MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3125444212

International Air Cargo & Baggage Liability and the Tower of Babel

2004· article· en· W3125444212 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Paul Stephen Dempsey

Notice bibliographique

RevueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueInternational Law and Aviation
Établissements canadiensMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLawLiabilityTreatyConventionInternational lawPolitical scienceAviationAviation lawNothingTower of BabelEngineeringPublic international lawHistoryPhilosophy
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Then the Lord said, now, while they are one people, all speaking the same language, they have started to [build the Tower of Babel], nothing will later stop them from doing whatever they presume to do. Let us then go down and there confuse their language, so that one will not understand what another says. Genesis 11:6 I. INTRODUCTION From its inception in the late 1920s, the overriding purpose of private international aviation law has been to create uniformity of law across jurisdictions-to erect, in effect, a single Babylonian temple in which all disputes would be resolved uniformly no matter where they arose. A unified liability regime was indeed created by the world community in the Warsaw Convention of 1929.' Over the ensuing decades, efforts to update this legal regime have led to fragmentation rather than unification, with different nations adhering to differing versions of the Warsaw Convention and its various reformulations. Today, the question of which law to apply-an issue of tremendous importance to the resolution of aviation loss and damage disputes-is anything but uniform or simple. In order to determine which international or domestic liability regime to apply, one must assess whether the air transportation in question was international in character. If so, the international liability regime governing the origin and destination States will apply, provided the two States have ratified the same treaty. At this writing, there are numerous possibilities: * The original Warsaw Convention of 1929, unamended;a * The Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol of 1955;3 * The Warsaw Convention as amended by the Guadalajara Convention of 1961 ;4 * The Warsaw Convention as amended by Montreal Protocol No. 4 (MP4) of 1975;5 * The Montreal Convention of 1999/' or * Domestic law, if it is deemed that the transportation falls outside the Warsaw regime or if the two relevant States have failed to ratify the same liability convention.7 The first four of these shall be referred to herein as the Warsaw regime,8 as the Hague Protocol, the Guadalajara Convention, and Montreal Protocol No. 4 (MP4) attempted to build liability rules upon the foundation of the original Warsaw Convention. For the United States, effective March 4, 1999, international aviation cargo liability law became governed by the original Warsaw Convention, as amended by the Hague Protocol, as amended by MP4. Then, on November 4, 2003, the United States became subject to the Montreal Convention of 1999, which entered into force on that date. This Article addresses the complexity of international air cargo disputes. We begin with a review of the the origins and purposes of this private international law regime, and the historical evolution of law. This shall be followed by an examination of the plaintiffs, and then the defendant's, elements of proof. At the outset, it should be emphasized that most of the controversy arising around the Warsaw regime, and the inability of the world community to come to consensus as to what rules to apply, has resulted from the niggardly treatment of amounts recoverable for passenger liability. Hopefully, the recent entry into force of the Montreal Convention of 1999 will re-establish the international legal uniformity the Warsaw Convention of 1929 sought to achieve, though for a transitional period at least, the courts of different nations will be applying different legal regimes. II. THE WARSAW CONVENTION & PROGENY A. Origins of Warsaw Legal rules of carrier liability in international air transport owe their origin to the efforts of a number of international aeronautical organizations in the 1920s, during the infancy of commercial aviation, to create a uniform legal regime, and shield carriers from potentially devastating aviation disaster damage awards. The First International Conference of Private Air Law was held in Paris in 1925. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,042
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,083

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0100,012
Communication savante0,0110,005
Science ouverte0,0010,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0130,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,005
Tête enseignante GPT0,264
Écart entre enseignants0,259 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2004
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSSRN Electronic JournalMême sujetInternational Law and AviationTravaux en français237 207