MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W283114578

Montreal v. Brussels: The Conflict of Laws on the Issue of Delay in International Air Carriage

2010· article· en· W283114578 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul Stephen Dempsey, Svante O. Johansson

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawUltra viresLiabilityConventionBusinessCommissionDamagesPolitical scienceDoctrine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the European Union has promulgated several ‘consumer protection’ regulations that address a variety of airline passenger issues, including flight delay, cancellation, and denied boarding. In 2002, the Commission proposed a new regulation regarding air carriage that eventually became Regulation (EC) 261/2004, repealing the old Regulation (EEC) 295/91. Its purpose is to compensate passengers suffering the inconvenience of being delayed or refused boarding through mandatory payment and provision of certain auxiliary services. More precisely, the Regulation requires airlines to grant financial compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding or flight delay or cancellation, assist them in revising their travel plans by giving them the choice between a rescheduling of the ticket or a refund, and pay for their board and lodging. However desirable this new Regulation may be, it raises serious legal questions regarding the relation with the international conventions that address carrier liability for passenger injuries, including delay in air carriage. Those Conventions for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (i.e., the Warsaw Convention of 1929 and the Montreal Convention of 1999) directly address the issue of air carrier compensation to passengers for damages suffered as a consequence of ‘delay’ and also explicitly provide that the remedies provided thereunder are exclusive. All Member States of the EU have ratified those Conventions. For Brussels to promulgate regulations in conflict with those Conventions would contravene the obligations of its EU Member States and therefore be ultra vires. This article examines the EU Regulations regarding delay in air passenger carriage contrasted with their international counterpart. As the regulations have begun to produce judicial opinions, the effect of the different regulations in the light of these cases will also be evaluated. The overall thesis is that such complementary regulations, in so far as they cover the same area as a convention, conflicts with the international conventions and the exclusivity of their application.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207