The article examines the current state and the main problems of international legal regulation of combating maritime piracy. The conclusion about the necessity of implementation of provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea into the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is made. Also examined the prospects of creating an international tribunal on piracy and concluded that the creation of an international permanent tribunal on piracy would significantly improve the situation in the sphere of bringing persons who have committed acts of piracy to criminal liability. In addition, the creation of such a tribunal would ensure the security of navigation and additional protection of the constitutional rights of Russian citizens, crew members of merchant ships, as well as promote the economic interests of Russian merchant shipping entities.

The problem of the allocation of liability between the shipowner and the software developer in case of harm to third parties due to an error of the artificial intelligence of an autonomous vessel presents a serious challenge for private maritime law. There are mainly two possible situations here: 1) infliction of loss without a ship collision; 2) infliction of loss due to a ship collision. This article, being based on Russian law, is concerned with the first case. The author comes to the conclusion that the shipowner bears under all circumstances the non-contractual liability as the possessor of a source of increased danger (autonomous vessel). Further allocation of losses is most likely to be provided for in the contract between the shipowner and the software developer. At the same time, the injured party is entitled to bring a claim directly against the software developer if the latter committed faulty actions when creating an IT product. Moreover, de lege lata such a developer is not entitled to limitations of liability under the maritime law in force. The results of this article will be useful primarily for shipowners, IT companies and other leading market players – pioneers of autonomous shipping.

Commentary to the Case No. А51-9022/2020 (LLC “Fesco Service” v LLC “Avers”)

Commentary to the Case No. А51-10555/2016 (“SL Marine Co., Ltd.” v LLC “Ostrov”)

Commentary to the Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 20, 2021, No. 305-ES21-10216 in case No. A40-328885/2019 (“OTEKO-Portservice” v “Kaproben”)

According to the current legislation of the Russian Federation, if signs of violation of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are established on a ship that is on a coastal or foreign voyage, the master of a ship assumes the functions of an inquiry body. The actions of the master of a ship as an inquiry body are regulated by the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation, as well as the Code of Merchant Shipping. This article analyzes the problem of the subtleties and nuances of the captain’s performance of the inquiry body functions: what laws and regulations they rely on, as well as how the process of inquiry goes on. The analysis is carried out based on the current laws of the Russian Federation. The author comes to the conclusion that the status of the master of a ship as an inquiry body in criminal proceedings needs to be changed for greater efficiency of the inquiry process on ships that are at sea.

Part 2 of this article deals with in rem arrests, known in the US as Rule C arrests. This type of proceeding means action is brought directly against the vessel as defendant in order to enforce a maritime lien. Drawing on US case law and legislation, the author considers the peculiarities of maritime liens in general and the special features of these liens in the US, in particular. The article then goes on to discuss several scenarios where Rule C arrests are most effective against one-ship companies.

The article discusses what mediation is, and what mediation clauses can be recommended for mediation.

The article deals with specific features of private maritime disputes arbitration in Russia. The analysis is based on the Law of the Russian Federation of July 7, 1993, No. 5358-O “On International Commercial Arbitration”, Regulation on Maritime Arbitration Commission at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – MAC), which is an appendix to this Law, and the 2017 MAC Rules.

Case No. А24-3915/2020 (LLC “Kamchatskenergo” v LLC “NIKO”)

Judgement of the Commercial (“Arbitrazh”) Court of the North Caucasus District dated 13 May 2021 in case No. A53-42452/2019 (LLC “Management Company “River-Sea”” v LLC “Vastness”)

Case No. А73-7921/2020 (LLC “Alliance-DV Kamchatka” v LLC “Ventura”)

Case No. А40-127542/2020 (JSC “Belomortrans” v LLC “Neva-Charter”)

Noble Chartering Inc v Priminds Shipping Hong Kong Co Ltd (“Tai Prize”) [2021] EWCA Civ 87 (28 January 2021)

Pacific Gulf Shipping Co. v Vigorous Shipping & Trading S.A., No. 20-35159 (9th Cir. 2021)

Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd v Nautical Challenge Ltd [2021] UKSC 6 (19 February 2021)

The Resolution of the Commercial (“Arbitrazh”) Court of the Far-Eastern District dated 17 February 2021 in case No. F03-104/2021 (FSOE “Border Administration of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation in the Primorsky Region” v “Korea Surim Trading Corporation”)

Judgement of the Commercial (“Arbitrazh”) Court of the North-Western District dated 3 March 2021 in case No. A21-1117/2020 (Fishing collective farm “Worker of the Sea” v FSUE “National Fish Resources”, FSBI “Administration of Seaports of the Baltic Sea”, LLC “Northern Marine Technologies”)[1]

Ruling of the Commercial (“Arbitrazh”) Court of the Krasnodarskyi Region dated 12 March 2021 in case No. А32-9548/2021 (FGBI “Morspassluzjba” v “April Shipping Company”)

Herculito Maritime Ltd. and others v Gunvor International BV and others (m/v “Polar”), [2020] EWHC 3318 (Comm)

SK Shipping Europe PLC v (3) Capital VLCC 3 Corp and (5) Capital Maritime and Trading Corp (C Challenger), [2020] EWHC 3448 (Comm)

Argentum Exploration Ltd. v The Silver and all persons claiming to be interested in and/or to have rights in respect of the silver, [2020] EWHC 3434 (Admty)

Ruling of the Commercial Court of North-West District dated 21 January 2021 in case No. A56-79050/2019 ((FGBU) Administration of Sea Ports of the Baltic Sea, LLC Kontur SPb v Marathi Shipping, The Standard P&I Club)

Resolution of the 13th Commercial Court of Appeal dated January 18, 2021 No. 13AP-33576/2020 in case No. A56-11369/2020 (LLC Mortrans v LLC Detotex)

Judgement of the 9th Commercial Court of Appeal dated January 18, 2021 No. 09АП-69250/2020 in case No. А40-40737/2020 (Federal state budgetary institution (FSBI) “Northern UGMS” v Rosmorrechflot)

Judgement of the 5th Commercial Court of Appeal dated January 18, 2021 No. 05AP-7234/2020 in case No. A51-3969/2020 (LLC Far Eastern Sea Transportation v LLC Vostok-Mor-Stroy)

Judgement of the 5th Commercial Court of Appeal dated January 20, 2021 No. 05AP-7848/2020 in case No. A59-1512/2020 (FGUP Rosmorport v LLC Sakhmorflot)

Judgement of the Commercial Court of the Krasnodar Territory dated November 20, 2020 in case No. А32-22897/2020 (PJSC IC Ukrainian Insurance Group v Post Holding Assets Ltd.)

Ruling of the Commercial Court of the Primorsky Territory dated November 25, 2020 in case No. A51-18495/2020 (FSUE Morspasluzhba v OJSC Concern ASPOL-BALTIC / NWS5 Balt Shipping Co. Ltd.)

Judgement of the Commercial Court of the Vologda Region dated October 6, 2020 in case No. A13-20252/2019 (LLC P.TransKo v PJSC Severstal)

Judgement of the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region dated October 24, 2020 in case No. А56-53602/2020 (Marshell Oil LLP v Federal Bailiff Service)

Judgement of the Commercial Court of Primorsky Region dated November 26, 2020 in case No. А51-9725/2020 (Atlas Marine Co. Ltd. v LLC “PrimPortService”)