The Modernisation of Air Carrier Liability: Is the New Montreal Convention the Humble Successor to the Warsaw System?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For seventy years, the Convention on the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, more commonly known as the Warsaw Convention (1929) was the most important treaty regulating the relations of private international air law, which was replaced by a new international treaty, the Montreal Convention (1999).Of the international treaties of private law drafted under the guidance of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the Montreal Convention is at present the most important treaty of private international air law.Its peculiarity is hidden in its legal institutions, which support the universal predominance of the Montreal Convention.The lawmaker introduced legal institutions familiar from the Warsaw Convention and utterly new ones, all of which targeted its ratification by as many countries as possible so that private international legal unification in the area of air law can be accomplished in the broadest possible scope.The author unfolds the definitive features of the Warsaw Convention and the phases of its modernisation.His goal consists partly in the introduction of the unquestionably manifold ways the Montreal Convention drew upon the Warsaw Convention and its amendments, but he also emphasises that as a new, renascent international source of law it guarantees rights and creates obligations in conformity with the challenges of our days.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".