The Saudi Passenger Rights Regulation of 2023 "A Critical Analytical Study"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
objective: The main objective of the article is to analyze the provisions contained in the Passenger Rights Regulation. The article supports the legislation of these regulations because it facilitates the continuous adaptation of passenger rights. However, the article criticizes the lack of precision in defining the interaction between the legal rules applicable to international air travel and domestic passenger air travel. Such internal regulations that apply to cross-border air travel can, in some cases, encourage conflicting laws. Theoretical reference: The study extensively analyzed the 2017 and 2023 Passenger Rights Protection Regulations in comparison with international laws governing air transport, referencing relevant scholarly works. Methodology: The study used an analytical approach, examining the 2017 and 2023 Passenger Rights Protection Regulations and comparing them with international laws governing air transport, incorporating insights from relevant studies. Results and Conclusion: The internal regulations governing cross-border air travel, as critiqued, have the potential to engender conflicting legal frameworks. Moreover, the recently enacted 2023 Passenger Rights Regulation is scrutinized for its lack of a feedback mechanism, a crucial element for future regulatory amendments. The article further underscores the regulatory misalignment with international agreements governing international air transportation, indicating that these internal regulations do not comprehensively and equitably safeguard the rights of all passengers. For legislation to serve as a catalyst for innovative and apt legal frameworks in the advancement of air transportation operations and passenger rights, it is imperative that such internal regulations be all-encompassing, non-conflicting with existing legal norms, incorporate a robust feedback system, and ensure the exhaustive protection of passenger rights. Implications of research: The article critically evaluates current passenger rights systems by shedding light on their weaknesses and the lack of communication between national and international laws related to air travel. Additionally, it conducts a comparative analysis between the passenger rights systems of 2017 and 2023, detailing the changes and their impact on the relationship between local and international laws. The article addresses deficiencies in the new 2023 legislation, such as the absence of a feedback system and its non-alignment with international agreements, highlighting the need for improvement to ensure greater comprehensiveness and alignment with developments. Originality/value: This study stands out as the sole examination of passenger rights in Saudi law according to the 2023 regulations. It offers solutions to achieve harmony between national laws and international agreements, as well as the potential for continuous improvement of rules within the scope of a perpetually evolving application.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".