritime autonomy implementation. Even with basic levels of automation or remote control, significant legal issues arise that need to be addressed. This underscores the urgency of developing an appropriate regulatory framework, even for vessels that are only partially autonomous or operate with reduced crew. As a solution, the document proposes the development of a new regulatory instrument specifically designed for autonomous vessels. This framework should not be postponed, even though the full implementation of fully autonomous vessels may seem distant. The importance of international harmonization is emphasized to avoid divergent interpretations between countries, which could create significant obstacles for the implementation of this technology in the global maritime domain. Kim et al. (Kim et al., 2020 ) evaluate recent global trends in the development of autonomous vessels and their impact on relevant regulations, technologies, and industries. Key aspects such as safety, training, and legal and ethical considerations are analyzed. The authors acknowledge that the integration of MASS with alternative fuels will transform the maritime industry, driving a paradigm shift towards cost efficiency, accident reduction, and human resource optimization. However, this poses significant challenges related to safety, environmental protection, and the adaptation of current regulations. Establishing international regulatory frameworks before integrating MASS into maritime commerce is essential to ensure safety and sustainability. In their study, the authors analyze three main aspects. First, they present recent global projects for the development of autonomous ships and related infrastructure, including autonomous ports and advanced communication systems. Second, they examine the impact of MASS on regulations, technologies, and industries, emphasizing the need for amendments to international conventions and systems that ensure safe operations in both physical and cyber domains. These systems must be monitored by remote operators from land-based control centers, using advanced sensors and modular infrastructure to prevent failures. The third aspect addresses critical issues such as safety, cybersecurity, changes in employment, and training standards for onshore operators. Although autonomous ships will reduce human risks, new hazards emerge, including fires, explosions, and cyberattacks. Ethical and legal implications are also anticipated, such as conflicts in machine-human communication and the need to adapt existing regulations. Parlov (Parlov, 2023 ) analyzes the capacity of the existing international regulatory framework to adapt to technological developments in the field of MASS, focusing on IMO provisions related to routing, ship reporting, and Vessel Traffic Services (VTS). The study evaluates whether current IMO regulations can incorporate these new technologies without substantial modifications, identifying the challenges and opportunities posed by the integration of autonomous vessels into the existing regulatory framework. The author recommends a progressive approach to regulation, combining the adaptation of existing rules with the development of new provisions. Furthermore, the author considers that the operation of autonomous vessels is compatible with current IMO regulations, although they acknowledge the need for clarification of key terminology and the adaptation of regulations to ensure the safe coexistence of autonomous and conventional vessels. In this regard, the author highlights the importance of the functional interpretation of key terms to allow the operation of vessels using autonomous systems to be compatible with existing regulations. From a legal perspective, the analysis of the current regulatory framework is presented, focusing on the flexibility of regulations such as COLREGs, SOLAS, and UNCLOS to accommodate the operation of remotely controlled and fully autonomous ships. This analysis includes the evaluation of interaction with VTS systems and the obligations of states regarding safety and navigation. Another relevant aspect is the recognition of the doubts that arise concerning the functioning of autonomous systems under certain operating conditions, in which human intervention would be necessary. For this reason, a coexistence approach of autonomous systems with crew is proposed. Jo et al. (Jo et al., 2024 ) examine the necessary regulatory adaptations according to the degree of autonomy, noting that current regulations must be adjusted. For example, in overtaking, head-on situations, and crossing scenarios so that autonomous systems can apply previously subjective criteria through sensors and algorithms. This study analyzes regulations, showing that the need for clarifications and modifications in COLREG regulations varies according to the degree of autonomy. In grade 1, adaptation focuses on changes in bridge watch, requiring interpretations and guidelines to establish equivalencies. In grade 2, ensuring situational awareness of the remote operator is fundamental, which implies the need for interpretations, guidelines, and modifications to some existing instruments. In grade 3, rules must be adjusted to address subjective elements such as "good seamanship" and "safe distance," requiring modifications to current instruments and some equivalencies. Finally, in grade 4, significant changes in the nature and application of COLREG are required, with substantial modifications to existing regulatory frameworks. Additionally, it proposes integrating specific procedures in COLREG for collision assessment and avoidance using advanced sensors and artificial intelligence (AI), improving autonomous response capability. It also requires standardizing communication between MASS and conventional vessels, establishing real-time data protocols to enhance situational awareness and prevent collisions. Furthermore, it recommends developing an automated emergency response system, allowing MASS to issue alerts and act without human intervention. Regarding MASS technologies, it is suggested to adapt regulations to include collision detection and avoidance methods using radar, LIDAR, and cameras, ensuring safe navigation under various conditions. Additionally, collision avoidance algorithms must comply with COLREG while integrating these new technologies to assess risks and make precise decisions. The introduction of MASS requires clarifying and adapting navigation regulations to precisely define the actions that both these vessels and conventional ships must follow to avoid collisions. Current regulations need to be adjusted—for example, in overtaking, head-on situations, and crossing scenarios—so that autonomous systems, through sensors and algorithms, can safely apply previously subjective criteria without human intervention, such as "good seamanship" and "proper lookout," and establish specific definitions for automated operations. 2.2.2. Analysis of Human Element Related Aspects Various studies have addressed the integration of autonomous systems in the maritime sector from different perspectives, including human-machine interaction, adaptation of work organizations, and professional profiles necessary to operate autonomous vessels. Below are three studies that explore these key aspects: the impact of automation on maritime work (Mallam et al., 2020 ), the requirements and competencies of remote operators (Bachari-Lafteh & Harati-Mokhtari, 2021 ), and decision-making in unmanned systems (Lynch, Banks, Roberts, Radcliffe, et al., 2023). In Mallam et al. (Mallam et al., 2020 ), the authors investigate, through interviews with ten experts on the subject, the potential effects of autonomous technologies on future work organizations regarding the human role throughout maritime operations. The authors begin by explaining the difference between autonomy and automation, which lies in the control relationship and decision-making within a system. Autonomy implies the capacity of a system or machine to self-manage and make decisions independently, without constant human intervention. At its most advanced levels, an autonomous system can identify goals, make decisions, and carry out actions by itself. The IMO has defined degrees of autonomy for vessels, ranging from automated processes with human support to fully autonomous operations. On the other hand, automation refers to performing specific tasks through controlled machines or systems, which were previously executed by humans. On ships, automation has digitized navigation tasks such as autopilot and ECDIS, bringing operations closer to advanced levels of automation. This has reduced on-board crew and operational costs. Likewise, this research through expert consultation yielded 5 main themes: trust, awareness and understanding, control, training and organization, and practical considerations. Trust is essential to delegate decisions and operations to autonomous systems, all based on their performance. Awareness and understanding are related to understanding how systems work, their strengths and weaknesses. In terms of control, there is debate about whether the human role should be collaborator or supervisor, confronting advantages between machines and humans. For example, in unexpected situations, human reaction is more creative and adaptable. Training and organization are part of the factors addressed. Personnel involved must have skills such as programming and simulation. Additionally, navigation-oriented professions may transform into more applied and specialized careers. Finally, practical considerations are discussed, identifying challenges in implementing autonomous technologies that include aspects such as cybersecurity, economics, regulations, and ethics, among others. In Bachari-Lafteh et al. (Bachari-Lafteh & Harati-Mokhtari, 2021 ), the authors seek to identify the requirements, profiles, and required experience of operators in remote control centers, stating that it is fundamental to have two types of experts: one in navigation and another in machinery. The authors employ the O*Net Content Model to identify reliable and professional information on skills, competencies, job characteristics, educational requirements, among others. The main related factors obtain information through a structured questionnaire, using data from the model. The results show that, regarding worker requirements, the most important corresponds to the use of logic, reasoning, thinking, and scientific methods. Regarding job requirements, the variable with the best average for the navigation operator is related to the ability to plan the route or journey, as well as principles of electronic navigation (GPS, ECDIS, AIS, VDR, GMDSS, and RADAR). In the case of the machinery operator, the variable corresponds to knowledge about ecology and environmental protection. Finally, in experience requirements, interviewees consider that in-service training, experience with autonomous ships, possession of a maritime competency certificate, and on-site training indicators should be the most indispensable requirement. Finally, the authors note the need to review conventional maritime training to include cargo handling and knowledge of propulsion systems, addressing the unique challenges of autonomous ships. En Lynch et al. (Lynch, Banks, Roberts, Radcliffe, et al., 2023), the authors focus on investigating the decision-making processes of unmanned vehicle operators using the Perceptual Cycle Model (PCM) as a theoretical basis. This model links the decision-maker's thoughts with the information available in the environment, which influences their behavior and actions. The concept of schema describes organized mental templates based on past experience and knowledge of the world. To illustrate this, an accident of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) was selected as a case study, given that it has similarities with the operation of MASS through a ground control center. The selected case was The Watchkeeper (WK) 050, whose accident was due to failures in human-machine interaction, revealing systemic challenges in roles, training, and real-time information processing. The model development was carried out by a team of human factors experts and unmanned systems specialists, who after recreating and analyzing the situation, found vulnerabilities in aspects such as situational perception and limited decision-making times. The AVDC interface was identified as a contributing factor, showing the need to improve the visibility of alerts and train pilots in emergency scenarios. Based on this, it is recommended to adjust interface design in autonomous systems such as MASS to support operators' situational awareness. 3. Methodology This systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), a methodology that replaces PRISMA 2009. It serves as a framework for reporting that ensures transparency and quality in systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses. This approach was selected due to the rigor of its recommendations, which, when applied exhaustively and clearly, enable the production of optimal reports. The steps taken to develop this methodology are displayed in the flowchart in Fig. 1 . The screening process was carried out using the "traffic light method," which allowed for a more precise classification of the contribution of the articles. 3.1. Data bases In the selection of information sources, priority was given to the academic databases Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) (Table 2 ), considering their scientific rigor criteria. These platforms are characterized by their academic nature, offering a comprehensive repository of scientific publications with a wide variety of applied content and robust international indexing. The selection of these databases is based on several fundamental criteria: High-level academic indexing International coverage of scientific publications Diversity of research fields Assurance of editorial and methodological quality These characteristics ensure the creation of a documentary repository that meets the highest standards of scientific rigor for the proposed research. Table 2 Data bases Data bases URL WoS https://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-referencing/web-of-science/ Scopus https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/search 3.2. Search strategy The proposed search strategy is based on a structured approach that categorizes keywords into three groups to address the specific objectives of the research (Table 3 ). The goal is to identify relevant works related to the regulatory framework, legal challenges, and their impact on the implementation of autonomous navigation technologies in the maritime industry. The first group of keywords includes terms related to regulations, legal frameworks, and applicable standards. This set ensures the search is focused on fundamental aspects such as international regulations, maritime conventions, policy compliance and standards, as well as the work of the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Legal Committee. Examples of terms in this group include "Regulations," "Legal framework," "Maritime law," "International conventions," "Compliance," "Policy," among others. The second group focuses on terms associated with the naval industry and ship construction. This category delineates the study’s application to the maritime, fluvial, and naval sectors, considering both vessels and related infrastructure. Examples of terms in this group are "naval industry," "Shipbuilding," "Shipyard," "Ships," "Boats," "Vessels," and "Maritime." The third group of keywords addresses specific terms related to autonomous navigation technologies and associated systems. This set is essential for identifying studies on autonomous maritime vehicles and related concepts, such as unmanned vessels, autonomous navigation, and smart technologies applied to ships. Examples of terms in this group include "USV," "Unmanned Surface Vessel," "Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship," "Smart ship," and "Autonomous shipping.". Table 3 Keywords clusters Keywords group words Search equations (1 Y 2 Y 3) Group 1 Regulations, Legal framework, Maritime law, international conventions, Legal obstacles, IMO Legal Committee, Compliance, Standards, Guidelines, Policy, Legislation, rules ["Regulations" OR "Legal framework" OR "Maritime law" OR "International conventions" OR "Legal obstacles" OR "IMO Legal Committee" OR "Standards" OR "Guidelines" OR "Policy" OR "Legislation" OR "rules"] AND ["naval industry" OR "Shipbuilding" OR "Shipbuilding Industry" OR "shipyard" OR "Shipyards" OR "Ships" OR "Ship" OR "Boats" OR "boat" OR "Vessels" OR "Vessel" OR "naval" OR "Maritime" OR "watercraft" OR "Small craft" OR "yatch" OR "Sailing" OR "pushboat" OR "barge" OR "Ferry" OR "Riverboat"] AND ]"USV" OR "Unmanned Surface Vessel"OR "Unmanned Surface Vehicle" OR "Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship" OR "Autonomous vessel" OR "Remote operator" OR "Unmanned ship" OR "Autonomous navigation" OR "Smart ship" OR "Autonomous maritime system" OR "Autonomous surface vehicle" OR "Unmanned marine vehicle" OR "Remote-controlled vessel" OR "AI-powered ship" OR "Autonomous shipping"] Group 2 naval industry, Shipbuilding, Shipbuilding Industry, shipyard, Shipyards, Ships, Ship, Boats, boat, Vessels, Vessel, Naval Vessels, Fluvial, Maritime, watercraft, Small craft, yatch, Sailing, pushboat, barge, Ferry, Riverboat Group 3 USV, Unmanned Surface Vessel, MASS, Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship, Autonomous vessel, Remote operator, Unmanned ship, Autonomous navigation, Smart ship, Autonomous maritime system, Autonomous surface vehicle, Unmanned marine vehicle, Remote-controlled vessel, AI-powered ship, Autonomous shipping The search equation is constructed by combining these three groups using logical operators, ensuring both the relevance and specificity of the results. An example of this equation would be: ("Regulations" OR "Legal framework" OR "Maritime law" OR "International conventions" OR "Compliance" OR "Policy") AND ("naval industry" OR "Shipbuilding" OR "Shipyard" OR "Ships" OR "Boats" OR "Vessels" OR "Maritime") AND ("USV" OR "Unmanned Surface Vessel" OR "Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship" OR "Smart ship" OR "Autonomous shipping"). This strategy follows a logical sequence that begins with general concepts related to regulations, progresses to the specific context of the naval industry, and concludes with specialized terms on autonomous navigation. Additionally, it ensures broad coverage by including synonyms and variations of the key terms, making the search exhaustive while maintaining a focused scope aligned with the research objectives. This strategy is expected to be applied in academic databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, or Google Scholar to perform a bibliometric analysis. This analysis aims to map trends and generate relevant insights in the field of study. 3.3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria Table 4 outlines the inclusion and exclusion criteria applied in the database search, designed to refine the search and avoid articles focused on unrelated areas. The first criterion focused on thematic scope, excluding topics related to health, chemistry, arts, humanities, economics, management, and finance in both databases, prioritizing fields such as engineering, materials science, etc. Next, due to content relevance and accessibility, preference was given to articles and reviews, excluding books, notes, conference papers, letters, editorials, and retractions. Publications in languages other than Spanish and English were excluded, as well as those published prior to the 2019–2024 time frame.. Table 4 Inclusion and exclusion criteria Filter Scopus WoS Topic Excluded Medicine Excluded Psychology Excluded Health Professions Excluded Arts and Humanities Excluded Neuroscience Excluded Economics, Econometrics and Finance Excluded Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology NOT Research Areas: Psychology or Public Administration or Neurosciences Neurology or Business Economics or Chemistry Document type Excluded Conference review Excluded Conference paper Excluded Book chapter Excluded Retracted Excluded Note Excluded Letter Excluded Editorial Document Types: Review Article or Article Language Excluded Chinese Excluded Korean Excluded Russian Excluded Portuguese N / A Years 2019–2024 Publication Years: 2019 or 2020 or 2021 or 2022 or 2023 or 2024 3.4. Selection process The identification of information for the selection process was developed based on six study categories, which were used to tag each article by reviewing their respective abstracts and titles. These categories include: general topic, specific topic, scope, vessel technology, regulatory entities, and conventions/regulations. The general topic provides an overarching view of the study's main area or focus. Tagging within this category established the broad conceptual framework for each article, facilitating the assessment of its relevance to the systematic literature review. The specific topic details the subtopics or particular aspects covered in each document for deeper understanding. The specification of these first two categories was conducted for all articles in the database. The scope classifies the documents based on their area of application (regional, national, or global). The vessel technology specifies whether the study pertains to USVs, MASS, ASVs, or other types of unmanned vessels. The regulatory entities and conventions identify regulatory bodies and conventions/norms mentioned in the documents. This categorization methodology facilitates the organization and analysis of information, allowing for an evaluation of trends and challenges in the regulation of autonomous vessels. It also provides a reference framework for authorities and norms guiding the development of autonomous technologies in the maritime domain. The analysis derived from this categorized information was used to address the research questions. The general and specific topics identified across the documents were highly diverse. Due to the volume of general topics, a standardization of terms was undertaken to reduce the number of themes through the consolidation of redundant terms. For instance, concepts like “collision avoidance” and “collision prevention” were grouped under a single term to prevent duplication. The topics were further organized into broad categories covering key areas of the subject while preserving the original content of each theme to ensure no loss of relevant information. This standardization process was assisted by the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT, which enabled the logical, clear, and coherent classification of the themes. Topics were tagged based on technical, regulatory, and operational aspects, utilizing redundancies, similar terms, and conceptual relationships. This classification process led to the development of clusters for the general themes, resulting in seven main categories: (1) Regulations and Legal Framework, (2) Autonomous Navigation and Route Planning, (3) Automation and Control, (4) Safety and Collision Prevention, (5) Training and Skill Development, (6) Innovation and Technology, and (7) Specialized Applications and Operations. To select the relevant documents for this study, the tagged database served as a foundation. The classification of articles was conducted using a “traffic light” method to organize documents by relevance. Green was assigned to articles specifically addressing the analysis or development of the regulatory framework, yellow to articles focused on the application of existing regulations, and red to articles unrelated to aspects of the regulatory framework. 4. Results The general thematic category was used as the primary criterion in the traffic light method for selecting normative literature related to autonomous vessels. Table 5 displays the number of articles identified according to the color convention. Articles marked with the green color correspond to those focused on analyzing regulatory and normative aspects from the perspective of legal and social sciences. Only 32 articles were identified in this group, following the trend of being fewer in quantity compared to research and development articles from a technological perspective. Articles marked in yellow are those focusing on technological development compatible with the current regulatory framework. These works (137 articles) primarily address route planning systems incorporating collision avoidance systems and algorithms designed to comply with definitions established in COLREG. Articles assigned the red color (136 articles) did not provide information contributing to the development of topics related to the objectives of this study. Table 5 Articles categorized with the traffic light method. Color Number of articles Green 32 Yellow 137 Red 137 The categorization and labeling conducted allowed for the organization and analysis of the information obtained from the database to address the research questions regarding regulatory developments in the field of autonomous vessels. For the analysis, the articles marked in yellow and green were used, representing documents with medium and high relevance to the study, respectively. The following section presents the analysis conducted for each of the formulated questions. 4.1. Which countries or regions are leading regulatory development for autonomous maritime vessels? To develop this response, exclusively the 32 articles categorized under the green color designation were analyzed. The classification under the geographic scope category facilitated the extraction of information necessary to determine regulatory advancements at the country or regional level. Within this category, articles were labeled as having a "global" scope when no specific country or region was mentioned, given that the general focus of the document encompassed worldwide coverage. Additional labels included "Regional" and "National" scopes, and in two instances, the scope was identified as "Regional / National." The distribution of the articles within this category is detailed in Table 6 , with the majority of entries (26 out of 32) classified under the global scope. Table 6 Articles according to the scope Scope Number of articles Global 26 Regional 2 National 7 Table 7 presents the thematic distribution of articles according to their geographic scope. Three levels of scope are identified: Global, National, and Regional/National. The 24 articles categorized under Global scope address topics such as the legal framework, regulatory framework, personnel training, and cybersecurity. Within the combined Global/National scope, one article focuses on the regulatory framework. At the National level, the topics covered include the legal framework, regulatory framework, countries' preparedness for autonomous navigation, and sustainable transport. In the Regional/National scope, two articles are identified that address the regulatory framework. Overall, the regulatory framework and personnel training/operations are the most frequently addressed topics. Table 7 General theme of the articles according to their scope. Scope General theme Number of articles Global Legal framework 4 Regulatory framework 10 Operators/personnel training 9 Cybersecurity 2 National Legal Framework 2 Regulatory framework 2 Countries' preparedness 1 Regional / National Regulatory framework 2 The specific information about regions and countries mentioned in the articles is found in the documents labeled with Regional and National scope. Table 8 presents a compilation of the studies organized by theme, country or region, and the corresponding citation. At the regional level, two articles have been identified that relate to the regulatory framework for autonomous vessels in Europe. Table 8 Works in which studies related to the development of regulatory frameworks at regional and national levels are identified. General Theme Country Reference Regulatory framework Europe-Germany Bačkalov et al. (Bačkalov et al., 2025 ) Regulatory framework for autonomous vessels Europe-Russia Moskalenko et al. (Москаленко et al., 2023 ) Regulation for autonomous vessels’ technologies UK Fenton and Chapsos (Fenton & Chapsos, 2023 ) Analysis of autonomous vessel regulations UK Lynch et al. (Lynch, Banks, Roberts, Downes, et al., 2023 ) Preparedness of certain countries for the operation of autonomous vessels Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Philippines De Klerk et al. (de Klerk et al., 2021 ) Legal framework for autonomous ships China Xing and Zhu (Xing & Zhu, 2023 ) Legal regulation of autonomous vessels United Arab Emirates Madi (Madi, 2023 ) Bačkalov et al. (Bačkalov et al., 2025 ) focus on the definitions of captain in the European Code for Inland Navigation and German regulations, and on the levels of vessel automation from the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine. The authors identify the limitations that the definition of captain imposes on the development of autonomous inland navigation in Europe and suggest the changes required in this definition based on the different levels of autonomy. Moskalenko et al. (Москаленко et al., 2023 ) highlight the advancements in the development of autonomous and remotely controlled vessels in Europe. The authors emphasize the potential leadership role of Russia in developing a national regulatory framework, based on technical and legal developments in autonomous navigation. Fenton and Chapsos (Fenton & Chapsos, 2023 ) investigate how the IMO and UK government entities have addressed the legal and regulatory challenges that arise with the development of MASS. Although they recognize the UK's leading role in defining the regulatory framework, the results of their study suggest that the gradual and safe integration of this technology in the maritime sector requires consensus from the international community for its regulation. Lynch et al. (Lynch, Banks, Roberts, Downes, et al., 2023 ) analyze the levels and relationships present in the stakeholder map of the MASS system in the United Kingdom. The authors identify the weaknesses of the system, as well as its possibilities for strengthening through the formalization of regulation and standardization. In addition, they make recommendations for the risk management framework. De Klerk et al. (de Klerk et al., 2021 ) conduct a comparative analysis of readiness for autonomous navigation in the case of four countries: Norway, Singapore, South Africa, and the Philippines. As a result of their study, the authors identify the high level of preparedness in Norway, highlighting the prioritization by the government and the integration of regulatory bodies, industry, and academia. In the case of Singapore, the creation of the Maritime Innovation Center for the study of competence requirements and legal framework for autonomous navigation is highlighted. For the Philippines and South Africa, a lack of preparation for autonomous navigation is identified, mainly due to political and social priorities in these countries. Xing and Zhu (Xing & Zhu, 2023 ) point out the legal gaps for the operation of autonomous merchant ships in China. The authors recognize the leading role that China can play in autonomous maritime transport and suggest reviewing action at three levels: participation in international regulatory exercises, legal research, and national legislation. Madi (Madi, 2023 ) presents a legal analysis of the regulation of autonomous vessels in the United Arab Emirates. The study focuses on conventions and rules related to collisions between vessels. The author identifies gaps and challenges in current regulations and proposes legislative adjustments or the creation of a new law for the regulation of these vessels. 4.2. What types of autonomous vessels are included in regulatory development? The results presented in Fig. 2 come from the analysis of green and yellow articles selected using the traffic light methodology. The frequency of appearance of the different technological terms reflects how these concepts are addressed in the selected regulatory literature. It was found that the documents deal with MASS (Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship), USV (Unmanned Surface Vehicle), and ASV (Autonomous Surface Vehicle) technologies. MASS refers to a maritime autonomous surface ship, that is, large vessels intended for operations such as cargo and passengers. USV refers to an unmanned vehicle that has no crew on board and is remotely operated. Finally, ASV refers to an autonomous vehicle that, through sensors and artificial intelligence, is capable of making decisions on its own. From these articles, it was found that the terms MASS and USV have a dominant presence, with approximately 67 AND 63 mentions each in the analyzed documentation. This high frequency in the selected articles suggests that they are the most relevant and widely studied terms in the current regulatory framework. Meanwhile, the term ASV (Autonomous Surface Vehicle) appears less frequently in the analyzed articles, recording only about 5 mentions. This low representation in the selected literature could indicate that this term has more limited use in the regulatory and normative context. It is also notable that in the selected articles, approximately 17 references were found where the technology was not specifically categorized (N/E), suggesting that some documents address general aspects of maritime autonomy without specifying a particular technological category. Similarly, approximately 13 documents refer to these vessels generally as "autonomous vessels." This distribution of terms in the analyzed articles provides a clear vision of how the academic community is addressing and categorizing different autonomous navigation technologies in the current maritime context. 4.3. Which entities have been working on the development of regulations for autonomous vessels? The information found regarding this question suggests that the regulation of autonomous vessels is primarily led by international organizations. This is probably due to the global nature of maritime transport and the need for uniform international standards. In Fig. 3 , it can be observed that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) stands out significantly with appearances in approximately 132 articles, being the most mentioned entity. This reinforces the idea that the IMO is the most active and influential body in the development of the regulatory framework for autonomous vessels. Other institutions, such as the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and the European Union, are also represented, although with a reduced number of articles (1 in each case). This could reflect a more recent or limited role in the regulation of these technologies. Additionally, entities such as the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine and the International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities have a more discrete representation in the literature. The United Nations, with a moderate number of mentions, seems to play an indirect role in regulation, channeling a large part of its efforts through the IMO. Finally, a significant number of articles (35) did not explicitly link their development to a specific entity. This phenomenon could be due to decentralized approaches or the exploratory nature of these studies, where association with defined regulatory bodies was not prioritized. These findings underscore the importance of international collaboration in establishing an adequate regulatory framework and the diversity of actors involved in the regulatory process. Figure 3 . Regulatory entities referenced in the documents. 4.4. What are the existing or developing regulations related to autonomous vessels? Figure 3 presents findings from the literature on conventions applicable to or related to autonomous vessels that were addressed or mentioned in the selected articles. The most common is the "Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea" (COLREGS). This regulation has significant implications for autonomous vessels and is commonly used for designing collision avoidance systems, which are related to procedures for coordinating movements when two vessels are in close proximity. However, this involves challenges such as effective communication, precise interpretation, disparities in opposing course sectors, uncertainty in interpreting overtaking maneuvers with vessels out of sight, lack of standardization in classifying propulsion types and restrictions on navigational aids, clear identification of special COLREG areas, and ambiguity in the application of Rule 17 (García Maza & Argüelles, 2022 ). It is also evident that a significant percentage of the articles did not specify any convention or standard (N/E). In third place are the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), applicable to operators and captains at different degrees of vessel autonomy according to the IMO. It is important that the human element in charge has the necessary training and meets requirements similar to those of conventional captains and sailors. For this, the IMO has model courses based on this standard, which require investment through specific funds, modernizing training infrastructures, and promoting refresher and specialization courses (Ghaforian Masodzadeh et al., 2024 ). A small percentage of the articles addressed the "International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea" (SOLAS). This convention has existed since 1914 following the sinking of the Titanic, whose numerous losses led to the creation of a convention focused on establishing minimum conditions for equipment, navigation, etc., to minimize the possibility of loss of human life. Finally, one article worked based on traffic separation schemes. 5. Discussion This systematic literature review examines the regulatory development of autonomous navigation, identifying advancements made by certain countries, the types of autonomous vessels, the prominence of regulatory bodies, and regulations related to autonomous navigation. Through this work, gaps in the academic literature on the study of the development of a regulatory framework for the operation of autonomous vessels in the maritime sector are explored. As found in other literature review works presented in (Horne et al., 2023 ) and (de Klerk et al., 2021 ), the number of articles related to regulatory development is significantly low, considering the relevance of the topic and the need for contributions to the debate. This situation should not be confused with the absence of academic debate or mechanisms for the development of the necessary regulatory, legal, and normative frameworks. Various authors have conducted literature reviews and dissertations with specific focuses, as seen in (Alamoush et al., 2024 ; Emad et al., 2022 ; Horne et al., 2023 ; Lynch et al., 2024 ; Orzechowski et al., 2024 ), which contribute to the analysis of different aspects related to autonomous navigation. Furthermore, it is necessary to highlight that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has included the topic on its agenda for several years, activating different mechanisms and forums for its analysis. Classification societies, for their part, are also fulfilling their normative roles. In this context, definitions are emerging that guide the debate and help establish clearer roadmaps. The information obtained through the study categories and the research questions posed in this work identifies the IMO as the main forum for the development of the regulatory framework. Although regions and countries have their own platforms and capacities to make individual progress, there is recognition of the international stage as the most important for defining a global regulatory framework developed through consensus. In this context, countries such as Norway, the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, Singapore, China, and the United Arab Emirates can play significant roles based on their national experiences. Notably, countries like the U.S., Japan, or Australia are absent from the reviewed documents on regulatory development. These findings contribute to the understanding of the international landscape, although the limited information suggests the need for a deeper study of the geopolitical map of regulatory framework development. Although Horne et al. conduct a country-level analysis in (Horne et al., 2023 ), they approach it from a bibliometric perspective. In our work, the analysis was conducted to identify the role and progress of the different countries mentioned in the documents. Regarding regulatory and standardization bodies, there is a notable lack of references to regulatory developments by classification societies. In contrast, there is at least one reference to ISO. It is common to find references to classification societies in the definitions of the levels of vessel autonomy. However, there are no studies on the contributions of these organizations to the enablement and requirements for the construction and operation of autonomous vessels. In terms of the current regulatory framework, there is great interest in adapting the technology to provisions on collision avoidance. 6. Limitations and future work The scope of this study is limited by the search in the Scopus and WOS databases. The database and corresponding analysis can be expanded by utilizing other databases. Additionally, the search is limited to academic literature, so it is necessary to broaden the type of reviewed documentation to enable mapping of IMO's progress and other actors such as standardization entities. The processes of selection, categorization, tagging, review, and database management were carried out by four authors. Although efforts were made to maintain coherence and cohesion in the terms, and a database review stage was conducted by three authors with a final review by one author, the study may have limitations in extracting information from the database. The use of automated tools could be considered for consolidating the database and obtained information. 7. Conclusions This article presents a systematic literature review on the development of the regulatory framework for autonomous navigation in the maritime sector. The PRISMA methodology was used to identify and select scientific documentation in the Scopus and WOS databases. The analysis was developed through four research questions formulated to identify the roles of countries, the types of autonomous vessels, regulatory entities, and existing regulations. The advancements and particular leadership of some countries in technological and regulatory development are highlighted. Additionally, the articulating role of IMO and the necessity of country participation in international forums for the development of a global regulatory framework are emphasized. Most of the identified documents correspond to works on automatic collision avoidance systems compatible with COLREG. It was also found that works studying regulatory, legal, and normative frameworks are significantly fewer. It is considered that an increase in these studies could contribute to defining a pertinent regulatory framework for the progressive and safe integration of autonomous vessels. Declarations Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Funding This study was funded with resources from the Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento para la Ciencia, la Tecnología y la Innovación Francisco José De Caldas provided by Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Colombia through the call 938 of 2023 (Program code 100864 and project code 105897). Author Contribution M.B.O.-L., E.P.-S. and L.F.C.-L. conceptualized the study. M.B.O.-L. and L.F.C.-L. conducted the database search, and L.F.C.-L. performed the webometric search. The introduction was written by L.F.C.-L., M.B.O.-L. and M.T.-G. Database cleaning and refinement were carried out by L.F.C.-L., M.B.O.-L., M.T.-G. and L.A.O. Result analysis was performed by E.P.-S., L.F.C.-L. and M.B.O.-L. Conclusions and future recommendations were developed by L.F.C.-L., M.B.O.-L. and E.P.-S. Formatting was done by L.F.C.-L., M.B.O.-L. and M.T.-G. Final review and refinement were conducted by L.F.C.-L. and J.Z.-C. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript. References Alamoush AS, Ölçer AI, Ballini F (2024) Drivers, opportunities, and barriers, for adoption of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS). J Int Maritime Saf Environ Affairs Shipping 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/25725084.2024.2411183 Bachari-Lafteh M, Harati-Mokhtari A (2021) Operator’s skills and knowledge requirement in autonomous ships control centre. J Int Maritime Saf Environ Affairs Shipping 5(2):74–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/25725084.2021.1949842 Bačkalov I, Illuri MSK, Kerkmann T, Oberhagemann J (2025) Definition of the Master as a key to unlocking autonomous shipping on inland waterways. Ship Technol Res 72(1):65–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09377255.2024.2386767 BIS Research (2018) Global Ocean Surface Robot Market Anticipated to Reach $ 2.90 Billion by 2028 at a CAGR of 16.8% and Global Autonomous Ship Market Expected to Generate a Cumulative Revenue of $ 3.48 Billion by 2035 Chang C-H, Wijeratne IB, Kontovas C, Yang Z (2024) COLREG and MASS: Analytical review to identify research trends and gaps in the Development of Autonomous Collision Avoidance. Ocean Eng 302:117652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.117652 Choi J, Lee S (2021) Legal Status of the Remote Operator in Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) Under Maritime Law. Ocean Dev Int Law 52(4):445–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2036276 de Klerk Y, Manuel ME, Kitada M (2021) Scenario planning for an autonomous future: A comparative analysis of national preparedness of selected countries. Mar Policy 127:104428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104428 Emad GR, Enshaei H, Ghosh S (2022) Identifying seafarer training needs for operating future autonomous ships: a systematic literature review. Australian J Maritime Ocean Affairs 14(2):114–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/18366503.2021.1941725 Fan C, Wróbel K, Montewka J, Gil M, Wan C, Zhang D (2020) A framework to identify factors influencing navigational risk for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships. Ocean Engineering , 202 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107188 Fenton AJ, Chapsos I (2023) Ships without crews: IMO and UK responses to cybersecurity, technology, law and regulation of maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS). Frontiers in Computer Science , 5 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2023.1151188 García Maza JA, Argüelles RP (2022) COLREGs and their application in collision avoidance algorithms: A critical analysis. Ocean Eng 261:112029. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCEANENG.2022.112029 Ghaforian Masodzadeh P, Baumler R, Celis G, Ballini J, F., Ölçer I (2024) A. STCW requirements in a regulatory and technology landscape change. Maritime Transport Conference Horne R, Deane F, Joiner K, Tranter K (2023) Navigating to smoother regulatory waters for Australian commercial vessels capable of remote or autonomous operation: a systematic quantitative literature review. Australian J Maritime Ocean Affairs 15(4):496–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/18366503.2022.2163549 International Maritime Organization - IMO. (n.d.). Autonomous shipping. Retrieved October 14 (2024) from https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Autonomous-shipping.aspx Jo M, Choi W, Lim M, Seo S, Shin J (2024) A study on improving the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea (COLREG) for the introduction of maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS). J Int Maritime Saf Environ Affairs Shipping 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/25725084.2024.2428006 Kim M, Joung T-H, Jeong B, Park H-S (2020) Autonomous shipping and its impact on regulations, technologies, and industries. J Int Maritime Saf Environ Affairs Shipping 4(2):17–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/25725084.2020.1779427 Lynch KM, Banks VA, Roberts APJ, Downes J, Radcliffe S, Plant KL (2023) The application of a system-based risk management framework and social network analysis to the Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship system: Who are the decision‐makers in the wider system? Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 33(5):395–429. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.21000 Lynch KM, Banks VA, Roberts APJ, Radcliffe S, Plant KL (2023) Maritime autonomous surface ships: can we learn from unmanned aerial vehicle incidents using the perceptual cycle model? Ergonomics 66(6):772–790. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2022.2126896 Lynch KM, Banks VA, Roberts APJ, Radcliffe S, Plant KL (2024) What factors may influence decision-making in the operation of Maritime autonomous surface ships? A systematic review. Theoretical Issues Ergon Sci 25(1):98–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2022.2152900 Madi R, EXTENT IS A COLLISION WITH AN AUTONOMOUS (2023) VESSEL CONSIDERED A MARINE COLLISION IN LIGHT OF UAE LAW? J Ocean Technol, 18(4), 82–97 Mallam SC, Nazir S, Sharma A (2020) The human element in future Maritime Operations – perceived impact of autonomous shipping. Ergonomics 63(3):334–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2019.1659995 Orzechowski SC, Verheyen W, Sys C (2024) A systematic literature review of factors influencing the regulation of autonomous inland shipping in Europe. Eur Transp Res Rev 16(1):54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-024-00678-6 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery , 88 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906 Parlov I (2023) Can the International Regulatory Framework on Ships’ Routing, Ship Reporting, and Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Accommodate Marine Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS)? Ocean Dev Int Law 54(2):163–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2023.2211781 Ringbom H (2019) Regulating Autonomous Ships—Concepts, Challenges and Precedents. Ocean Dev Int Law 50(2–3):141–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2019.1582593 Vagale A, Oucheikh R, Bye RT, Osen OL, Fossen TI (2021) Path planning and collision avoidance for autonomous surface vehicles I: a review. J Mar Sci Technol 26(4):1292–1306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-020-00787-6 Veal R, Tsimplis M, Serdy A (2019) The Legal Status and Operation of Unmanned Maritime Vehicles. Ocean Dev Int Law 50(1):23–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2018.1502500 Wróbel K, Gil M, Krata P, Olszewski K, Montewka J (2023) On the use of leading safety indicators in maritime and their feasibility for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability , 237 (2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X211027689 Xing W, Zhu L (2023) Exploring legal gaps and barriers to the use of unmanned merchant ships in China. Mar Policy 153:105662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105662 Zhang P, Chen Q, Macdonald T, Lau Y-Y, Tang Y-M (2022) Game Change: A Critical Review of Applicable Collision Avoidance Rules between Traditional and Autonomous Ships. J Mar Sci Eng 10(11):1655. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10111655 Москаленко МА, Черняхович СЕ, Пушкарёв ИИ, Титов АВ (2023) Autonomous shipping technologies, trends and prospects. MORSKIE INTELLEKTUAL`NYE TEHNOLOGII) 1(59):18–28. https://doi.org/10.37220/MIT.2023.59.1.001 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7872130","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":538681318,"identity":"6b68a965-3c07-4dae-8706-a5b6aedee14c","order_by":0,"name":"María Belén Orozco-Lopez","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"María","middleName":"Belén","lastName":"Orozco-Lopez","suffix":""},{"id":538681319,"identity":"be81b4b0-2a4b-4862-a885-29a8fcc5d649","order_by":1,"name":"Edwin Paipa-Sanabria","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Barranquilla, Universidad de la Costa","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Edwin","middleName":"","lastName":"Paipa-Sanabria","suffix":""},{"id":538681320,"identity":"16f0a2ee-09e3-4602-9b29-715097fc8696","order_by":2,"name":"Luis Fernando Castano-Londono","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Instituto tecnológico Metropolitano-ITM","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Luis","middleName":"Fernando","lastName":"Castano-Londono","suffix":""},{"id":538681322,"identity":"493b8bdb-5133-43f1-93e0-e4bcabcad7d6","order_by":3,"name":"Mateo Torres-Gonzalez","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Science and Technology Corporation for Naval, Maritime and Riverine Industry Development","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mateo","middleName":"","lastName":"Torres-Gonzalez","suffix":""},{"id":538681323,"identity":"cf386911-ff47-46f7-a2b8-a2411e253324","order_by":4,"name":"Julian Zapata-Cortes","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Fundación Universitaria CEIPA","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Julian","middleName":"","lastName":"Zapata-Cortes","suffix":""},{"id":538681324,"identity":"48e64a3e-8667-4a65-a72b-4e8d4f2f47cd","order_by":5,"name":"Linda Atencio Ortiz","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Escuela naval Almirante Padilla","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Linda","middleName":"Atencio","lastName":"Ortiz","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-16 00:53:21","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7872130/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7872130/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":95121231,"identity":"6b33b466-6fbf-4926-ac3d-b6fd620de582","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-04 14:01:53","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":301752,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"articleenglishversion.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7872130/v1/00593e7dcffb0c3006052622.docx"},{"id":95225921,"identity":"24cd83d6-46b5-48c9-a766-9b8aacf70446","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-05 16:25:46","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":9410,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"2613eab205ab4a8087fdf4d4b060ee40.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7872130/v1/7c005e7119bfe2afc2f8f92a.json"},{"id":95121236,"identity":"c3cdaa3e-42aa-49a3-97e5-62c408b81855","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-04 14:01:53","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":150307,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"2613eab205ab4a8087fdf4d4b060ee401enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7872130/v1/97227d7ed779ba7c18f8b10a.xml"},{"id":95224202,"identity":"890b329e-d886-49f5-a8ab-ff6e6fade999","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-05 16:23:30","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":48838,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7872130/v1/5404a077efe3a0e3580de1e2.png"},{"id":95121235,"identity":"8d66ed6f-c6aa-4abf-a4e1-b89107d6bf32","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-04 14:01:53","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":17462,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7872130/v1/d8eeb24bf95ae949a1d1c272.png"},{"id":95121238,"identity":"3edb9594-e2dc-4203-94fb-89d22f119619","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-04 14:01:53","extension":"xml","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":149936,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"2613eab205ab4a8087fdf4d4b060ee401structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7872130/v1/40f0520cc6f894e0a30b3be2.xml"},{"id":95121253,"identity":"57d18ff3-ca21-4171-974c-744250535ee1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-04 14:02:03","extension":"html","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":156557,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7872130/v1/78a5865271e3d95d9a48fae5.html"},{"id":95121252,"identity":"42ea4849-88bd-493d-87c6-8c53e3d0152e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-04 14:01:57","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":185122,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePRISMA methodology. Adapted from (Page et al., \u0026nbsp;2021)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7872130/v1/26762e67892a0a9da21cbd08.png"},{"id":95224915,"identity":"2c1db801-ba42-4036-ad99-37af32b2bdec","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-05 16:24:27","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":18000,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTypes of technologies.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7872130/v1/7581375db36ce14edc467dc6.png"},{"id":95121233,"identity":"0188b32f-7486-44f0-a3fb-53a19fa37504","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-04 14:01:53","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17176,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRegulatory entities referenced in the documents.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7872130/v1/c1381e9c671bc053e73b05b0.png"},{"id":95121232,"identity":"0909b891-732a-4780-ab93-ea152526973d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-04 14:01:53","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":19670,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 3\u003c/strong\u003e. Applicable or related regulations.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7872130/v1/60bc97e992e124e9db7fe647.png"},{"id":102770698,"identity":"8a204287-b3c2-4bef-82b2-7d1867af6f1e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-16 12:26:13","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1292336,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7872130/v1/d86a86d4-5e58-4287-b94c-def3dab353f8.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Advances and challenges in the regulation of autonomous navigation in the maritime sector: a systematic literature review","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe increasing development of autonomous navigation systems in the maritime sector has spurred a transformation in the conceptualization of contemporary maritime transport. Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) and Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) represent a significant technological innovation. The autonomous vessel market is projected to experience a volume growth at a rate of 26.7% between 2024 and 2035, reaching cumulative revenues of \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e3.48\u0026nbsp;billion USD by the year 2035, (BIS Research, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, a significant increase in demand for autonomous systems technologies is anticipated, particularly within the maritime industry and for ships. Nevertheless, their implementation and operability present considerable challenges regarding regulatory frameworks across various jurisdictional levels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe inherent complexity of the maritime environment, coupled with the influence of the legal framework characterized by the convergence of multiple jurisdictions and the critical need to safeguard navigational safety has compelled the international community to develop regulatory frameworks specifically tailored to these emerging technologies. The International Maritime Organization (IMO), as the preeminent global regulatory body for the maritime sector, has initiated a process to update existing normative instruments and formulate new regulatory provisions specifically designed for these autonomous vessels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWithin the regional context, various economic and political entities have initiated the establishment of their own normative frameworks. To accomplish this task, the specific characteristics of their jurisdictional waters and the distinct requirements of their constituent states concerning vessels have been taken into consideration. Furthermore, the integration of diverse technologies in these vessels, such as remote and autonomous control, artificial intelligence, and data fusion, among others, has been factored in (Fan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Wr\u0026oacute;bel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt the national and international levels, states face the intricate task of integrating international and regional provisions into their respective maritime legal frameworks, giving due consideration to fundamental aspects such as safeguarding national security, protecting the marine environment, and promoting economic growth. The adaptation of existing regulations is progressing on multiple fronts. Foundational regulations, such as 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 serving as a basis for the development of autonomous systems, although they necessitate significant modifications (Parlov, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Vagale et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, to address these emerging needs, specific regulatory frameworks are under development, including the \"Interim Guidelines for Trials of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS)\" proposed by the IMO in 2019, which aim to ensure the safe testing of autonomous vessels while safeguarding the environment (Vagale et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The IMO's roadmap for developing a MASS Code projects the completion and adoption of a non-mandatory code by May 2025. Subsequently, the development of a framework for an experience-building phase will occur during the first half of 2026. In 2028, development of the mandatory MASS Code would commence, based on the non-mandatory code, and incorporating amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) for the code's adoption. Finally, a mandatory code would be adopted by July 1, 2030, at the latest, with its entry into force by January 1, 2032 (International Maritime Organization - IMO, n.d.).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to authors who have researched the normative framework within the maritime sector, the maritime industry has undergone a significant evolution, achieving milestones such as the automation of vessel operations in contrast to conventional crew-manned operations. The emergence of MASS presents intricate regulatory challenges for international maritime navigation, particularly concerning collision prevention. The 1972 COLREGs necessitate a critical review to accommodate new technological scenarios, considering the interaction between traditional and autonomous vessels. Developing a legal framework that integrates the human element, technological advancements, and operational factors is fundamental, establishing clear criteria to classify and regulate these novel vessel types that represent an unprecedented paradigm in maritime navigation (Chang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Chang et al. (Chang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) highlight that the primary impediment to the widespread adoption of MASS is precisely the absence of a suitable regulatory framework, underscoring the critical importance of developing comprehensive regulations that address the emerging challenges in maritime autonomy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile significant progress has been made in research for the technological development of autonomous vessels, the academic discussion concerning the regulatory and normative framework remains nascent. The IMO, classification societies, and other entities within the maritime sector have been addressing this issue for several years. Nevertheless, as has been the case with other technologies, the regulatory development for the operation of these vessels in real-world scenarios is demonstrably lagging behind the pace of technological advancement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis systematic literature review aims to examine the advancements in the development of a regulatory framework for the construction and operation of unmanned surface vehicles. A corpus of 300 to 400 documents related to the topic was collected through a search conducted in October 2024. However, only 32 of these documents were identified as studies concerning the generation or updating of a regulatory framework applicable to autonomous vessels. This finding corroborates the trend observed by authors such as Horne (Horne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), whose review included approximately 20 documents. The low ratio between the total documents found and those selected based on key content indicates a slow growth in academic output focused on establishing new regulations or adapting existing ones to the specific characteristics of autonomous vessels. This analysis, crucial for understanding the current state and evolving trends in this field, was developed through the following research questions. These questions aim to identify pertinent information concerning the origin, characteristics, and scope of current and emerging regulations, thereby providing a comprehensive understanding of their impact on the maritime sector.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRQ1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhich countries or regions are leading the development of the regulatory framework for autonomous maritime vessels?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRQ2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat types of autonomous vessels are included in the development of the regulatory framework?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRQ3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhich entities have been working on the development of the regulatory framework for autonomous vessels?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRQ4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat are the existing or developing regulations related to autonomous vessels?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis document comprises the following sections: (2) State of the Art, which presents a consolidation of the literature found and the key aspects investigated; (3) Methodology, which describes the steps used to collect and process the information; (4) Results, which presents the findings of this systematic literature review, organized to address the four key research questions; (5) Discussion, which analyzes the findings presented in the preceding section; (6) Limitations and future work, outlines the constraints encountered during the systematic literature review and suggests avenues for future research to enhance the scope and rigor of the study; and (7) Conclusions, which ultimately highlights the primary aspects of the research work.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. State of the art","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe operation of autonomous vessels and the safe integration of this technology within real-world environments necessitate the identification of existing challenges and the definition of an appropriate regulatory framework. Consequently, it is crucial to obtain adequate insights to comprehend the operational contexts of these vessels and to establish clear guidelines for their development and operation. The IMO has developed certain insights by defining a roadmap and activating various mechanisms to address and disseminate matters related to MASS and their regulation. Furthermore, classification societies provide input focused on ensuring the quality and safety of autonomous shipping, and their integration into the existing regulatory framework.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWith respect to academic literature, studies addressing the regulatory framework and the challenges associated with the commercial operation of autonomous vessels are limited in number. A preliminary search of academic literature, conducted in advance of this systematic literature review, yielded 14 relevant publications spanning the period from 2019 to 2024. These publications focus on various legal, political, and social dimensions of the regulatory framework and the operation of autonomous vessels. The topics analyzed within these publications include global and specific national contexts, challenges and recommendations for the adaptation of the existing regulatory framework, and changes in the role of the human element. As demonstrated in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, these publications can be classified into three categories: literature reviews, studies of the legal and regulatory framework of autonomous vessels, and studies concerning aspects of the human element.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudies related to autonomous shipping and their respective approaches.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eType of study\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eApproach\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReference\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" morerows=\"4\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLiterature review\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eApplicability of the regulatory framework to remote controlled or autonomous commercial vessels in Australia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHorne et al. (Horne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOperator training for autonomous and unmanned ships\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmad et al. (Emad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInfluencing aspects of MASS operation decision making\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLynch et al. (Lynch et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOpportunities and challenges in MASS adoption\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlamoush et al. (Alamoush et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCompliance, adaptation and development of regulations for maritime autonomous navigation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrzechowski et al. (Orzechowski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLegal and regulatory framework analysis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLegal status\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLegal status and regulation of Unmanned Maritime Vehicles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVeal et al. (Veal et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLegal status of MASS operator\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChoi and Lee (Choi \u0026amp; Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChallenges for the development of a regulatory framework\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLimitations of the IMO \u0026ldquo;Scoping Exercise\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRingbom (Ringbom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImpact of maritime autonomous navigation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKim et al. (Kim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCompatibility of autonomous ships with the current regulations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParlov (Parlov, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdaptations of COLREG according to the autonomy degree\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJo et al. (Jo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" morerows=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of human element aspects\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerception of the impact of autonomous navigation on the maritime sector\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMallam et al. (Mallam et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIdentification of skills and knowledge requirements of remote-control center operators.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBachari-Lafteh et al. (Bachari-Lafteh \u0026amp; Harati-Mokhtari, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDecision making and processes in operation (regulation on safety and operation of MASS)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLynch et al. (Lynch, Banks, Roberts, Radcliffe, et al., 2023)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe thematic organization presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e demonstrates the approaches that have arisen from key concerns and challenges identified in the literature due to the development of maritime autonomous navigation. To the extent of our knowledge, this categorization of approaches constitutes a contribution to the current state of the art, as it offers a comprehensive perspective on the study of the regulatory development of autonomous navigation. The themes addressed in each of these articles, categorized as either literature reviews or thematic studies, are described in general terms below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1. Literature reviews\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe five literature review studies included in this state-of-the-art review cover subjects such as the applicability of the current regulatory framework to autonomous vessels in Australia (Horne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), the training of operators for autonomous and unmanned ships (Emad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), the influential aspects in MASS operator decision-making (Lynch et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), opportunities and challenges in the adoption of MASS within the maritime transportation sector (Alamoush et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), and the compliance, adaptation, and development of regulations for autonomous vessels (Orzechowski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These works are briefly described below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHorne et al. (Horne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) analyze the applicability of existing regulatory frameworks to commercial and defense autonomous vessels in Australia. The study presents a systematic literature review to identify available studies on the current and future regulation of autonomous vessels in Australia and other nations. The authors highlight the limitations in developing a regulatory framework at the local level due to the scarcity of literature that allows for understanding the applicability of the existing regulation. They also point out the limitations in constructing a global regulatory framework, owing to variations in definitions and approaches at the international level. Furthermore, they explore how other nations address this issue, analyzing the international landscape of challenges in the adoption of regulations, including the legal treatment of autonomous vessels and the definition of \"vessel\" in the laws of various countries. However, the analysis found that the studies conducted have a greater focus on international legislation. Finally, they analyze how the topic of trust, the role of assurance in relation to trust, and certification in the regulatory philosophy pertaining to autonomous vessels have been addressed in the literature. The authors emphasize the need for further advances in the study of the challenges and opportunities of the regulatory aspects of maritime autonomous navigation, suggesting that the lack of clarity and definitions may limit the deployment of the technology in the future.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Emad et al. (Emad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), the authors conduct a literature review on the current state of maritime education and training for future operators of autonomous and unmanned ships. They assert that some research has also demonstrated an increase in certain types of accidents resulting from human interaction with automation. The lack of adequate training for users and operators of autonomous systems has been identified as a significant cause of these accident types. To address this, they explore attempts to align training programs with the introduction of automation in commercial aviation, mining, nuclear power generation, rail and road transport, and maritime ports. The authors affirm that, for the latter in particular, changes will occur in the design, operation, services, shipping interaction, and maintenance across all aspects of the port industry. Trained operators and individuals with a broad understanding of the process are needed, especially in information technology (IT) and analytical problem-solving. Furthermore, projects such as IoT solutions and operational pilots in container terminals have been implemented, seeking to improve operational efficiency, safety, cybersecurity, costs, and emission reduction. They mention some of these trends, such as the Advanced Autonomous Waterborne Applications (AAWA) project, Maritime Unmanned Navigation through Intelligence in Networks (MUNIN), Revolt, and YARA Birkeland. Moreover, they emphasize the importance of adequate training for new recruits and naval officers before their deployment on autonomous ships, as its introduction often entails the reassignment of functions. They also highlight the need for training in differentiating between terms such as automation and autonomy. Confusion in definitions has led to terms like autonomy and automation being used interchangeably in different industrial contexts. The authors also note that operator training has been delivered through cognitive skills, communication skills, and operational skills, indicating that this trend will likely continue.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLynch et al. (Lynch et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) conduct a literature review to identify factors influencing the decision-making in the operation of MASS. The authors identify themes such as decision support systems, reliability, transparency, equipment, role distribution, situation awareness, and responsibility. The article focuses on decision-making by operators working with unmanned MASS (IMO autonomy level 3). They assert that the system should be able to make most decisions independently, while always being monitored by the remote operator. Furthermore, they point out the various challenges and limitations associated with the human role in remote vessel operation. In some cases, the operator may disengage from their function, lose concentration, have difficulty regaining awareness in the event of an unexpected situation, or lose the ability to identify the vessel's condition through biomechanical sensations. Alternatives to address some of these problems are described, along with their respective limitations. The authors agree that decision-making systems are employed in complex situations to support the human operator, always ensuring that the latter remains central to the operation. Therefore, the function of the systems lies in providing useful information to the operator for making decisions, minimizing errors. The article also describes the factors necessary for the proper functioning of the human-machine team. The role of trust is highlighted, and emphasis is placed on other elements required to improve decision-making. These elements include the human's degree of awareness of the processes, a shared mental model, the division of tasks, and the challenge of responsibility. Additionally, the importance of situation awareness (SA) is emphasized, as it describes the decision-maker's perception of the state of the environment. Decision support systems (DSS) and the way information is presented affect the operator's ability to perceive and understand the situation. The authors finally state that, to design MASS systems, it is crucial to investigate how information should be presented to operators without overloading them. The use of Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) and Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) is recommended to identify and mitigate design errors. Responsibility in human-machine teams should be investigated using systemic approaches, considering broad influences on the safe operation of MASS.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Alamoush et al. (Alamoush et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), the opportunities and challenges in the adoption of MASS within the maritime transport sector are presented. Among the opportunities and drivers, they mention cost savings, operational safety, efficiency, sustainability, and maritime supply chain optimization. However, the authors acknowledge that despite the incentives, barriers still exist, such as acceptance by companies and the public. A primary concern is the stigma surrounding the replacement of human labor by machines, so the authors argue that these machines should support tasks, not replace personnel. To improve the perception of MASS among seafarers, it is necessary to increase their confidence in the capabilities of these systems, so that they begin to trust automation. This can be achieved by considering various key elements that facilitate the entire process, such as perceived usefulness, ease of use, reliability, and safety, among others. Furthermore, it is essential to involve all MASS stakeholders, including those who navigate the vessels and training institutions, in the design and implementation. Moreover, MASS manufacturers could benefit from automation experiences in other sectors, such as the vehicular and aeronautical industries, which have similar technological perspectives and concerns. On the other hand, the authors mention that current regulations for conventional ships are based on the STCW Convention (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers), which includes provisions on crewing and competencies. However, significant regulatory barriers arise when crewing and bridge functions are transferred to Remote Control Centers (RCCs). In response, the IMO itself suggests alternatives such as developing new regulations, adapting existing ones, and implementing interim or provisional regulations to gain experience while working on official ones. Some of the other barriers include safety in the face of natural contingencies and intentional threats. In this regard, they contend that risk analysis is a crucial step that must be taken seriously regarding MASS to establish the probability of various events and incidents (such as collisions, groundings, or strandings) and assess the consequences (such as damage to people, the environment, other vessels, or infrastructure).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the work by Orzechowski et al. (Orzechowski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), the need to comply with existing regulations and establish new technical requirements for autonomous vessels is highlighted. The authors focus on the factors influencing the interim regulation of autonomous navigation in Europe. Their findings include the identification of readiness needs in four categories: technological, infrastructural, institutional, and socioeconomic. Technological readiness is defined both in terms of the technology's ability to operate in a predefined manner and its capacity to adapt to future modifications. Both aspects are crucial determinants of the success or failure of the new technology. The authors also identify three main factors driving technological readiness: the general technology of autonomous vessels, the safety aspects inherent in the operation of autonomous applications, and the development of research and innovation. In addition to vessel technology, autonomous inland navigation vessels will only be able to operate if the infrastructure is sufficiently and adequately adapted to support the new technology. This will require significant changes in digital and physical infrastructure, as the way vessels operate and communicate with their environment will change significantly. Institutional readiness refers to the capacity of organizations, both public and private, to respond and adapt to autonomous navigation technology in inland waterways. Furthermore, socioeconomic readiness could be a decisive factor for the large-scale implementation of autonomous vessels in Europe. Factors influencing socioeconomic readiness include social acceptance, business preparedness, and the availability of skilled labor. Social acceptance of this technology and business preparedness will largely depend on trust in the technology and effective risk mitigation through regulations. In this sense, regulation is indirectly crucial for the commercial viability of autonomous vessels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2. Thematic Studies\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe thematic works identified in the categorization presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e are grouped into two types of approaches: the analysis of the legal and regulatory framework, and aspects related to the human element. The first part focuses on the legal status of vessels and operators, as well as the challenges for the adaptation and definition of an appropriate regulatory framework. The second part explores human-machine interaction, the adaptation of work organizations, and the professional profiles needed to operate autonomous ships. A description of the corresponding studies is presented below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2.1. Analysis of the Legislative and Regulatory Framework\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudies on the legislative and regulatory framework can be classified into two categories: analyses of the legal status of vessels (Veal et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) and operators (Choi \u0026amp; Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), and analyses of the challenges for the adaptation and definition of the regulatory framework in response to the new reality generated by autonomous navigation (Jo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Kim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Parlov, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Ringbom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). A description of these studies is presented below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLegal status of vessels and operators\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe studies by Veal et al. (Veal et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) and Choi and Lee (Choi \u0026amp; Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) offer an analysis of aspects related to the legal status and regulation of unmanned vessels and the MASS remote operators, respectively. Veal et al. (Veal et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) analyze in depth the legal status and regulation of Unmanned Marine Vehicles (UMV), addressing several key aspects of their implementation and development. The study clarifies that, although legal status is relevant, it is not critical for operation. Furthermore, the consideration of a UMV as a \"vessel\" or not, mainly affects its navigation rights and the applicable regulatory framework. In addition, the document emphasizes that the absence of specific regulations does not mean that the UMV or entities developing related activities are beyond the reach of the law, especially on the high seas and in jurisdictional areas of the state that deploys them. In this regard, general legal principles on civil and criminal liability remain applicable. Remotely controlled UMV are considered to adapt better to the existing legal framework, unlike fully autonomous systems. The authors also highlight risk management and self-regulation as fundamental elements. The study proposes a risk management approach adapted to the different types and sizes of operations, rather than a total risk avoidance approach. Self-regulation through risk assessment and codes of conduct can be effective to demonstrate the responsibility of the UMV industry and as a transitional tool while a formal regulatory framework is developed. This allows for the generation of trust and acceptance of this technology, both in public perception and among maritime authorities. The human factor remains a central element in the success of unmanned marine technology. The text emphasizes that, although new land-based roles will be created for UMV navigation and programming, the experience of traditional seafarers will continue to be vital. The adaptation to this new technology should be gradual and has the potential to improve the safety and efficiency of maritime operations, considering that automation in the maritime sector appears inevitable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eChoi and Lee (Choi \u0026amp; Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) analyze the legal status of remote operators, who will play a crucial role in MASS. Traditionally, the captain and crew on board represent the ship owner in the performance of their duties. The concept of the remote operator is addressed based on key factors such as the definition of remote operator and the autonomy level of the MASS. The remote operator is defined as the person responsible for decision-making, who possesses adequate qualifications to monitor navigation, and who represents the vessel before the authorities. Regarding the autonomy level, the authors analyze the legal status of the remote operator using the four levels defined by the IMO as a reference. On R-MASS (remotely controlled with crew on board), there is a captain on board, and the remote operator does not have final authority. However, if the status of captain is granted to the remote operator and the crew assists them, the remote operator can assume that authority. On RU-MASS (remotely controlled without crew on board), the remote operator fully assumes the role of final authority, equivalent to a captain according to current laws. On the other hand, on A-MASS (fully autonomous), artificial intelligence systems make primary decisions under normal conditions, but the remote operator can intervene directly when necessary. For this study, the authors identify the IMO's trajectory regarding regulation by analyzing the MASS regulatory scoping exercise. This analysis covers the definitions of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) and the Legal Committee (LEG). According to the MSC, the MASS Code should include objectives, requirements, and corresponding regulations applicable to the four autonomy levels given by the IMO. However, a major challenge arises in the legal framework concerning the status of the remote operator. Although they are not on board like the captain or seafarers, they perform similar functions, so their qualifications should be the same and applied according to the purpose of the vessel, contributing to factors such as the vessel's seaworthiness and safety. Additionally, the authors include an analysis of the remote operator and seaworthiness, from the perspective of the human element's role and the definitions established in international conventions such as SOLAS and COLREGs. The study concludes that, for R-MASS, the status of seafarer or equivalent should be required, while for RU- and A-MASS, remote operators should be considered as captains or equivalents with final authority in vessel operations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eChallenges for the development of a regulatory framework\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe implementation of autonomous navigation poses complex regulatory and legal challenges that demand thorough analysis. In this context, studies by Ringbom (Ringbom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), Kim et al. (Kim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), Parlov (Parlov, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and Jo et al. (Jo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) provide insights into the need to adapt and develop regulatory frameworks to ensure the safety and efficiency of autonomous vessels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRingbom (Ringbom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) conducts a critical analysis of the limitations of the IMO's \"Regulatory Scoping Exercise.\" The author points out that this exercise demonstrates significant limitations in its current approach. This assertion is based on the fact that a general review of existing provisions is insufficient to address future regulatory challenges, especially when the details of technological development are not yet fully defined. For example, fundamental elements such as automated surveillance or machine-based decision-making are not adequately addressed. Furthermore, it argues that the binary approach (fully autonomous or not) ignores the reality that autonomy can be implemented in different degrees, which requires a more flexible and nuanced regulatory framework. Regulatory challenges emerge from the early stages of maritime autonomy implementation. Even with basic levels of automation or remote control, significant legal issues arise that need to be addressed. This underscores the urgency of developing an appropriate regulatory framework, even for vessels that are only partially autonomous or operate with reduced crew. As a solution, the document proposes the development of a new regulatory instrument specifically designed for autonomous vessels. This framework should not be postponed, even though the full implementation of fully autonomous vessels may seem distant. The importance of international harmonization is emphasized to avoid divergent interpretations between countries, which could create significant obstacles for the implementation of this technology in the global maritime domain.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eKim et al. (Kim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) evaluate recent global trends in the development of autonomous vessels and their impact on relevant regulations, technologies, and industries. Key aspects such as safety, training, and legal and ethical considerations are analyzed. The authors acknowledge that the integration of MASS with alternative fuels will transform the maritime industry, driving a paradigm shift towards cost efficiency, accident reduction, and human resource optimization. However, this poses significant challenges related to safety, environmental protection, and the adaptation of current regulations. Establishing international regulatory frameworks before integrating MASS into maritime commerce is essential to ensure safety and sustainability. In their study, the authors analyze three main aspects. First, they present recent global projects for the development of autonomous ships and related infrastructure, including autonomous ports and advanced communication systems. Second, they examine the impact of MASS on regulations, technologies, and industries, emphasizing the need for amendments to international conventions and systems that ensure safe operations in both physical and cyber domains. These systems must be monitored by remote operators from land-based control centers, using advanced sensors and modular infrastructure to prevent failures. The third aspect addresses critical issues such as safety, cybersecurity, changes in employment, and training standards for onshore operators. Although autonomous ships will reduce human risks, new hazards emerge, including fires, explosions, and cyberattacks. Ethical and legal implications are also anticipated, such as conflicts in machine-human communication and the need to adapt existing regulations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParlov (Parlov, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) analyzes the capacity of the existing international regulatory framework to adapt to technological developments in the field of MASS, focusing on IMO provisions related to routing, ship reporting, and Vessel Traffic Services (VTS). The study evaluates whether current IMO regulations can incorporate these new technologies without substantial modifications, identifying the challenges and opportunities posed by the integration of autonomous vessels into the existing regulatory framework. The author recommends a progressive approach to regulation, combining the adaptation of existing rules with the development of new provisions. Furthermore, the author considers that the operation of autonomous vessels is compatible with current IMO regulations, although they acknowledge the need for clarification of key terminology and the adaptation of regulations to ensure the safe coexistence of autonomous and conventional vessels. In this regard, the author highlights the importance of the functional interpretation of key terms to allow the operation of vessels using autonomous systems to be compatible with existing regulations. From a legal perspective, the analysis of the current regulatory framework is presented, focusing on the flexibility of regulations such as COLREGs, SOLAS, and UNCLOS to accommodate the operation of remotely controlled and fully autonomous ships. This analysis includes the evaluation of interaction with VTS systems and the obligations of states regarding safety and navigation. Another relevant aspect is the recognition of the doubts that arise concerning the functioning of autonomous systems under certain operating conditions, in which human intervention would be necessary. For this reason, a coexistence approach of autonomous systems with crew is proposed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eJo et al. (Jo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) examine the necessary regulatory adaptations according to the degree of autonomy, noting that current regulations must be adjusted. For example, in overtaking, head-on situations, and crossing scenarios so that autonomous systems can apply previously subjective criteria through sensors and algorithms. This study analyzes regulations, showing that the need for clarifications and modifications in COLREG regulations varies according to the degree of autonomy. In grade 1, adaptation focuses on changes in bridge watch, requiring interpretations and guidelines to establish equivalencies. In grade 2, ensuring situational awareness of the remote operator is fundamental, which implies the need for interpretations, guidelines, and modifications to some existing instruments. In grade 3, rules must be adjusted to address subjective elements such as \"good seamanship\" and \"safe distance,\" requiring modifications to current instruments and some equivalencies. Finally, in grade 4, significant changes in the nature and application of COLREG are required, with substantial modifications to existing regulatory frameworks. Additionally, it proposes integrating specific procedures in COLREG for collision assessment and avoidance using advanced sensors and artificial intelligence (AI), improving autonomous response capability. It also requires standardizing communication between MASS and conventional vessels, establishing real-time data protocols to enhance situational awareness and prevent collisions. Furthermore, it recommends developing an automated emergency response system, allowing MASS to issue alerts and act without human intervention. Regarding MASS technologies, it is suggested to adapt regulations to include collision detection and avoidance methods using radar, LIDAR, and cameras, ensuring safe navigation under various conditions. Additionally, collision avoidance algorithms must comply with COLREG while integrating these new technologies to assess risks and make precise decisions. The introduction of MASS requires clarifying and adapting navigation regulations to precisely define the actions that both these vessels and conventional ships must follow to avoid collisions. Current regulations need to be adjusted\u0026mdash;for example, in overtaking, head-on situations, and crossing scenarios\u0026mdash;so that autonomous systems, through sensors and algorithms, can safely apply previously subjective criteria without human intervention, such as \"good seamanship\" and \"proper lookout,\" and establish specific definitions for automated operations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2.2. Analysis of Human Element Related Aspects\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eVarious studies have addressed the integration of autonomous systems in the maritime sector from different perspectives, including human-machine interaction, adaptation of work organizations, and professional profiles necessary to operate autonomous vessels. Below are three studies that explore these key aspects: the impact of automation on maritime work (Mallam et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), the requirements and competencies of remote operators (Bachari-Lafteh \u0026amp; Harati-Mokhtari, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), and decision-making in unmanned systems (Lynch, Banks, Roberts, Radcliffe, et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Mallam et al. (Mallam et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), the authors investigate, through interviews with ten experts on the subject, the potential effects of autonomous technologies on future work organizations regarding the human role throughout maritime operations. The authors begin by explaining the difference between autonomy and automation, which lies in the control relationship and decision-making within a system. Autonomy implies the capacity of a system or machine to self-manage and make decisions independently, without constant human intervention. At its most advanced levels, an autonomous system can identify goals, make decisions, and carry out actions by itself. The IMO has defined degrees of autonomy for vessels, ranging from automated processes with human support to fully autonomous operations. On the other hand, automation refers to performing specific tasks through controlled machines or systems, which were previously executed by humans. On ships, automation has digitized navigation tasks such as autopilot and ECDIS, bringing operations closer to advanced levels of automation. This has reduced on-board crew and operational costs. Likewise, this research through expert consultation yielded 5 main themes: trust, awareness and understanding, control, training and organization, and practical considerations. Trust is essential to delegate decisions and operations to autonomous systems, all based on their performance. Awareness and understanding are related to understanding how systems work, their strengths and weaknesses. In terms of control, there is debate about whether the human role should be collaborator or supervisor, confronting advantages between machines and humans. For example, in unexpected situations, human reaction is more creative and adaptable. Training and organization are part of the factors addressed. Personnel involved must have skills such as programming and simulation. Additionally, navigation-oriented professions may transform into more applied and specialized careers. Finally, practical considerations are discussed, identifying challenges in implementing autonomous technologies that include aspects such as cybersecurity, economics, regulations, and ethics, among others.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Bachari-Lafteh et al. (Bachari-Lafteh \u0026amp; Harati-Mokhtari, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), the authors seek to identify the requirements, profiles, and required experience of operators in remote control centers, stating that it is fundamental to have two types of experts: one in navigation and another in machinery. The authors employ the O*Net Content Model to identify reliable and professional information on skills, competencies, job characteristics, educational requirements, among others. The main related factors obtain information through a structured questionnaire, using data from the model. The results show that, regarding worker requirements, the most important corresponds to the use of logic, reasoning, thinking, and scientific methods. Regarding job requirements, the variable with the best average for the navigation operator is related to the ability to plan the route or journey, as well as principles of electronic navigation (GPS, ECDIS, AIS, VDR, GMDSS, and RADAR). In the case of the machinery operator, the variable corresponds to knowledge about ecology and environmental protection. Finally, in experience requirements, interviewees consider that in-service training, experience with autonomous ships, possession of a maritime competency certificate, and on-site training indicators should be the most indispensable requirement. Finally, the authors note the need to review conventional maritime training to include cargo handling and knowledge of propulsion systems, addressing the unique challenges of autonomous ships.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEn Lynch et al. (Lynch, Banks, Roberts, Radcliffe, et al., 2023), the authors focus on investigating the decision-making processes of unmanned vehicle operators using the Perceptual Cycle Model (PCM) as a theoretical basis. This model links the decision-maker's thoughts with the information available in the environment, which influences their behavior and actions. The concept of schema describes organized mental templates based on past experience and knowledge of the world. To illustrate this, an accident of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) was selected as a case study, given that it has similarities with the operation of MASS through a ground control center. The selected case was The Watchkeeper (WK) 050, whose accident was due to failures in human-machine interaction, revealing systemic challenges in roles, training, and real-time information processing. The model development was carried out by a team of human factors experts and unmanned systems specialists, who after recreating and analyzing the situation, found vulnerabilities in aspects such as situational perception and limited decision-making times. The AVDC interface was identified as a contributing factor, showing the need to improve the visibility of alerts and train pilots in emergency scenarios. Based on this, it is recommended to adjust interface design in autonomous systems such as MASS to support operators' situational awareness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), a methodology that replaces PRISMA 2009. It serves as a framework for reporting that ensures transparency and quality in systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses. This approach was selected due to the rigor of its recommendations, which, when applied exhaustively and clearly, enable the production of optimal reports. The steps taken to develop this methodology are displayed in the flowchart in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. The screening process was carried out using the \"traffic light method,\" which allowed for a more precise classification of the contribution of the articles.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1. Data bases\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the selection of information sources, priority was given to the academic databases Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), considering their scientific rigor criteria. These platforms are characterized by their academic nature, offering a comprehensive repository of scientific publications with a wide variety of applied content and robust international indexing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe selection of these databases is based on several fundamental criteria:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh-level academic indexing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eInternational coverage of scientific publications\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDiversity of research fields\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eAssurance of editorial and methodological quality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese characteristics ensure the creation of a documentary repository that meets the highest standards of scientific rigor for the proposed research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eData bases\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eData bases\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eURL\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWoS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-referencing/web-of-science/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-referencing/web-of-science/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScopus\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/search\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/search\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2. Search strategy\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe proposed search strategy is based on a structured approach that categorizes keywords into three groups to address the specific objectives of the research (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). The goal is to identify relevant works related to the regulatory framework, legal challenges, and their impact on the implementation of autonomous navigation technologies in the maritime industry.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first group of keywords includes terms related to regulations, legal frameworks, and applicable standards. This set ensures the search is focused on fundamental aspects such as international regulations, maritime conventions, policy compliance and standards, as well as the work of the International Maritime Organization\u0026rsquo;s (IMO) Legal Committee. Examples of terms in this group include \"Regulations,\" \"Legal framework,\" \"Maritime law,\" \"International conventions,\" \"Compliance,\" \"Policy,\" among others.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second group focuses on terms associated with the naval industry and ship construction. This category delineates the study\u0026rsquo;s application to the maritime, fluvial, and naval sectors, considering both vessels and related infrastructure. Examples of terms in this group are \"naval industry,\" \"Shipbuilding,\" \"Shipyard,\" \"Ships,\" \"Boats,\" \"Vessels,\" and \"Maritime.\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third group of keywords addresses specific terms related to autonomous navigation technologies and associated systems. This set is essential for identifying studies on autonomous maritime vehicles and related concepts, such as unmanned vessels, autonomous navigation, and smart technologies applied to ships. Examples of terms in this group include \"USV,\" \"Unmanned Surface Vessel,\" \"Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship,\" \"Smart ship,\" and \"Autonomous shipping.\".\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKeywords clusters\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKeywords group\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ewords\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSearch equations\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(1 Y 2 Y 3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGroup 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegulations, Legal framework, Maritime law, international conventions, Legal obstacles, IMO Legal Committee, Compliance, Standards, Guidelines, Policy, Legislation, rules\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[\"Regulations\" OR \"Legal framework\" OR \"Maritime law\" OR \"International conventions\" OR \"Legal obstacles\" OR \"IMO Legal Committee\" OR \"Standards\" OR \"Guidelines\" OR \"Policy\" OR \"Legislation\" OR \"rules\"] AND\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e[\"naval industry\" OR \"Shipbuilding\" OR \"Shipbuilding Industry\" OR \"shipyard\" OR \"Shipyards\" OR \"Ships\" OR \"Ship\" OR \"Boats\" OR \"boat\" OR \"Vessels\" OR \"Vessel\" OR \"naval\" OR \"Maritime\" OR \"watercraft\" OR \"Small craft\" OR \"yatch\" OR \"Sailing\" OR \"pushboat\" OR \"barge\" OR \"Ferry\" OR \"Riverboat\"] AND\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e]\"USV\" OR \"Unmanned Surface Vessel\"OR \"Unmanned Surface Vehicle\" OR \"Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship\" OR \"Autonomous vessel\" OR \"Remote operator\" OR \"Unmanned ship\" OR \"Autonomous navigation\" OR \"Smart ship\" OR \"Autonomous maritime system\" OR \"Autonomous surface vehicle\" OR \"Unmanned marine vehicle\" OR \"Remote-controlled vessel\" OR \"AI-powered ship\" OR \"Autonomous shipping\"]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGroup 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003enaval industry, Shipbuilding, Shipbuilding Industry, shipyard, Shipyards, Ships, Ship, Boats, boat, Vessels, Vessel, Naval Vessels, Fluvial, Maritime, watercraft, Small craft, yatch, Sailing, pushboat, barge, Ferry, Riverboat\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGroup 3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUSV, Unmanned Surface Vessel, MASS, Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship, Autonomous vessel, Remote operator, Unmanned ship, Autonomous navigation, Smart ship, Autonomous maritime system, Autonomous surface vehicle, Unmanned marine vehicle, Remote-controlled vessel, AI-powered ship, Autonomous shipping\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe search equation is constructed by combining these three groups using logical operators, ensuring both the relevance and specificity of the results. An example of this equation would be: (\"Regulations\" OR \"Legal framework\" OR \"Maritime law\" OR \"International conventions\" OR \"Compliance\" OR \"Policy\") AND (\"naval industry\" OR \"Shipbuilding\" OR \"Shipyard\" OR \"Ships\" OR \"Boats\" OR \"Vessels\" OR \"Maritime\") AND (\"USV\" OR \"Unmanned Surface Vessel\" OR \"Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship\" OR \"Smart ship\" OR \"Autonomous shipping\").\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis strategy follows a logical sequence that begins with general concepts related to regulations, progresses to the specific context of the naval industry, and concludes with specialized terms on autonomous navigation. Additionally, it ensures broad coverage by including synonyms and variations of the key terms, making the search exhaustive while maintaining a focused scope aligned with the research objectives. This strategy is expected to be applied in academic databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, or Google Scholar to perform a bibliometric analysis. This analysis aims to map trends and generate relevant insights in the field of study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e outlines the inclusion and exclusion criteria applied in the database search, designed to refine the search and avoid articles focused on unrelated areas. The first criterion focused on thematic scope, excluding topics related to health, chemistry, arts, humanities, economics, management, and finance in both databases, prioritizing fields such as engineering, materials science, etc. Next, due to content relevance and accessibility, preference was given to articles and reviews, excluding books, notes, conference papers, letters, editorials, and retractions. Publications in languages other than Spanish and English were excluded, as well as those published prior to the 2019\u0026ndash;2024 time frame..\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInclusion and exclusion criteria\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFilter\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScopus\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWoS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTopic\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExcluded Medicine Excluded Psychology Excluded Health Professions Excluded Arts and Humanities Excluded Neuroscience Excluded Economics, Econometrics and Finance Excluded Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNOT Research Areas: Psychology or Public Administration or Neurosciences Neurology or Business Economics or Chemistry\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDocument type\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExcluded Conference review\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExcluded Conference paper\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExcluded Book chapter\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExcluded Retracted\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExcluded Note\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExcluded Letter\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExcluded Editorial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDocument Types: Review Article or Article\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLanguage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExcluded Chinese\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExcluded Korean\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExcluded Russian\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExcluded Portuguese\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN / A\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYears\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2019\u0026ndash;2024\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePublication Years: 2019 or 2020 or 2021 or 2022 or 2023 or 2024\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4. Selection process\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe identification of information for the selection process was developed based on six study categories, which were used to tag each article by reviewing their respective abstracts and titles. These categories include: general topic, specific topic, scope, vessel technology, regulatory entities, and conventions/regulations. The general topic provides an overarching view of the study's main area or focus. Tagging within this category established the broad conceptual framework for each article, facilitating the assessment of its relevance to the systematic literature review. The specific topic details the subtopics or particular aspects covered in each document for deeper understanding. The specification of these first two categories was conducted for all articles in the database. The scope classifies the documents based on their area of application (regional, national, or global). The vessel technology specifies whether the study pertains to USVs, MASS, ASVs, or other types of unmanned vessels. The regulatory entities and conventions identify regulatory bodies and conventions/norms mentioned in the documents. This categorization methodology facilitates the organization and analysis of information, allowing for an evaluation of trends and challenges in the regulation of autonomous vessels. It also provides a reference framework for authorities and norms guiding the development of autonomous technologies in the maritime domain. The analysis derived from this categorized information was used to address the research questions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe general and specific topics identified across the documents were highly diverse. Due to the volume of general topics, a standardization of terms was undertaken to reduce the number of themes through the consolidation of redundant terms. For instance, concepts like \u0026ldquo;collision avoidance\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;collision prevention\u0026rdquo; were grouped under a single term to prevent duplication. The topics were further organized into broad categories covering key areas of the subject while preserving the original content of each theme to ensure no loss of relevant information. This standardization process was assisted by the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT, which enabled the logical, clear, and coherent classification of the themes. Topics were tagged based on technical, regulatory, and operational aspects, utilizing redundancies, similar terms, and conceptual relationships. This classification process led to the development of clusters for the general themes, resulting in seven main categories: (1) Regulations and Legal Framework, (2) Autonomous Navigation and Route Planning, (3) Automation and Control, (4) Safety and Collision Prevention, (5) Training and Skill Development, (6) Innovation and Technology, and (7) Specialized Applications and Operations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo select the relevant documents for this study, the tagged database served as a foundation. The classification of articles was conducted using a \u0026ldquo;traffic light\u0026rdquo; method to organize documents by relevance. Green was assigned to articles specifically addressing the analysis or development of the regulatory framework, yellow to articles focused on the application of existing regulations, and red to articles unrelated to aspects of the regulatory framework.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe general thematic category was used as the primary criterion in the traffic light method for selecting normative literature related to autonomous vessels. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e displays the number of articles identified according to the color convention. Articles marked with the green color correspond to those focused on analyzing regulatory and normative aspects from the perspective of legal and social sciences. Only 32 articles were identified in this group, following the trend of being fewer in quantity compared to research and development articles from a technological perspective. Articles marked in yellow are those focusing on technological development compatible with the current regulatory framework. These works (137 articles) primarily address route planning systems incorporating collision avoidance systems and algorithms designed to comply with definitions established in COLREG. Articles assigned the red color (136 articles) did not provide information contributing to the development of topics related to the objectives of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eArticles categorized with the traffic light method.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eColor\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGreen\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYellow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e137\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRed\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e137\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe categorization and labeling conducted allowed for the organization and analysis of the information obtained from the database to address the research questions regarding regulatory developments in the field of autonomous vessels. For the analysis, the articles marked in yellow and green were used, representing documents with medium and high relevance to the study, respectively. The following section presents the analysis conducted for each of the formulated questions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1. Which countries or regions are leading regulatory development for autonomous maritime vessels?\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo develop this response, exclusively the 32 articles categorized under the green color designation were analyzed. The classification under the geographic scope category facilitated the extraction of information necessary to determine regulatory advancements at the country or regional level. Within this category, articles were labeled as having a \"global\" scope when no specific country or region was mentioned, given that the general focus of the document encompassed worldwide coverage. Additional labels included \"Regional\" and \"National\" scopes, and in two instances, the scope was identified as \"Regional / National.\" The distribution of the articles within this category is detailed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, with the majority of entries (26 out of 32) classified under the global scope.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eArticles according to the scope\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScope\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGlobal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegional\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNational\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e presents the thematic distribution of articles according to their geographic scope. Three levels of scope are identified: Global, National, and Regional/National. The 24 articles categorized under Global scope address topics such as the legal framework, regulatory framework, personnel training, and cybersecurity. Within the combined Global/National scope, one article focuses on the regulatory framework. At the National level, the topics covered include the legal framework, regulatory framework, countries' preparedness for autonomous navigation, and sustainable transport. In the Regional/National scope, two articles are identified that address the regulatory framework. Overall, the regulatory framework and personnel training/operations are the most frequently addressed topics.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGeneral theme of the articles according to their scope.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScope\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGeneral theme\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGlobal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLegal framework\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegulatory framework\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOperators/personnel training\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCybersecurity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNational\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLegal Framework\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegulatory framework\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCountries' preparedness\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegional / National\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegulatory framework\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe specific information about regions and countries mentioned in the articles is found in the documents labeled with Regional and National scope. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e presents a compilation of the studies organized by theme, country or region, and the corresponding citation. At the regional level, two articles have been identified that relate to the regulatory framework for autonomous vessels in Europe.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab8\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 8\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorks in which studies related to the development of regulatory frameworks at regional and national levels are identified.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGeneral Theme\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReference\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegulatory framework\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEurope-Germany\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBačkalov et al. (Bačkalov et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegulatory framework for autonomous vessels\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEurope-Russia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoskalenko et al. (Москаленко et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegulation for autonomous vessels\u0026rsquo; technologies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUK\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFenton and Chapsos (Fenton \u0026amp; Chapsos, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of autonomous vessel regulations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUK\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLynch et al. (Lynch, Banks, Roberts, Downes, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePreparedness of certain countries for the operation of autonomous vessels\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNorway, Singapore, South Africa, Philippines\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDe Klerk et al. (de Klerk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLegal framework for autonomous ships\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChina\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eXing and Zhu (Xing \u0026amp; Zhu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLegal regulation of autonomous vessels\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnited Arab Emirates\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMadi (Madi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBačkalov et al. (Bačkalov et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) focus on the definitions of captain in the European Code for Inland Navigation and German regulations, and on the levels of vessel automation from the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine. The authors identify the limitations that the definition of captain imposes on the development of autonomous inland navigation in Europe and suggest the changes required in this definition based on the different levels of autonomy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoskalenko et al. (Москаленко et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) highlight the advancements in the development of autonomous and remotely controlled vessels in Europe. The authors emphasize the potential leadership role of Russia in developing a national regulatory framework, based on technical and legal developments in autonomous navigation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFenton and Chapsos (Fenton \u0026amp; Chapsos, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) investigate how the IMO and UK government entities have addressed the legal and regulatory challenges that arise with the development of MASS. Although they recognize the UK's leading role in defining the regulatory framework, the results of their study suggest that the gradual and safe integration of this technology in the maritime sector requires consensus from the international community for its regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLynch et al. (Lynch, Banks, Roberts, Downes, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) analyze the levels and relationships present in the stakeholder map of the MASS system in the United Kingdom. The authors identify the weaknesses of the system, as well as its possibilities for strengthening through the formalization of regulation and standardization. In addition, they make recommendations for the risk management framework.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDe Klerk et al. (de Klerk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) conduct a comparative analysis of readiness for autonomous navigation in the case of four countries: Norway, Singapore, South Africa, and the Philippines. As a result of their study, the authors identify the high level of preparedness in Norway, highlighting the prioritization by the government and the integration of regulatory bodies, industry, and academia. In the case of Singapore, the creation of the Maritime Innovation Center for the study of competence requirements and legal framework for autonomous navigation is highlighted. For the Philippines and South Africa, a lack of preparation for autonomous navigation is identified, mainly due to political and social priorities in these countries.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eXing and Zhu (Xing \u0026amp; Zhu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) point out the legal gaps for the operation of autonomous merchant ships in China. The authors recognize the leading role that China can play in autonomous maritime transport and suggest reviewing action at three levels: participation in international regulatory exercises, legal research, and national legislation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMadi (Madi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) presents a legal analysis of the regulation of autonomous vessels in the United Arab Emirates. The study focuses on conventions and rules related to collisions between vessels. The author identifies gaps and challenges in current regulations and proposes legislative adjustments or the creation of a new law for the regulation of these vessels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2. What types of autonomous vessels are included in regulatory development?\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e come from the analysis of green and yellow articles selected using the traffic light methodology. The frequency of appearance of the different technological terms reflects how these concepts are addressed in the selected regulatory literature. It was found that the documents deal with MASS (Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship), USV (Unmanned Surface Vehicle), and ASV (Autonomous Surface Vehicle) technologies. MASS refers to a maritime autonomous surface ship, that is, large vessels intended for operations such as cargo and passengers. USV refers to an unmanned vehicle that has no crew on board and is remotely operated. Finally, ASV refers to an autonomous vehicle that, through sensors and artificial intelligence, is capable of making decisions on its own.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom these articles, it was found that the terms MASS and USV have a dominant presence, with approximately 67 AND 63 mentions each in the analyzed documentation. This high frequency in the selected articles suggests that they are the most relevant and widely studied terms in the current regulatory framework.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeanwhile, the term ASV (Autonomous Surface Vehicle) appears less frequently in the analyzed articles, recording only about 5 mentions. This low representation in the selected literature could indicate that this term has more limited use in the regulatory and normative context.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is also notable that in the selected articles, approximately 17 references were found where the technology was not specifically categorized (N/E), suggesting that some documents address general aspects of maritime autonomy without specifying a particular technological category. Similarly, approximately 13 documents refer to these vessels generally as \"autonomous vessels.\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis distribution of terms in the analyzed articles provides a clear vision of how the academic community is addressing and categorizing different autonomous navigation technologies in the current maritime context.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3. Which entities have been working on the development of regulations for autonomous vessels?\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe information found regarding this question suggests that the regulation of autonomous vessels is primarily led by international organizations. This is probably due to the global nature of maritime transport and the need for uniform international standards.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, it can be observed that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) stands out significantly with appearances in approximately 132 articles, being the most mentioned entity. This reinforces the idea that the IMO is the most active and influential body in the development of the regulatory framework for autonomous vessels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther institutions, such as the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and the European Union, are also represented, although with a reduced number of articles (1 in each case). This could reflect a more recent or limited role in the regulation of these technologies. Additionally, entities such as the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine and the International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities have a more discrete representation in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe United Nations, with a moderate number of mentions, seems to play an indirect role in regulation, channeling a large part of its efforts through the IMO.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, a significant number of articles (35) did not explicitly link their development to a specific entity. This phenomenon could be due to decentralized approaches or the exploratory nature of these studies, where association with defined regulatory bodies was not prioritized.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese findings underscore the importance of international collaboration in establishing an adequate regulatory framework and the diversity of actors involved in the regulatory process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. Regulatory entities referenced in the documents.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.4. What are the existing or developing regulations related to autonomous vessels?\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e presents findings from the literature on conventions applicable to or related to autonomous vessels that were addressed or mentioned in the selected articles. The most common is the \"Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea\" (COLREGS). This regulation has significant implications for autonomous vessels and is commonly used for designing collision avoidance systems, which are related to procedures for coordinating movements when two vessels are in close proximity. However, this involves challenges such as effective communication, precise interpretation, disparities in opposing course sectors, uncertainty in interpreting overtaking maneuvers with vessels out of sight, lack of standardization in classifying propulsion types and restrictions on navigational aids, clear identification of special COLREG areas, and ambiguity in the application of Rule 17 (Garc\u0026iacute;a Maza \u0026amp; Arg\u0026uuml;elles, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). It is also evident that a significant percentage of the articles did not specify any convention or standard (N/E). In third place are the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), applicable to operators and captains at different degrees of vessel autonomy according to the IMO. It is important that the human element in charge has the necessary training and meets requirements similar to those of conventional captains and sailors. For this, the IMO has model courses based on this standard, which require investment through specific funds, modernizing training infrastructures, and promoting refresher and specialization courses (Ghaforian Masodzadeh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). A small percentage of the articles addressed the \"International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea\" (SOLAS). This convention has existed since 1914 following the sinking of the Titanic, whose numerous losses led to the creation of a convention focused on establishing minimum conditions for equipment, navigation, etc., to minimize the possibility of loss of human life. Finally, one article worked based on traffic separation schemes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis systematic literature review examines the regulatory development of autonomous navigation, identifying advancements made by certain countries, the types of autonomous vessels, the prominence of regulatory bodies, and regulations related to autonomous navigation. Through this work, gaps in the academic literature on the study of the development of a regulatory framework for the operation of autonomous vessels in the maritime sector are explored. As found in other literature review works presented in (Horne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and (de Klerk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), the number of articles related to regulatory development is significantly low, considering the relevance of the topic and the need for contributions to the debate. This situation should not be confused with the absence of academic debate or mechanisms for the development of the necessary regulatory, legal, and normative frameworks. Various authors have conducted literature reviews and dissertations with specific focuses, as seen in (Alamoush et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Emad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Horne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Lynch et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Orzechowski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), which contribute to the analysis of different aspects related to autonomous navigation. Furthermore, it is necessary to highlight that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has included the topic on its agenda for several years, activating different mechanisms and forums for its analysis. Classification societies, for their part, are also fulfilling their normative roles. In this context, definitions are emerging that guide the debate and help establish clearer roadmaps.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe information obtained through the study categories and the research questions posed in this work identifies the IMO as the main forum for the development of the regulatory framework. Although regions and countries have their own platforms and capacities to make individual progress, there is recognition of the international stage as the most important for defining a global regulatory framework developed through consensus. In this context, countries such as Norway, the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, Singapore, China, and the United Arab Emirates can play significant roles based on their national experiences. Notably, countries like the U.S., Japan, or Australia are absent from the reviewed documents on regulatory development. These findings contribute to the understanding of the international landscape, although the limited information suggests the need for a deeper study of the geopolitical map of regulatory framework development. Although Horne et al. conduct a country-level analysis in (Horne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), they approach it from a bibliometric perspective. In our work, the analysis was conducted to identify the role and progress of the different countries mentioned in the documents.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding regulatory and standardization bodies, there is a notable lack of references to regulatory developments by classification societies. In contrast, there is at least one reference to ISO. It is common to find references to classification societies in the definitions of the levels of vessel autonomy. However, there are no studies on the contributions of these organizations to the enablement and requirements for the construction and operation of autonomous vessels. In terms of the current regulatory framework, there is great interest in adapting the technology to provisions on collision avoidance.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Limitations and future work","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe scope of this study is limited by the search in the Scopus and WOS databases. The database and corresponding analysis can be expanded by utilizing other databases. Additionally, the search is limited to academic literature, so it is necessary to broaden the type of reviewed documentation to enable mapping of IMO's progress and other actors such as standardization entities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe processes of selection, categorization, tagging, review, and database management were carried out by four authors. Although efforts were made to maintain coherence and cohesion in the terms, and a database review stage was conducted by three authors with a final review by one author, the study may have limitations in extracting information from the database. The use of automated tools could be considered for consolidating the database and obtained information.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis article presents a systematic literature review on the development of the regulatory framework for autonomous navigation in the maritime sector. The PRISMA methodology was used to identify and select scientific documentation in the Scopus and WOS databases. The analysis was developed through four research questions formulated to identify the roles of countries, the types of autonomous vessels, regulatory entities, and existing regulations. The advancements and particular leadership of some countries in technological and regulatory development are highlighted. Additionally, the articulating role of IMO and the necessity of country participation in international forums for the development of a global regulatory framework are emphasized. Most of the identified documents correspond to works on automatic collision avoidance systems compatible with COLREG. It was also found that works studying regulatory, legal, and normative frameworks are significantly fewer. It is considered that an increase in these studies could contribute to defining a pertinent regulatory framework for the progressive and safe integration of autonomous vessels.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eConflicts of Interest\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study was funded with resources from the Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento para la Ciencia, la Tecnolog\u0026iacute;a y la Innovaci\u0026oacute;n Francisco Jos\u0026eacute; De Caldas provided by Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnolog\u0026iacute;a e Innovaci\u0026oacute;n de Colombia through the call 938 of 2023 (Program code 100864 and project code 105897).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eM.B.O.-L., E.P.-S. and L.F.C.-L. conceptualized the study. M.B.O.-L. and L.F.C.-L. conducted the database search, and L.F.C.-L. performed the webometric search. The introduction was written by L.F.C.-L., M.B.O.-L. and M.T.-G. Database cleaning and refinement were carried out by L.F.C.-L., M.B.O.-L., M.T.-G. and L.A.O. Result analysis was performed by E.P.-S., L.F.C.-L. and M.B.O.-L. Conclusions and future recommendations were developed by L.F.C.-L., M.B.O.-L. and E.P.-S. Formatting was done by L.F.C.-L., M.B.O.-L. and M.T.-G. Final review and refinement were conducted by L.F.C.-L. and J.Z.-C. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlamoush AS, \u0026Ouml;l\u0026ccedil;er AI, Ballini F (2024) Drivers, opportunities, and barriers, for adoption of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS). J Int Maritime Saf Environ Affairs Shipping 8(4). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/25725084.2024.2411183\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/25725084.2024.2411183\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBachari-Lafteh M, Harati-Mokhtari A (2021) Operator\u0026rsquo;s skills and knowledge requirement in autonomous ships control centre. J Int Maritime Saf Environ Affairs Shipping 5(2):74\u0026ndash;83. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/25725084.2021.1949842\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/25725084.2021.1949842\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBačkalov I, Illuri MSK, Kerkmann T, Oberhagemann J (2025) Definition of the Master as a key to unlocking autonomous shipping on inland waterways. Ship Technol Res 72(1):65\u0026ndash;72. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09377255.2024.2386767\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09377255.2024.2386767\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBIS Research (2018) Global Ocean Surface Robot Market Anticipated to Reach \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e2.90 Billion by 2028 at a CAGR of 16.8% and Global Autonomous Ship Market Expected to Generate a Cumulative Revenue of \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e3.48 Billion by 2035\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChang C-H, Wijeratne IB, Kontovas C, Yang Z (2024) COLREG and MASS: Analytical review to identify research trends and gaps in the Development of Autonomous Collision Avoidance. Ocean Eng 302:117652. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.117652\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.117652\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChoi J, Lee S (2021) Legal Status of the Remote Operator in Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) Under Maritime Law. Ocean Dev Int Law 52(4):445\u0026ndash;462. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2036276\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00908320.2022.2036276\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ede Klerk Y, Manuel ME, Kitada M (2021) Scenario planning for an autonomous future: A comparative analysis of national preparedness of selected countries. Mar Policy 127:104428. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104428\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104428\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEmad GR, Enshaei H, Ghosh S (2022) Identifying seafarer training needs for operating future autonomous ships: a systematic literature review. Australian J Maritime Ocean Affairs 14(2):114\u0026ndash;135. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/18366503.2021.1941725\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/18366503.2021.1941725\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFan C, Wr\u0026oacute;bel K, Montewka J, Gil M, Wan C, Zhang D (2020) A framework to identify factors influencing navigational risk for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships. \u003cem\u003eOcean Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e202\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107188\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107188\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFenton AJ, Chapsos I (2023) Ships without crews: IMO and UK responses to cybersecurity, technology, law and regulation of maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS). \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Computer Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2023.1151188\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fcomp.2023.1151188\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a Maza JA, Arg\u0026uuml;elles RP (2022) COLREGs and their application in collision avoidance algorithms: A critical analysis. Ocean Eng 261:112029. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCEANENG.2022.112029\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.OCEANENG.2022.112029\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhaforian Masodzadeh P, Baumler R, Celis G, Ballini J, F., \u0026Ouml;l\u0026ccedil;er I (2024) A. STCW requirements in a regulatory and technology landscape change. \u003cem\u003eMaritime Transport Conference\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHorne R, Deane F, Joiner K, Tranter K (2023) Navigating to smoother regulatory waters for Australian commercial vessels capable of remote or autonomous operation: a systematic quantitative literature review. Australian J Maritime Ocean Affairs 15(4):496\u0026ndash;517. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/18366503.2022.2163549\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/18366503.2022.2163549\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Maritime Organization - IMO. (n.d.). Autonomous shipping. Retrieved October 14 (2024) from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Autonomous-shipping.aspx\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Autonomous-shipping.aspx\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJo M, Choi W, Lim M, Seo S, Shin J (2024) A study on improving the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea (COLREG) for the introduction of maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS). J Int Maritime Saf Environ Affairs Shipping 8(4). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/25725084.2024.2428006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/25725084.2024.2428006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim M, Joung T-H, Jeong B, Park H-S (2020) Autonomous shipping and its impact on regulations, technologies, and industries. J Int Maritime Saf Environ Affairs Shipping 4(2):17\u0026ndash;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/25725084.2020.1779427\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/25725084.2020.1779427\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLynch KM, Banks VA, Roberts APJ, Downes J, Radcliffe S, Plant KL (2023) The application of a system-based risk management framework and social network analysis to the Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship system: Who are the decision‐makers in the wider system? Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 33(5):395\u0026ndash;429. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.21000\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/hfm.21000\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLynch KM, Banks VA, Roberts APJ, Radcliffe S, Plant KL (2023) Maritime autonomous surface ships: can we learn from unmanned aerial vehicle incidents using the perceptual cycle model? Ergonomics 66(6):772\u0026ndash;790. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2022.2126896\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00140139.2022.2126896\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLynch KM, Banks VA, Roberts APJ, Radcliffe S, Plant KL (2024) What factors may influence decision-making in the operation of Maritime autonomous surface ships? A systematic review. Theoretical Issues Ergon Sci 25(1):98\u0026ndash;142. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2022.2152900\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/1463922X.2022.2152900\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMadi R, EXTENT IS A COLLISION WITH AN AUTONOMOUS (2023) VESSEL CONSIDERED A MARINE COLLISION IN LIGHT OF UAE LAW? J Ocean Technol, 18(4), 82\u0026ndash;97\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMallam SC, Nazir S, Sharma A (2020) The human element in future Maritime Operations \u0026ndash; perceived impact of autonomous shipping. Ergonomics 63(3):334\u0026ndash;345. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2019.1659995\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00140139.2019.1659995\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOrzechowski SC, Verheyen W, Sys C (2024) A systematic literature review of factors influencing the regulation of autonomous inland shipping in Europe. Eur Transp Res Rev 16(1):54. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-024-00678-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12544-024-00678-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePage MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hr\u0026oacute;bjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Surgery\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e88\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParlov I (2023) Can the International Regulatory Framework on Ships\u0026rsquo; Routing, Ship Reporting, and Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Accommodate Marine Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS)? Ocean Dev Int Law 54(2):163\u0026ndash;180. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2023.2211781\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00908320.2023.2211781\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRingbom H (2019) Regulating Autonomous Ships\u0026mdash;Concepts, Challenges and Precedents. Ocean Dev Int Law 50(2\u0026ndash;3):141\u0026ndash;169. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2019.1582593\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00908320.2019.1582593\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVagale A, Oucheikh R, Bye RT, Osen OL, Fossen TI (2021) Path planning and collision avoidance for autonomous surface vehicles I: a review. J Mar Sci Technol 26(4):1292\u0026ndash;1306. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-020-00787-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00773-020-00787-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVeal R, Tsimplis M, Serdy A (2019) The Legal Status and Operation of Unmanned Maritime Vehicles. Ocean Dev Int Law 50(1):23\u0026ndash;48. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2018.1502500\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00908320.2018.1502500\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWr\u0026oacute;bel K, Gil M, Krata P, Olszewski K, Montewka J (2023) On the use of leading safety indicators in maritime and their feasibility for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e237\u003c/em\u003e(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X211027689\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1748006X211027689\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXing W, Zhu L (2023) Exploring legal gaps and barriers to the use of unmanned merchant ships in China. Mar Policy 153:105662. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105662\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105662\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang P, Chen Q, Macdonald T, Lau Y-Y, Tang Y-M (2022) Game Change: A Critical Review of Applicable Collision Avoidance Rules between Traditional and Autonomous Ships. J Mar Sci Eng 10(11):1655. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10111655\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/jmse10111655\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eМоскаленко МА, Черняхович СЕ, Пушкарёв ИИ, Титов АВ (2023) Autonomous shipping technologies, trends and prospects. MORSKIE INTELLEKTUAL`NYE TEHNOLOGII) 1(59):18\u0026ndash;28. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.37220/MIT.2023.59.1.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.37220/MIT.2023.59.1.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Regulatory Framework, Legal Framework, IMO, Autonomous Navigation, MASS, USV","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7872130/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7872130/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"The development of autonomous and unmanned navigation has recently driven the transformation of the maritime sector. The safe incorporation, for the operational deployment of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) and Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USV) in coexistence with conventional systems, implies significant challenges in both technological and regulatory terms. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is spearheading global efforts to define a regulatory framework that addresses the emerging realities stemming from these technologies and the increasing interest in their broader commercialization. The development of these autonomous and unmanned vessels has become a central focus of research and development within the technological domain. The literature encompasses a wide array of studies concerning the various subsystems and algorithms essential for autonomous navigation in the execution of tasks or missions within aquatic environments. Nevertheless, analyses pertaining to the regulatory framework governing the operation of these vessels in real-world applications or contexts appear to be lagging. The limited number of results obtained from searching bibliographic databases for this specific topic underscores the necessity for a meticulous search to identify articles addressing autonomous vessels from legal, political, ethical, or social standpoints. Consistent with trends observed in other fields, technological advancements outpace scholarly discussions pertaining to these considerations. It is evident that scientific and technological development does not encompass all facets. Consequently, the presence of limitations and restrictions engenders numerous needs, challenges, gaps, and unanswered questions. In contrast to articles focusing on the advancement of autonomy, the scholarly literature addressing the implications and requirements for the operation of these vessels within the maritime, riverine, and lacustrine contexts remains notably sparse. Many authors address the topic tangentially, with their work focusing on algorithms for collision prevention or avoidance that adhere to COLREG specifications. Nevertheless, the debate is not nonexistent. Several authors have conducted analyses on the operation of MASS and USV in light of the current regulatory framework. The interaction of the new technologies with conventional vessels and the evolving role of the human element in vessel operation are also subjects of ongoing reflection. This systematic literature review addresses the regulation of autonomous vessels, aiming to pinpoint key aspects that shape the ongoing debate to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the subject across its various dimensions. The operational deployment of these vessels in real-world scenarios will become a reality in the near future, necessitating convergence between technological advancements and the regulatory framework. To date, the absence of the latter has not hindered the progression of the former. Considering the potential impacts and benefits arising from the coexistence of new and conventional technologies, it is anticipated that the political and social discourse will evolve to ensure the timely and appropriate implementation of regulations.","manuscriptTitle":"Advances and challenges in the regulation of autonomous navigation in the maritime sector: a systematic literature review","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-04 14:01:42","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7872130/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"d1002b31-7e29-4b84-b8a2-c54cf9db69bb","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 4th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-16T12:25:33+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-04 14:01:42","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7872130","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7872130","identity":"rs-7872130","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}