The adoption of the International Code of Safety for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS Code) by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in May 2026 marks a landmark regulatory milestone.
As autonomous and remotely operated vessels move from trials toward commercial reality, shipowners, insurers, technology providers and flag states must navigate an entirely new framework for safety, liability and operations.
Greece — the world’s leading shipowning nation by controlled tonnage — is exceptionally well positioned to shape this transition.
That advantage was underlined by the election of Capt. Theofilos Mozas of the Hellenic Coast Guard as Chair of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) for 2026, the committee that finalized and adopted the Code at its 111th session (13–22 May 2026).
With a diverse fleet spanning bulkers, tankers, LNG carriers and more, Greek shipping is not merely reacting to regulatory change; it has a direct opportunity to help define the commercial and operational standards of the next generation of vessels.
A goal-based
framework — and what that really means
The MASS Code addresses longstanding gaps in conventions such as SOLAS, STCW and COLREGs, all of which were built on the assumption of continuous human presence and direct onboard control.
Adopted as a non-mandatory instrument that took effect on 1 July 2026, the Code is goal-based and technology-neutral: it sets functional requirements and expected levels of performance, and supplements — rather than replaces — existing instruments.
It applies to cargo ships under SOLAS and covers both fully autonomous operation and individual remote or automated functions, even on conventionally crewed vessels. The goal-based design is the single most important thing for owners and managers to understand. The Code says what must be achieved, not how.
It does not hand you a compliant system; it hands you a target and requires you to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of your flag administration, that you have met it.
The engineering, the operating procedures and the evidence are yours to build — which is precisely why the current voluntary period matters. It is the window in which industry, not the regulator, defines what “good” looks like.
The commercial
paradigm shift:
seaworthiness,
authority, liability
Three interconnected areas are being fundamentally reshaped for commercial stakeholders.
Seaworthiness in the digital age. Traditional notions of hull integrity and crew competence are expanding.
Seaworthiness and cargoworthiness now also encompass software redundancy, reliable data connectivity, algorithmic robustness and system resilience.
The Code places risk assessment at the heart of the approval process and puts strong emphasis on robust system design.
The evolving role of the master. The Code deliberately preserves human accountability: a qualified master remains responsible for the ship and must retain the ability to intervene, whether physically on board or operating from a Remote Operations Centre (ROC).
Read closely, it is
strikingly precise.
When crew or other persons are on board, the master must be physically present; blanket phrases such as “at all times” were removed where they would impose impossible absolutes, yet deliberately retained for the master’s access to alerts and alert-management systems.
The message is exact — safety-critical human oversight is non-negotiable, even as the rules stay operationally honest.
This points to a deeper shift. Autonomous and remote operation does not remove the human factor; it relocates it — onto a screen, across a satellite link, into a shore-based centre that may supervise more than one vessel.
Performance then depends less on the individual operator and more on how the whole socio-technical system is designed: how information is presented, how authority is allocated, and how the system behaves when something fails.
The human factor becomes structural rather than individual. A well-trained operator inside a poorly designed control centre will still fail — predictably, and through no fault of their own.
The Code’s insistence on the human element is, correctly read, an instruction to design at that structural level.
Liability allocation. The move away from sole reliance on “nautical fault” by onboard crew opens the door to far greater scrutiny of product liability, software integrity and system-integration failures.
Insurers and courts will increasingly examine the performance of technology providers and ROC operators alongside traditional shipowner responsibilities. Together, these shifts directly affect vessel valuation, chartering terms, insurance structuring and contractual risk allocation across the maritime value chain.
Cybersecurity: from IT issue to core safety concer
Cybersecurity has moved from a peripheral IT matter to a central safety and operational concern. The Code emphasises protection against cyber threats, signal interference and data-integrity failures.
Rather than inventing a parallel regime, it folds the security of the Remote Operations Centre into the existing ship security assessment and plan, and accepts that a remote operator may fulfil the ship security officer’s functions.
Crucially, where a control centre is compromised, the ship is to fall back to a predefined safe state — turning a cyber incident into a controlled, survivable condition rather than a loss of control. Logged operational data, in turn, is shared with administrations and marine-investigation authorities on request, keeping accountability intact while acknowledging data-protection concerns.
For underwriters, this is already reshaping practice. P&I Clubs and Hull & Machinery insurers are reassessing how they evaluate remote data links, patch management, ROC reliability and cyber resilience when pricing coverage and judging seaworthiness.
A cyber incident or loss of connectivity on a remotely operated vessel could trigger significant liabilities for cargo delay, collision or environmental damage — risks that legacy policy wordings may not fully address.
Greece’s strategic opportunity in the Experience-Building Phase
The IMO’s roadmap provides a structured transition. The next step is the Experience-Building Phase (EBP), whose framework will be developed at MSC 112 in December 2026. Real-world operational data gathered during this period will directly inform the mandatory MASS Code, targeted for adoption by 1 July 2030 and entry into force on 1 January 2032. Notably, the certificate adopted so far is a safety certificate; several harder concepts — a definition of “remote crew”, a management certificate for control centres, dedicated centre security plans — were deliberately deferred to the EBP.
For Greek shipping, this phase offers concrete value. The scale, diversity and global trading patterns of the Greek-controlled fleet make Hellenic owners a primary potential source of the high-quality empirical data needed to validate or refine the Code’s assumptions on connectivity, remote operations, cybersecurity and mixed-manning models. And with Capt. Mozas chairing the MSC through 2026, Greek perspectives on practical commercial realities are well placed to help ensure that the coming SOLAS amendments and mandatory requirements remain workable and proportionate. Early, structured participation — through flag-state submissions, industry associations and operational trials — could let Greek interests help shape the standards rather than simply adapt to them.
The strategic reading follows directly: the decisive date is 2028, when work on the mandatory Code begins and today’s design choices start to harden into legal obligations — not 2032, when they merely take effect.
From regulatory awareness to operational readiness
For Greek and international owners alike, navigating the EBP is both a compliance exercise and a commercial imperative.
Proactive engage-
ment — participation
in trials, contribution
of operational data, investment in ROC capabilities and cyber resilience, and close collaboration with classification societies and insurers — will determine who leads and who follows in the autonomous era.
The owners who use this voluntary window to understand how their operations truly work, and to design remote and autonomous functions around that reality, will lead the mandatory era rather than retrofit into it.
The MASS Code regulates machines, but its hardest provisions are about people: where they sit, what they can see, what they answer for, and what the ship does on their behalf when it cannot reach them.
That is the work — and the opportunity — that begins now.
Sources
- IMO, Maritime Safety Committee, 111th session (MSC 111), 13–22 May 2026 — meeting summary and press release, IMO Media Centre.
- IMO, International Code of Safety for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS Code) and associated MSC resolution, adopted at MSC 111.
By Dr. Sofia Papadimitriou and Dr. Christos Moridis
