Montreal v. Brussels: The Conflict of Laws on the Issue of Delay in International Air Carriage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".