Abstract
Currently, we are living in the era of the 4th industrial revolution. In the field of shipping industry, the MASS is a revolutionary game changer in the making arising out of such an industrial and technical innovation in the pursuit of radically challenging the pre-existing system of a human-operated vessel. Given this trend, the entire maritime regulatory regime, which has been designed by, and intertwined with, human seaworthiness, abruptly faces the most unprecedented normative confrontations now and increasingly in the coming days. As the constitution of ocean, UNCLOS, provides, every flag state is obliged to effectively exercise its jurisdiction to secure technical and human seaworthiness. Moreover, the coastal state may institute protective proceedings against vessels in respect of any violations of its laws to protect its marine environment in maritime zones of the coastal state. Further, UNCLOS acknowledges that the port state's authority extends to take administrative measures to prevent sub-standard ships from sailing within the ports or offshore-terminals of the state. These three jurisdictional functions will be required to more closely interface with each other than ever over the legal and political implications created by MASS. Although states' jurisdictional nuances are significant in this present world tilting back to protectionism, there are few articles to present jurisdictional issues of states and conceivable normative discourse with regard to MASS. This articles visits potential jurisdictional conflicts underlying MASS and tries to strike balance between contradictory interpretive approaches under UNCLOS while it is undeniable that this doctrinal research tends to strive to find justifications within the current framework of international law.