MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162628983 · doi:10.21070/ijler.v21i1.1445

The Legal Responsibility of the Air Carrier for the Damages Caused by Terrorist Operations

2025· article· W7162628983 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmed Jabbar Hadi Al-Allaq

Bibliographic record

VenueIndonesian Journal of Law and Economics Review · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrorismCivil aviationDamagesLiabilityLegal liabilityAviationMandateInternational lawAviation law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

General Background: Global security faces escalating threats from terrorism, particularly targeting air transport systems which constitute critical infrastructure for international commerce and communication. Specific Background: Terrorist incidents in aviation have proliferated, ranging from aircraft hijacking to in-flight sabotage, creating unprecedented challenges for determining civil liability frameworks under international conventions such as the 1999 Montreal Convention. Knowledge Gap: Despite extensive international legislation, ambiguity persists regarding the precise legal basis and extent of air carrier responsibility for damages resulting from terrorist acts during air transportation operations. Aims: This study examines the civil liability of air carriers for terrorism-related damages, analyzing international conventions and judicial precedents to determine accountability parameters throughout the air transport process. Results: The research establishes that carrier responsibility extends to terrorist incidents when adequate preventive security measures are not implemented, with liability encompassing both pre-incident negligence and post-incident failure to mitigate consequences, irrespective of foreign cause defenses. Novelty: The study adopts an expanded interpretation of "air accidents" that encompasses terrorism as carrier-related incidents rather than external events, thereby broadening the scope of compensable damages beyond traditional aviation accident frameworks. Implications: These findings mandate stricter carrier obligations for passenger protection, ensuring compensation accessibility for terrorism victims while promoting enhanced aviation security measures globally.Keywords : Air Carrier Liability, International Terrorism, Civil Aviation Security, Montreal Convention, Passenger CompensationHighlight : Air carriers bear responsibility when failing to implement necessary terrorist prevention measures. Montreal Convention 1999 combines fault-based and objective liability for passenger protection balance. Terrorist incidents qualify as air accidents warranting carrier compensation regardless of perpetrator prosecution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndonesian Journal of Law and Economics ReviewSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207