Is the Cargo Liability Limit Unbreakable under the Montreal Convention?: Implications of a Civil Case in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Air cargo claims have been handled under the international legal regime since the early 1930s when the Warsaw Convention was adopted. This liability regime later developed into a more modern instrument, i.e. the Montreal Convention 1999, which allegedly sets an unbreakable limit for cargo damage. Although such cargo liability limit under the Montreal Convention has been upheld by courts in many jurisdictions, efforts made by plaintiff lawyers to circumvent it have never ceased. In China, a Beijing Intermediate Court decided in an air cargo damage case that the airlines should not be entitled to the limit protection under the Montreal Convention and must indemnify the actual losses suffered by the plaintiff in accordance with the PRC Civil Aviation Law. This has been criticized by many practitioners for violating the intention of the drafters of the convention. The aim of this article is to look into the true meaning of the related provisions of the Montreal Convention by examining not only the convention itself, but also the judicial practices of other countries, and explore possible methods to clarify the legislative intent so as to avoid judicial uncertainty.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".