Evaluating Air Passenger Rights under Saudi Arabian Law in Light of International Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research evaluates air passenger rights laws in Saudi Arabia. The research was motivated by the absence of clear interpretations or applications of the applicable laws, as well as by the complex nature of passenger rights legislation which often overlaps with international legal elements and aims at harmonising regulatory standards. Additionally, the lack of a legal foundation, specifically in the form of consumer protection laws, has prevented passengers from fully enjoying their rights. The objective of this research is to assess the effectiveness of air passenger protection under Saudi law and explore how it can be enhanced by aligning with international best practices. To answer this core question, the study adopts a doctrinal and analytical legal methodology. This thesis critically and analytically examines both the international and domestic frameworks for passenger rights. At the international level, the research focuses on the 1999 Montreal Convention and studies international legal interpretations of its provisions in order to assess the extent of legal protection it offers passengers. At the national level, the study offers a critical and analytical review of the Passenger Rights Protection Regulations 2023, with lessons drawn from international best practices. The research demonstrates an urgent need and high potential for developing national regulations to ensure that air passengers enjoy the rights to which they are entitled. It also highlights the necessity of improving judicial efficiency as it plays a crucial role in enabling passengers to obtain their legal rights. This thesis presents several proposals for interpreting legal texts in a way that reduces ambiguity and addresses legal issues that the current regulations fail to adequately cover, thereby ensuring stronger protection for air passenger rights.
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 | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".