Current Legal Problems in Interpreting International Civil Aviation Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The progress of international civil aviation law is anchored on two main sources: The Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention); and Resolutions adopted by the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). These two sources give rise to subsidiary guidance in the form of Annexes to the Convention and manuals on various subjects that address international civil aviation. However, there is no cohesive link between the two sources as well as there being no formal recognition by ICAO of the legal status of Assembly Resolutions, although such resolutions are adopted at each ICAO Assembly with monotonous regularity. Added to this conundrum is the lack of clarity in the interpretation of the Convention itself, which empowers the Council of ICAO to adopt Annexes to the Convention (which, according to the Convention are so named for convenience) while at the same time taking away any legal obligation of the member States to adhere to the Standards contained in the Annexes. This article discusses the nature of international civil aviation law against the backdrop of treaty law and examines the legal issues that arise from the interpretation of the Chicago Convention and Resolutions adopted by the ICAO Assembly.
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 | 0.069 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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.
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".