Dualism, Science, and the Law: The Treatment of the Mind-Body Dichotomy under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The liability of air carriers in international transportation is governed by the Montreal Convention. The Convention treaty states that the carrier is liable for damages arising out of bodily injury. However, judicial opinion has ruled that the carrier is not liable for damages arising from emotional injury, unless that emotional injury is causally related to a bodily injury for which the carrier is liable. The article surveys the development of the law under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention (which preceded the Montreal Convention) as expounded by the U.S. Supreme Court and explores the concept of dualism and its underling presence in Article 17 litigation, as well as some of the popular philosophical counterarguments to dualism. Recent medical developments and court cases regarding neuroimaging and post-traumatic stress disorder are discussed. The Montreal Convention is discussed, including the intent of the signatories to continue to limit Article 17 as it was developed under the Warsaw Convention. This article argues that, despite challenges to the mind-body dichotomy, the courts have correctly rejected the argument that emotional damages are compensable under the Montreal Convention. The author concludes that the current state of the law under Article 17 strikes the correct balance between preventing a flood of emotional injury claims while providing appropriate compensation to victims of aviation accidents.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".