Still Far From Home – How Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine Undercuts The Montreal Convention’s “Fifth Jurisdiction” For “Wandering Americans”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid growth of global air travel in the mid-20th century gave rise to the problem of the “wandering American”—American residents whose air travel injury claims could not be heard in United States courts under the Warsaw Convention’s Article 28. Prominent cases prompted adoption of a “fifth jurisdiction” in the Montreal Convention’s Article 33, allowing injury suits in the Contracting State where an injured passenger had her “principal and permanent residence” so long as the international carrier served the forum. U.S. officials toasted their success in providing Americans with a domestic forum, but the adoption of the fifth jurisdiction did not finish the job. Even if an American plaintiff meets Article 33’s requirements, personal jurisdiction problems can bar the courthouse door. This article re-examines the problem of the “wandering American” and the fierce debates over the fifth jurisdiction at the 1999 International Conference on Air Law in Montreal through the lens of personal jurisdiction. It argues that the Montreal Convention would likely not have changed the results of prominent “wandering American” cases such as the shoot-down of Korean Air 007 or the hijacking of Air France 139. It comments on how the law is rapidly evolving as federal courts wrestle with whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) can better address the lack of “minimum contacts” carriers have with most U.S. states and the lack of causal connections between forum and claims. Finally, it considers how Congress or American aviation authorities can better align Montreal’s promise of a “fifth jurisdiction” with American jurisdictional law.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".