Arbitration in Air Cargo Transport Contracts: Between International Conventions and National Legislation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed considering the growing trends in the air cargo transport sector—to provide a concise summary of international arbitration's development as a workable substitute for resolving disputes arising from air cargo transport contracts. It also highlighted the innovative provisions introduced by international conventions regulating air arbitration, which differ from traditional arbitration rules. Based on this analysis, the study reached several conclusions and recommendations. The key findings indicated that arbitration in air transport disputes is inherently judicial arbitration, as it relies on strict legal rules under the Montreal Convention. Consequently, the relevant international conventions (Montreal and Warsaw) imply that arbitration in this field is limited to judicial arbitration, excluding amicable arbitration (conciliation), reflecting a clear trend toward restricting parties’ autonomy in arbitration agreements within air transport. The primary recommendation was the necessity to amend Jordanian legislation governing air cargo transport contracts and the Jordanian Arbitration Law by introducing specialized provisions for air cargo disputes and their arbitration mechanisms, as these are now essential for protecting affected parties.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".