The "Lawfare" of Forum Non Conveniens: Suits by Foreigners in U.S. Courts for Air Accidents Occurring Abroad
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
Forum non conveniens is used as a procedural tool whereby courts may refuse to take jurisdiction over legal matters. In aviation litigation, it can be applied to suits by foreigners for air accidents occurring overseas and having little or no connection to the United States. In the context of forum non conveniens, the term can be used to describe the way one country attempts to subordinate another country's laws. It seems appropriate to broaden the use of the term to include circumstances where that subordination infringes on a country's sovereignty, a violation of customary international law. This article traces the development of forum non conveniens lawfare for the past ten years by reviewing seminal cases, specifically Air France, Hosaka v. United Airlines, West Caribbean, and the recent decision from the Cour de Cassation, the highest court in France. First, a discussion of the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions explains the historical background and purpose of international law governing forum non conveniens issues. The way courts use forum non conveniens as a defense mechanism and how courts have defined the doctrine in the context of international aviation is reviewed, along with ways plaintiffs have tried to defeat forum non conveniens. Next, the Cour de Cassation's recent opinion in West Caribbean and the sovereignty issues it creates is examined. The article concludes with a discussion of the current state of forum non conveniens and the need for policy for applying forum non conveniens in suits by foreigners in U.S. courts for air crashes occurring abroad.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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