Bibliographic record
Abstract
By its nature, international air transport exposes carriers and their customers to risks that arise from crossing jurisdictional borders.For these reasons, treaties, such as the Montreal Convention 1999 (MC99), lay down provisions on jurisdiction aimed at securing uniformity while assuring an equitable balance of interests between stakeholders.However, these provisions have caused controversy and fuelled wasteful litigation over the matter of choice of forum in passenger claims.In this context, the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens (FNC) has been employed by defendants to defeat claimant passenger's choice of forum.This thesis critically examines whether FNC is consistent with MC99 and/or its policies.In so doing, the broader question of how to regulate choice of forum in international aviation litigation is analysed.It is argued that MC99, as the successor to the Warsaw Convention 1929, is predicated on an anachronistic understanding of itself as a discrete system grounded on the two-party paradigm of claimant passenger versus defendant carrier.It is demonstrated that this does not correspond to the reality of modern international aviation litigation where thirdparties play a critical role.Claimant passengers now have access to alternative remedies and with it, additional choices as to forum.In turn, the liability relationships between carriers and third parties (such as aircraft manufacturers) have evolved and bound them together, often in opposition to the claimant passenger.Behind the carrier and third parties stands the aviation insurer, calling the shots and pulling the strings.MC99 is merely a component of a bigger aviation accident passenger compensation system, the interdependency of which means that evaluating choice of forum under MC99 requires understanding this system's organization and operation.This thesis puts forward a proposal for reform which takes account of this bigger picture and will regulate choice of forum more equitably and efficiently.vi
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 | 0.024 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".