Jurisdiction and Conflicts of Laws in Contracts of International Carriage by Air
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of its cross-border nature, air transportation is very often exposed to the legal regimes of different countries. The uncertainty created by this situation was reduced to some extent by the Warsaw System and most recently by the Montreal Convention, which have established a unified uniform liability system applicable to international air transportation. Currently, in international carriage by air, most contracts will fall under the substantive rules of either of these regimes. However, in spite of their success, the unification accomplished by these instruments was not complete and some issues are still left to the national laws. Moreover, the legal traditions of the forum can greatly affect the interpretation of the unified regime the Conventions intend to create. An analysis of the rules applicable to international carriage by air, and the application of these rules made by courts in different jurisdictions demonstrates that domestic legislation has shaped the concepts vested in the Conventions and in many opportunities the interpretation of the courts created significant differences in their application around the world.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it