5.2 Conclusion to the Question of Indirect Impact
I have considered whether the requirements for high-risk AI systems in the AIA may have an impact on ANS regulations even if the requirements for high-risk AI systems in the AIA do not apply.
With regard to EU law, the AIA Articles 2(2) and 105 set out a mechanism that could allow the requirements to have an impact on standards for marine equipment on board EU ships that are drafted and adopted by the European Commission pursuant to Articles 8(2) and (3) of the MED. However, it seems unlikely that the Commission will adopt such standards for ANS.(1) Thesis Section 4.2.4.1.
As for the potential of the AIA having a "Brussels Effect" on domestic regulations of ANS, this remains uncertain and will only materialize – or not – over time. States are, however, likely to prioritize their existing and forthcoming obligations under IMO law, particularly with regard to the implementation of the MASS Code. Nevertheless, the practical experience gained by the EU when implementing the AIA may prove valuable to the IMO in its ongoing efforts toward a finalized and mandatory version of the MASS Code by 2030, potentially facilitating a de jure Brussels Effect of requirements for high-risk AI systems in the AIA.(2) Thesis Section 4.3.2. Similarly, private stakeholders in the emerging autonomous shipping industry may adopt practices suggested by specialized EU-bodies. This may give rise to a de facto Brussels Effect.(3) Thesis Section 4.3.3.