MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

System of legal regulation of international air transportation

2024· article· en· W4402202315 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Y. L. Nazarenko

Bibliographic record

VenueUzhhorod National University Herald Series Law · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessAir transportLaw and economicsAeronauticsEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Warsaw Convention of 1929 for the unification of certain rules of international air transport is the basis of the legal regulation of international air transport. Agreements supplementing the Warsaw Convention: Hague Protocol of 1955, Guatemala Protocol of 1971 amending the Warsaw Convention, Guadalajara Convention of 1961, Montreal Protocol for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (1975). The Montreal Interim Airline Agreement of 1966, the Montreal Agreement of 1999. The set of norms of these agreements as a whole constitutes the Warsaw System of Regulation of International Air Transport. IATA – a special non-governmental organization, an association of airlines of ICAO member states – is responsible for determining the specific conditions of international air transportation. On May 28, 1999, a significant event took place in the field of international private air law: as a result of the three-week work of the Diplomatic Conference on Air Law held at the ICAO headquarters with the participation of representatives of 121 states and 11 international aviation organizations, the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of International Aviation Law was adopted of air transportation (Montreal Convention of 1999), which defines the basic legal conditions of international air transportation in the 21st century. Scientific and technical progress, the rapid development of international air transport, the increase in the safety of its operation made it necessary to expand the scope and more clearly regulate the responsibility of the carrier. This international Convention is designed to provide firm legal guarantees and an adequate level of compensation to persons injured as a result of aviation events, to create a uniform and clear legal regime of responsibility of air carriers for failure to preserve cargo, baggage and delay during their transportation on international lines. On November 4, 2003, the Montreal Convention entered into force. Among the participants of the Convention are such countries as the USA, Japan, Canada, China, the countries of the European Union, including Ukraine. The article examines the early development of the aviation industry and the role of the Warsaw Convention in the construction of rules and mechanisms aimed at protecting the interests of both the carrier and the passenger or cargo owner. The development of the norms of the Warsaw Convention in various protocols is revealed. Such as the Hague Protocol (1955), the Guadalajara Convention (1961), the Guatemala City Protocol (1971) and the Montreal Four Protocols (1975), which significantly modernized the provisions on air transport regulations, as seen in the Montreal Convention (1999).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUzhhorod National University Herald Series LawSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207