The European Union and the Montreal Convention: A New Analytical Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The European Union (EU)'s involvement in the regulation of international air travel has been met with near-universal opprobrium. There is a surprising degree of consensus amongst academic commentators that legislative and judicial developments have caused considerable harm by upsetting a pre-existing international bargain. At the same time, a change of direction in the near future appears highly unlikely. This apparent deadlock is addressed by a new analytical framework, building on the idea that the various challenges traditionally analyzed as problems for the Montreal Convention may in fact present significant opportunities for the future development of a unified regulatory regime. Seen thus, the EU serves as a laboratory for regulatory innovation, ensures high-level clarification and updates in line with economic and social developments as regards the meaning of key concepts, and - at long last - raised the prospect of an internationally unified jurisprudence on the interpretation of Convention norms. Three perceived challenges are analyzed thus, beginning with the provisions on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights as laid down in Regulation 261/2004. A subsequent section turns to the question of the Montreal regime's exclusivity. Analyzed through the proposed framework, the challenges are less severe than often thought; the resulting potential for conflict has already begun to lead to a search for a clearer and more principled settlement of the outer boundaries of the Convention's application. A final section then looks at the Court's recent assertion of jurisdiction over the substantive interpretation of Convention provisions. This approach will help to overcome one of the oldest problems inherent in the hybrid nature of the Montreal regime: the divergence in domestic courts' interpretation of a uniform text.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".