Limitation of Actions and Air Passenger Rights in Thailand: Importing the Law but Leaving Judicial Reasoning Behind
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article comparatively analyses limitations regarding the submission of passenger claims in Thailand and the EU. Thailand transposed EU Regulation 261/2004 on denied boarding, delay and cancellation of flights into its national law. Since EU Regulation 261/2004 does not contain any provision referring to a statute of limitations for legal actions, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) found that the limitation period was governed, and continues to be governed, by the domestic law of each Member State, as opposed to the Montreal Convention of 1999 which prescribes a single standard for limitation period. Despite importing this piece of secondary EU legislation, the Thai judicial branch has, so far, not followed the said CJEU judgment. The Thai court selected the two-year limitation period under its domestic law which implemented the Montreal Convention of 1999. Since this lack of harmonization does not benefit the orderly development of international civil aviation, this author suggests that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) should take action. Limitation of Actions, Air Passenger Rights, Thailand, Denied Boarding, Time Bar
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".