There is an undeniable recognition that maritime cybersecurity risk management should involve process, technology, and people. However, thus far, most studies have focused on the technical and process aspects of maritime cybersecurity, more than on the human element. On a vessel, the Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) is, amongst all the electronic devices on the bridge, a complex and indispensable maritime sociotechnical system that must consider both technical and human aspects. In the context of maritime cyber resilience, it is important to note that when developing strategies for maritime cybersecurity, one cannot only consider technical security measures and ignore human error, as this does not adhere to good cybersecurity practice. To address this, this study aims to identify the navigating officers’ responsibilities for ECDIS cybersecurity and find the human error probabilities during these tasks via the SLIM-based human reliability analysis method. The outputs of this study provide an insight for industrial policies and best practices, in ECDIS cybersecurity risk management in terms of the behavioural and cultural aspects of shipping.

This article argues that in analysing the efficiency of the German legal capital rules, it is helpful to distinguish carefully between three different aspects: the question of whether the law should impose a minimum legal capital requirement, the relevance of provisions in the articles of incorporation pertaining to the legal capital of the company as a collective offer to the company's creditors, and the role of legal capital rules in limiting distributions prior to the company's insolvency. The existence of a minimum legal capital requirement, while it may not be particularly burdensome to serious-minded entrepreneurs, does not do much to help creditors. The second aspect, namely, the role of provisions in the articles of incorporation pertaining to the legal capital of the company as a collective offer to the company's creditors, is far more important. It explains why the traditional system of capital protection constitutes an efficient contractual instrument facilitating the entrepreneurial activities of companies. Most importantly, however, legal capital rules are the most efficient way of limiting distributions prior to the company's insolvency, providing less room for manipulation than the ad hoc solvency tests used in Anglo-American legal systems.