Air carrier liability : unfinished unification of private international air law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 31 November 2003 the 1999 Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air entered into force. Its purpose was to consolidate and modernize the Warsaw system and to reunify the provisions of several international instruments of private international air law under one legal instrument. The Montreal Convention consolidates the positive elements of the Warsaw Convention, the Hague Protocol, the Guadalajara Convention, the Guatemala City Protocol and Additional Protocol Numbers 3 and 4. It also simplifies and modernizes the requirements of documentation relating to the carriage by air of passengers, baggage and cargo. Most importantly, the Montreal Convention modernizes of the liability regime for death and injury to passengers by adopting the passenger liability regime in the IATA Inter-carrier Agreement. It also modernizes the liability regime for damage to baggage and cargo and the delay. In spite of the foregoing, the Montreal Convention fails to advance the unification of private international air law any further than the Warsaw Convention. This thesis analyzes the provisions of liability regimes under the Warsaw System and the 1999 Montreal Convention. Chapter one studies the liability regime established under the original Warsaw Convention and the subsequent attempts by states, air carriers and other interested entities to update it. Chapter two analyzes the new regime of unlimited liability established by the 1999 Montreal Convention. Chapter three examines the liability of the air carrier for damage caused by terrorist activities. In an effort to demonstrate the innovative elements of the new Convention and to encourage states to ratify it, chapter four surveys the main benefits that have accrued to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its national air carrier upon ratification of the 1999 Montreal Convention.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".