Le forum shopping dans le contentieux d'accidents de transport aérien international de passagers : analyse de droit comparé à la lumière du droit français et du droit américain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les accidents de transport aerien international de passagers sont sources de contentieux complexes, notamment parce qu’il s’agit d’affaires souvent multipartites, engendrant parfois une constellation de procedures pour un meme fait generateur en raison de la pluralite de nationalites des demandeurs et defendeurs ainsi que de regles de competence divergentes selon la qualite des defendeurs. Meme si le transport aerien reste le moyen de transport le plus sur, sa massification a conduit a la multiplication de ce contentieux, d'autant plus que la volonte de proteger les passagers a conduit les juges nationaux a une apprehension large de la notion d'accident au sens des conventions internationales. Le mouvement d'uniformisation en droit aerien n'a pas pour autant suffi a resoudre la complexite de ce contentieux. Ces conventions ne constituent pas un ensemble de regles autonomes. Elles ne reglent pas nombre de questions de droit et accordent un role central a la lex fori. Ainsi, malgre l'existence de ces conventions, les accidents de transport aerien international de passagers sont fortement propices au forum shopping. Plus encore, la Convention de Varsovie de 1929 et la Convention de Montreal de 1999 institutionnalisent le forum shopping en prevoyant une multiplicite de fors competents au benefice du demandeur. De plus, le forum shopping est parfois exerce par le defendeur. L'absence de juridiction internationale competente en la matiere conduit inevitablement a des divergences de solutions, aucun juge ne pouvant revendiquer le monopole de l'interpretation. Cette these se concentrera essentiellement sur la comparaison des solutions juridiques francaises et etats-uniennes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.002 |
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".