MarIus

4.3.1 The "Brussels Effect" and the AIA – starting points

EU law may exert influence even when it does not formally apply, a phenomenon commonly referred to as the "Brussels Effect". It can be distinguished into two forms: a de jure and de facto Brussels Effect. A de jure Brussels Effect arises when non-EU/EEA member states voluntarily adopt EU legislation, despite not being obligated to do so. By contrast, a de facto Brussels Effect occurs when companies choose to align their operations with EU law, even in markets where they are not legally required to comply with it.^{(1) Anu Bradford, The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World (1st edn, Oxford University Press 2020) Front Matter.}

Perhaps the most prominent example of the Brussels Effect in practice is the global response following the adoption of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2016.^{(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/679.} Influential American tech companies such as Facebook, Google and Twitter adapted their practices to comply with the GDPR in order to retain access to the European market. However, many of these companies extended the same practices to other jurisdictions as well, thereby contributing to a de facto Brussels Effect.^{(3) Bradford (n 188) Chapter 5 Section 4.} In response to these companies, several countries around the world began aligning their domestic legislation with the GDPR, giving rise to a de jure Brussels Effect as well.^{(4) Bradford (n 188) Chapter 5 Section 4.}

Recent literature presents compelling arguments that the AIA is likely to exert both a de jure and de facto Brussels Effect in the coming years, similar to the GDPR.^{(5) Agnidipto Tarafder and Aniruddh Vadlamani, 'Will the EU AI Regulations Give Rise to Another ‘Brussels Effect’? Lessons from the GDPR.' (2025) 10 JDPP 45; Marco Almada and Anca Radu, 'The Brussels Side-Effect: How the AI Act Can Reduce the Global Reach of EU Policy' (2024) 25 Ger. Law J. 646, Section B; Siegmann and Anderljung, The Brussels Effect and Artificial Intelligence: How EU regulation will impact the global AI market (August 2022) 59 and 69.} The question, however, remains whether this will hold true in the context of regulating ANS.

4.3.2 Potential of a de jure Brussels Effect – lessons from GHG regulations?

As a starting point, the members of the IMO will certainly prioritize ensuring that their domestic regulation complies with the MASS Code and other IMO obligations. However, the AIA may achieve a de jure Brussels Effect by influencing the drafting of the finalized MASS Code at the IMO, because the Code in turn will influence domestic regulations of ANS.^{(6) Siegmann and Anderljung (n 192) 66-67.}

Although the legislation of the IMO traditionally enjoys significant respect with the EU once it is finalized and adopted,^{(7) Thesis Sections 2.4 and 4.2.4.1.} the EU is not necessarily reluctant to influence ongoing processes – such as with the MASS Code, which will not be finalized before 2030. The MED Article 8(1) demands the EU to "pursue the development by the IMO" of "appropriate" international standards for marine equipment. When carrying out these activities, the new MED Article 8(5) specifies that the European Commission shall "take into account" the requirements for high-risk AI systems of the AIA Chapter III, Section 2.

Although direct influence through the observer status of the European Commission is not possible, there are arguably other ways in which the EU may exert influence over the IMO. Within the concept of the Brussels Effect lies the recognition of the capacity of the EU to shape global regulatory standards by acting early in emerging policy areas. The GDPR in the area of data protection stands as a well-established example,^{(8) Bradford (n 188) Chapter 5, Section 1.} but more recent instances can arguably be identified – even within the maritime sector. A particularly illustrative example is the parallel regulatory developments regarding GHG emissions from ships by the EU and the IMO.

The Deputy Director General and Deputy CEO of Danish Shipping has argued that the regulatory frameworks of the EU for reducing GHG emissions in the shipping industry, namely the EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime,^{(9) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2599 (ETS) and Regulation (EU) 2023/1805 (FuelEU Maritime).} have been instrumental in prompting the IMO to adopt its global climate agreement for shipping in 2023.^{(10) Danish Shipping, EU achieves ambitious climate regulations for shipping (25 July 2023).} The relevance of this assertion was renewed in April 2025 when the IMO announced its intention to adopt an amendment to MARPOL Annex VI in October 2025 that arguably resembles an "IMO version" of the EU regulations that are already in force.^{(11) The International Maritime Organization, IMO approves net-zero regulations for global shipping (11 April 2025).}

In the case of the regulation of AI in shipping, it is particularly noteworthy that the EU stands as a global pioneer in the field of AI regulation. The EU has established a large and highly specialized apparatus directly related to the practical implementation of the Act, with bodies such as the European AI Office.^{(12)The European Commission, European AI Office (2025).} Lessons learned and guidelines developed by the EU in the coming years may serve as a source of inspiration for others with less experience in AI regulation, such as the IMO.

4.3.3 Potential of a de facto Brussels Effect

As stated in a 2023 report published by Lloyd's Register, stakeholders in autonomous shipping should develop internal frameworks concerning appropriate use of AI systems.^{(13) Sivori and Brunton (n 7) 32.} Just as the EU may influence the drafting of AI-related legislation at the IMO, it may likewise serve as a source of inspiration for private stakeholders when developing their internal frameworks. The stakeholders will of course primarily consider legally binding sources of law drafted by the IMO. However, specialized EU bodies, such as the European AI Office, will likely offer comprehensive guidelines, recommendations, and advisory services, rooted in the AIA, to companies developing, providing, and deploying AI systems.^{(14) See for instance the European Commission, European AI Office (2025).} Such services may offer valuable support to, for instance, shipowners considering implementing AI in their operations, irrespective of their formal legal obligations.