RESPONSIBILITY IN INTERNATIONAL AIR LAW: PROBLEMS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite big number of Russian and foreign publications on the issues of responsibility in international air law and international law, in general, these issues continue to be important and require further research, especially, in view of presentday complexity of relations governed by international air law. Based on the analysis of the Convention on International Civil Aviation of 1944, as well as dispute-settlement practice and documents of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) it is concluded that self-contained regime of State responsibility fully excluding rules of general international law on international responsibility will hardly develop in international air law in the foreseeable future. However, within the framework of international air law fully edged lex specialis on international responsibility, allowing application of general rules on international responsibility to the extent not covered by such lex specialis, can develop. Lack of these lex specialis on international responsibility in international air law, will lead to unlimited application of general rules on international responsibility, including, in particular, rules on compensation for damages, and such application will result in claiming damages caused, for instance, by aviation accident, from a State in addition to rather big compensations received by aviation accident victims through private liability mechanisms actively used in aviation. Moreover, in view of lack of lex specialis on State responsibility in international air law regional and private mechanisms of State responsibility and compensation for damages will be more frequently used.
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 | 0.033 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.124 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".