MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125444212

International Air Cargo & Baggage Liability and the Tower of Babel

2004· article· en· W3125444212 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul Stephen Dempsey

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawLiabilityTreatyConventionInternational lawPolitical scienceAviationAviation lawNothingTower of BabelEngineeringPublic international lawHistoryPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Then the Lord said, now, while they are one people, all speaking the same language, they have started to [build the Tower of Babel], nothing will later stop them from doing whatever they presume to do. Let us then go down and there confuse their language, so that one will not understand what another says. Genesis 11:6 I. INTRODUCTION From its inception in the late 1920s, the overriding purpose of private international aviation law has been to create uniformity of law across jurisdictions-to erect, in effect, a single Babylonian temple in which all disputes would be resolved uniformly no matter where they arose. A unified liability regime was indeed created by the world community in the Warsaw Convention of 1929.' Over the ensuing decades, efforts to update this legal regime have led to fragmentation rather than unification, with different nations adhering to differing versions of the Warsaw Convention and its various reformulations. Today, the question of which law to apply-an issue of tremendous importance to the resolution of aviation loss and damage disputes-is anything but uniform or simple. In order to determine which international or domestic liability regime to apply, one must assess whether the air transportation in question was international in character. If so, the international liability regime governing the origin and destination States will apply, provided the two States have ratified the same treaty. At this writing, there are numerous possibilities: * The original Warsaw Convention of 1929, unamended;a * The Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol of 1955;3 * The Warsaw Convention as amended by the Guadalajara Convention of 1961 ;4 * The Warsaw Convention as amended by Montreal Protocol No. 4 (MP4) of 1975;5 * The Montreal Convention of 1999/' or * Domestic law, if it is deemed that the transportation falls outside the Warsaw regime or if the two relevant States have failed to ratify the same liability convention.7 The first four of these shall be referred to herein as the Warsaw regime,8 as the Hague Protocol, the Guadalajara Convention, and Montreal Protocol No. 4 (MP4) attempted to build liability rules upon the foundation of the original Warsaw Convention. For the United States, effective March 4, 1999, international aviation cargo liability law became governed by the original Warsaw Convention, as amended by the Hague Protocol, as amended by MP4. Then, on November 4, 2003, the United States became subject to the Montreal Convention of 1999, which entered into force on that date. This Article addresses the complexity of international air cargo disputes. We begin with a review of the the origins and purposes of this private international law regime, and the historical evolution of law. This shall be followed by an examination of the plaintiffs, and then the defendant's, elements of proof. At the outset, it should be emphasized that most of the controversy arising around the Warsaw regime, and the inability of the world community to come to consensus as to what rules to apply, has resulted from the niggardly treatment of amounts recoverable for passenger liability. Hopefully, the recent entry into force of the Montreal Convention of 1999 will re-establish the international legal uniformity the Warsaw Convention of 1929 sought to achieve, though for a transitional period at least, the courts of different nations will be applying different legal regimes. II. THE WARSAW CONVENTION & PROGENY A. Origins of Warsaw Legal rules of carrier liability in international air transport owe their origin to the efforts of a number of international aeronautical organizations in the 1920s, during the infancy of commercial aviation, to create a uniform legal regime, and shield carriers from potentially devastating aviation disaster damage awards. The First International Conference of Private Air Law was held in Paris in 1925. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.012
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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