Implications of Chinese Civil Cases on Article 35 of the Montreal Convention 1999
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The temporal provision outlined in Article 35 of the Montreal Convention 1999 (MC99) and Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention 1929 (WC29), which establishes a two-year period for the initiation of legal proceedings and specifies the method for calculating this period, has been a source of controversy since its introduction in the early twenteith century. Globally, judicial practices have debated its legal nature, specifically whether it constitutes a statute of limitations, or a statute of repose or a condition precedent. Chinese courts generally interpret it as a statute of limitations. Notably, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) in China has issued a relevant model case concerning a dispute over an international air carriage contract under MC99, which is remarked as a significant guidance for the resolution of similar cases. This article delves into Chinese domestic legal provisions and judicial practices regarding this matter. It begins by examining the notable Chinese model case, followed by a comparative analysis of practices in other jurisdictions. Finally, it seeks to identify the underlying causes and factors that have shaped Chinese legal practice, as well as to assess the broader implications and impacts of this approach.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".