MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

International legal mechanisms for ensuring the responsibility of the air carrier before the passenger

2024· article· en· W4403403042 on OpenAlex
Y. L. Nazarenko

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical and Comparative Jurisprudence · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liability to passengers and cargo owners for damage caused during international air transportation is primarily borne by the carrier. From the content of the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions, it follows that the carrier can be any natural or legal person who has concluded a contract of carriage with the passenger or the consignor of the cargo and carries out this carriage on a remuneration basis. Reasons are required for the carrier to be liable as a party performing the contract. The plaintiff, who demands compensation, must prove the fact of breach of obligation by his counterparty, the presence and amount of damage, as well as the cause-and- effect relationship between the offense and the damage. However, the defendant (carrier) has the right to prove the absence of his fault and refer to the limitation of his liability. The Warsaw (1929) and Montreal (2009) conventions contain relatively detailed and fairly clear instructions on the carrier’s liability, establishing the grounds for exemption from it and, in most cases, limiting its size by the so-called relaxations in the air carrier’s liability regime. Like the norms of the internal transport legislation of the states, the norms of the conventions are of an imperative nature, with equal protection of the interests of consumers of services provided by transport organizations, and even the complexity of transport operation technologies, the mass of operations and the risks associated with the use of vehicles. This article examines the question of the extent to which international conventions and rules determining the liability of air carrier passengers have been successfully harmonized at the international level and eliminated the conflict of law problem, as well as the degree of development and effectiveness of these international conventions and rules, norms for ensuring the liability of air carriers to air passengers. Summarizing, the author notes that the Montreal Convention improves the situation of passengers and cargo owners, eliminates complications with lengthy court processes, to the advantage of the Warsaw Convention, which is somewhat outdated and does not correspond to today’s realities. The new convention strengthens competition in the air transport market, increases the responsibility of airlines to passengers and removes restrictions on compensation for loss of baggage or damage to the life and health of passengers, significantly simplifying the mechanism of obtaining it.

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.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.323 · 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