MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

International legal regulation of the liability of an air carrier for a passenger’s checked baggage

2025· article· en· W4409949049 on OpenAlex

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 · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiabilityBusinessAir transportAeronauticsEngineeringAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of budget airlines has greatly changed the image of travelers, who no longer need to carry multiple suitcases. The decline in airfare prices has been accompanied by a shift to more minimalist travel. But baggage does not disappear from the contract of carriage. The International Air Telecommunications Company (hereinafter referred to as SITA) has highlighted in a statistical study that airlines lost 36.1 million pieces of baggage in 2023, of which 25 million were lost at European airports. The losses are estimated at 2.5 billion euros. The issues of transportation, storage and security of baggage are regulated by international legal mechanisms, the main sources of which are the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air of 28 May 1999. (hereinafter referred to as the Montreal Convention), implemented in Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 (as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002) and in the national legislation of the EU Member States. In the field of air passenger transport, two types of baggage are distinguished: checked baggage (delivered by the airline to the baggage hold) and hand baggage (carried on board with the passenger). This division of baggage was first normatively defined by the provisions of the Warsaw Convention of 1929 for the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air of 1929 (hereinafter referred to as the Warsaw Convention). The Montreal Convention accepts this dichotomy, which leads to two different liability regimes. Regulation 881/2002 amending Regulation 2027/97 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents provides in Article 3 §1 that the liability of air carriers for passengers and their baggage shall be governed by all the provisions of the Montreal Convention relating to such liability. The International Air Transport Association (hereinafter referred to as IATA) has developed a Passenger Handling Manual which contains resolutions and recommended practices for the handling of baggage, such as the requirement to indicate the cost of additional services. These resolutions are binding on IATA member airlines. The International Civil Aviation Organization (hereinafter referred to as ICAO) has established a list of dangerous goods, which is contained in Annex 18 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (1944 Chicago Convention) and in the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air. IATA has also developed rules for the Dangerous Goods Code, which aims to transform ICAO rules into practical guidance for airline procedures. All of these rules are contained in the General Conditions of Carriage, which are used by all air carriers.

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 score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.339 · 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