Loading...
- Home
- Capabilities
- ACTIO® Hub
- About Us
- Connect with Us
- AP Library
September 28, 2026
Originally published in ACTIO E-Magazine Edition 30 (September 2026). Law as of September 2026.
Indonesia has no maritime-specific cyber regulation, so contracts do work that regulation does not. BIMCO’s Cyber Security Clause 2019 is the only cyber-specific standard clause available: it imposes reciprocal cybersecurity duties, a 12-hour notification rule, and a default liability cap of USD 100,000, while deliberately excluding payment fraud and imposing no insurance obligation.
The BIMCO Cyber Security Clause 2019 establishes a contractual framework for managing cyber security risks between the parties to a contract. It defines a “Cyber Security Incident” broadly to cover the loss, unauthorised destruction, alteration, disclosure, access to, or control of a party’s “Digital Environment”, which encompasses information technology and operational technology systems, networks, internet-enabled applications and devices, and the data contained in them.
The clause imposes reciprocal obligations on each party to implement appropriate cyber security measures, maintain appropriate incident-response plans and procedures, and regularly review cyber security arrangements, including maintaining records evidencing such reviews. These obligations extend, on a reasonable endeavours basis, to third parties engaged by either party to provide services in connection with the contract.
It also establishes a mechanism for responding to incidents and allocating liability. Where a party becomes aware of an incident that affects or is likely to affect either party’s cyber security, it must promptly notify the other party. Where the incident originates within one party’s Digital Environment, that party must take reasonable steps to mitigate or resolve it and, within 12 hours of the original notification, provide contact details and any information available that may assist the other party in mitigating or preventing its effects. Both parties must also share subsequently available information that may assist in addressing the incident.
Liability for a breach or series of breaches is limited to a figure the parties insert, defaulting to USD 100,000 where the space is left blank, unless the breach is proved to have resulted solely from that party’s gross negligence or wilful misconduct.
The Explanatory Notes record two matters the drafting subcommittee considered and decided not to include. The first is payment fraud, which the subcommittee concluded would not be greatly reduced by a contractual clause and is better addressed through internal verification and authorisation procedures. The second is an obligation to insure against cyber risks, rejected on the basis that cyber insurance was not yet sufficiently developed for parties to be required to obtain cover.
The clause is now seven years old and unrevised, a point the source notes expressly. That age matters: the cyber insurance market and the threat landscape have both moved on since 2019, yet the clause remains the only cyber-specific standard clause available.
The clause has no independent force. BIMCO is a membership association of shipowners, operators, managers, brokers, and agents, not a regulator. Nothing requires a party to adopt it, no authority supervises compliance, and BIMCO membership is not a precondition to its use, since the text is published openly.
Its obligations are reciprocal rather than directed at the carrier: each party owes the same duties to implement, maintain, review, and notify, and the liability cap operates in both directions. That reciprocity distinguishes the clause from the carriage regime, under which duties of due diligence and cargo care fall on the carrier alone. BIMCO describes the clause as suitable for a wide range of maritime contracts, and its structure lends itself to back-to-back incorporation down a charterparty chain, so that all parties to a voyage have the same cyber obligations. The level of cyber security required depends on factors such as the size of the company, its geographical location, and the nature of its business.
The reach of the third-party provision is limited: each party must use reasonable endeavours to ensure that third parties providing services on its behalf comply with the same requirements, but the obligation runs between the contracting parties. It creates no privity with the service provider and imposes nothing on that provider directly, so a counterparty whose loss originates in a vendor’s systems has a claim against the party who engaged the vendor, not against the vendor itself.
No reported judgment or published arbitral award construes the BIMCO Cyber Security Clause 2019. Where the clause is incorporated, disputes follow the charterparty’s dispute resolution provision, and arbitral awards are not routinely published.
English authority on other BIMCO clauses nonetheless shows how such clauses are construed. In Bunge SA v Pan Ocean Co Ltd [2025] EWHC 193 (Comm), concerning an amended BIMCO Infectious or Contagious Diseases Clause, the court treated the clause as a sophisticated agreement prepared by skilled professionals meriting close textual analysis, and took BIMCO’s explanatory notes as giving some support to the construction reached, while noting their wording might be non-exhaustive and parts might post-date the clause. The decision is not about cyber risk, but it indicates the approach a court would likely take to the Cyber Security Clause.
The clause is a supplementary provision rather than a self-contained regime. It does not prescribe a governing law, jurisdiction, arbitration mechanism, or force majeure regime; those matters remain governed by the wider contract. BIMCO’s Law and Arbitration Clause 2020, for example, provides versions for Hong Kong, London, New York, and Singapore.
Indonesia regulates cyber risk through instruments of general application rather than a dedicated maritime cybersecurity regime. Government Regulation No. 71 of 2019 requires Electronic System Operators to operate systems reliably and securely. The PDP Law (Law No. 27 of 2022) regulates personal data protection and requires notification of a failure to protect personal data in specified circumstances. Presidential Regulation No. 82 of 2022 on the Protection of Vital Information Infrastructure covers electronic and operational technology systems supporting strategic sectors, including transportation. The ITE Law, most recently amended by Law No. 1 of 2024, governs electronic information and transactions, including criminal provisions. None of these instruments specifically addresses cybersecurity risks arising from ship operations, and the principal sectoral statute, the Shipping Law (Law No. 17 of 2008), does not establish a dedicated framework for cyber risk management.
The broader international framework provides further reference points: the IMO’s revised Guidelines establish a risk-based approach built around Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover, while IACS E26 and E27 set technical requirements for cyber resilience at ship and onboard-system level.
For Indonesia, the policy question is therefore not simply whether to introduce a standalone maritime cybersecurity regulation, but how existing cross-sectoral requirements can be connected with maritime-specific risks. Any future framework should establish an appropriate technical baseline, clarify responsibilities across shipowners, operators, and service providers, provide workable incident-response and notification mechanisms, and include periodic review as technology and international standards evolve.
Is the BIMCO Cyber Security Clause binding on its own?
No. It binds only parties who incorporate it into their contract. BIMCO is a private association, not a regulator, and membership is not required to use it.
What is the liability cap?
Each party’s liability for breach is capped at the figure the parties insert, defaulting to USD 100,000 if left blank, unless the breach resulted solely from gross negligence or wilful misconduct.
Does the clause cover payment fraud?
No, deliberately. The drafting subcommittee concluded payment fraud would not be greatly reduced by a contractual clause and is better addressed through internal verification procedures.
Does it require the parties to buy cyber insurance?
No. The drafters rejected an insurance obligation because cyber insurance was not yet sufficiently developed.
Has any court interpreted the clause?
No. There is no reported judgment or published arbitral award construing the Cyber Security Clause 2019, although English courts have construed other BIMCO clauses as sophisticated agreements meriting close textual analysis.
The BIMCO Cyber Security Clause 2019 offers a practical contractual mechanism for translating cybersecurity concerns into concrete obligations among maritime actors. Its value lies primarily in risk allocation rather than regulatory substitution. For Indonesia, the broader lesson is not simply the need for a standalone maritime cybersecurity instrument, but the need to connect existing cybersecurity regulation with the operational and contractual realities of maritime transport, so that contractual risk allocation and public regulatory oversight operate in complement rather than in isolation.
