<i>Montreal v. Brussels</i>: The Conflict of Laws on the Issue of Delay in International Air Carriage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the European Union (EU) has promulgated several ‘consumer protection’ regulations that address a variety of airline passenger issues, including flight delay, cancellation, and denied boarding. The new rules require 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, both the Warsaw and the Montreal Conventions for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air directly address the issue of air carrier compensation to passengers for damages suffered as a consequence of ‘delay’, and explicitly provide that the remedies specified therein are exclusive. As all Member States of the EU have ratified those Conventions, it would seem that the promulgation of conflicting EU Regulations raises serious legal questions regarding the relation with the international conventions. The overall conclusion the authors draw from the examination of the EU Regulations and the case law they produced is that EU law conflicts with the international conventions and the exclusivity of their application. The position of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in interpreting the EU Regulations does not facilitate a uniform application of different rules. In case after case, the Court has stated that the jurisprudence surrounding the Warsaw and the Montreal Conventions, broadly speaking, is irrelevant when interpreting the Regulations. It is incomprehensible that these Regulations, and their interpretation by the ECJ, would be so fundamentally inconsistent with the explicit provisions of the Conventions. If the Court had taken a more consensual approach, the EU rules might have complemented, rather than conflicted with, the Conventions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".