Forum Non Conveniens and the Warsaw Convention: Leaving the Turbulence Behind?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
FORUM NON CONVENIENSto dismiss international cases from domestic dockets, risks harming litigants and international law' 5 if such use is contrary to signatory expectations.When the conceptual analysis under that national law centers, as it does with FNC today, on relatively subjective and casespecific assessments of what constitutes "inconvenience," 16 the risk of erosion of international understandings by rising "j]urisdictional provincialism"' 7 is especially grave.The question of whether or not FNC is applicable under the 1999 Montreal Convention, which entered into force as of November 5, 2003 and replaces Warsaw, 18 has yet to be answered by courts.Because Montreal includes provisions similar to those giving rise to the Warsaw FNC controversy, plaintiffs bringing suit under Montreal can be expected to argue, in opposition to FNC motions to dismiss brought by defendants, that FNC is inapplicable.Critical to formulating arguments for and against FNC applicability under Montreal is an understanding of the evolution of the Warsaw FNC conflict.This Note will attempt to inform such an understanding by first, in Part II, reviewing the role of courts in implementing international agreements.The development of the doctrine of FNC will be discussed in Part III.The history of the Warsaw Convention and the Montreal modernization will be reviewed in Part IV, including the split of authority on the use of FNC under Warsaw.Part V will demonstrate that both the approach to treaty interpretation used by the Hosaka court and the decision it reached were reasonable and conducive to harmonization.The Note will conclude with observations about the anticipated controversy under Montreal. II. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTSWhen federal courts interpret a treaty to which the United States is a party, they should give considerable respect to the interpretation of the same treaty by the courts of other signatories.Otherwise the whole 15.
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 | 0.001 | 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".