Forum clauses in carriage contracts after the Brussels I (bis) Regulation: procedural (un)certainty?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On January 10th 2015 the new Brussels I Regulation entered into force (hereinafter referred to as the Brussels I (bis)-regulation). One of the main changes that is introduced by this Regulation is the new lis pendens rule. Under the old Brussels I regulation, the court first seized has to decide upon its jurisdiction. Other courts have to stay proceedings until the court first seized decided upon this issue. This rule is also incorporated in carriage law conventions, such as CMR, COTIF-CIM, the Montreal Convention, the Hamburg convention and the Rotterdam Rules. A problem with this lis pendens rule is that it allows using of the abusive litigation tactics, such as the so-called Italian Torpedo where a claim is brought before an incompetent court, in order to slow down the proceedings. The Brussels I (bis) aims to bring such tactics to a stop in cases where an exclusive forum choice has been made. In such situations, the court named in the exclusive jurisdiction clause can continue the proceedings, irrespective of the question whether another court has been seized first. This new rule envisages more efficient legal proceedings. As several carriage conventions have their own procedural rules, the question under investigation in this article is whether the Brussel I (bis) will impact carriage contracts and whether such impact will indeed contribute to legal certainty in the field of carriage law. After introducing the changes that were brought to the lis pendens rule by the Brussels I(bis) Regulation and the extent to which this matter is governed in transport conventions this article inquires into whether these modifications might lead to parallel proceedings (title II), and what the future for procedural rules in carriage conventions is after the Brussels (I) Bis Regulation (title III).
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".