The Montreal Protocol 2014 and Current International Regulation Issues on Aviation Security
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the article is to provide an overview of the international regulation framework on aviation security in the light of the adoption of The Montreal Protocol 2014. Once in force it will amend The Tokyo Convention 1963 on offences and certain other unlawful acts committed on board aircraft. The article considers the main provisions of The Tokyo Convention adopted to cope with the increase of aircraft hijackings in the early 1960s, highlighting critical aspects. In addition, it covers the subsequent international legal instruments in the same field. Furthermore, the article focuses on the innovative provisions of The Montreal Protocol 2014 with particular regard to the scope of the Convention, definitions, jurisdiction, aircraft commander role and powers, Contracting States obligations, in-flight security officers and compensation for damages. The article also deals with the related issue on the fragmentation of the international framework on aviation security and its implementation. In this regard, the article takes into account the proposal to adopt a unique global convention and the introduction of binding common standard and recommended practices on aviation security. Finally, considerations are provided in respect to combining the «indirect enforcement system» adopted to implement the international regulation on aviation security in the national legal systems with a «direct enforcement system» through the establishment of an international tribunal. To avoid the increase of ad hoc international courts it is decisive to establish a permanent international criminal tribunal for the enforcement of the International Criminal Law. Pending the achievement of an entirely integrated «direct enforcement system», the complementary jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court could be extended to the offences and unlawful acts against civil aviation security which are at present excluded as other treaty crimes. Even though the system adopted by the International Criminal Court is not an «indirect enforcement system», but instead is dependent on interstate criminal cooperation.
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 | 0.025 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".