���������¼�

Anglerfish and giant squid are the kinds of creatures you might expect to encounter in the depths of the ocean, but what about something man-made? 

Autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) are fast becoming just as much a part of the deep-sea landscape, but unlike their biological counterparts, they raise questions that the law is struggling to answer.

A study led by ���������¼� Canberra researcher Daiana Seabra Venancio highlights the urgent need for clear international rules around these technologies, warning that legal grey areas could put scientific collaboration, industry innovation, and even peace at sea at risk.

“AUVs are incredibly versatile. They can map the ocean floor, inspect underwater pipelines, or even monitor marine environments, all without human input. That autonomy makes them safer, cheaper, and more effective than traditional tethered vehicles. But it also makes them harder to define legally. Are they ships? Are they equipment? Right now, there’s no consistent answer,” Daiana said. 

Existing treaties like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) were written decades before AUVs became routine. That leaves governments and operators struggling to classify them, some countries treat them as ships, others as vehicles, and some exclude them altogether.

“This patchwork approach is a real problem,” Diana explained. 

“Without harmonised definitions, you end up with disputes over who has jurisdiction, who is liable if something goes wrong, or whether an AUV can even operate in certain waters.”

These risks came to fruition in 2016 when China seized a U.S. Navy AUV operating in the South China Sea, sparking a diplomatic spat between the two powers.  

The stakes are rising as AUVs become more sophisticated and more widely used, not just by navies, but also by energy companies, marine scientists, and environmental agencies.

Daiana’s research argues that without clear international standards, businesses and researchers could face operational delays, costly disputes, or even the seizure of their vehicles in foreign waters.

Lessons may lie in how the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has approached regulating Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS).

 “Surface ships and underwater vehicles face different challenges, but the principle is the same: we need clarity around definitions, degrees of autonomy, and state responsibilities,” Daiana said.

An ideal framework, she suggests, would create a tiered classification system based on an AUV’s function and level of autonomy, supported by harmonised definitions, registration rules, and operating guidelines under UNCLOS. Such a framework would give governments confidence, reduce risks for industry, and promote international cooperation in protecting the marine environment.

While Daiana believes AUV-specific global regulations are still some time away, she hopes her work will help policymakers prioritise them sooner. 

“The oceans are already a contested space, from resource exploration to security. If we don’t act now, legal ambiguity will only make those tensions worse.”