Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0892679421000071
Y. Saghai
Abstract Will we, by 2050, be able to feed a rapidly growing population with healthy and sustainably grown food in a world threatened by systemic environmental crises? There are too many uncertainties for us to predict the long-term evolution of the global agri-food system, but we can explore a wide range of futures to inform policymaking and public debate on the future of food. This is typically done by creating scenarios (story lines that vividly describe what different futures could look like) and quantifying them with computer simulation models to get numerical estimates of how different aspects of the global agri-food system might evolve under different hypotheses. Among the many scenarios produced over the last twenty years, one would expect to see the future advocated by the food sovereignty movement, which claims to represent roughly two hundred million self-described “peasants” (small farmers) worldwide. This movement defends a vision of the future based on relocalized, sustainable, and just agri-food systems, self-governed through direct and participatory democratic processes. Yet, food sovereignty is conspicuously absent from quantified scenarios of global food futures. As part of the roundtable, “Ethics and the Future of the Global Food System,” this essay identifies seven obstacles that undermine the creation of food sovereignty scenarios by examining two attempts at crafting such scenarios.
{"title":"Subversive Future Seeks Like-Minded Model: On the Mismatch between Visions of Food Sovereignty Futures and Quantified Scenarios of Global Food Futures","authors":"Y. Saghai","doi":"10.1017/S0892679421000071","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679421000071","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Will we, by 2050, be able to feed a rapidly growing population with healthy and sustainably grown food in a world threatened by systemic environmental crises? There are too many uncertainties for us to predict the long-term evolution of the global agri-food system, but we can explore a wide range of futures to inform policymaking and public debate on the future of food. This is typically done by creating scenarios (story lines that vividly describe what different futures could look like) and quantifying them with computer simulation models to get numerical estimates of how different aspects of the global agri-food system might evolve under different hypotheses. Among the many scenarios produced over the last twenty years, one would expect to see the future advocated by the food sovereignty movement, which claims to represent roughly two hundred million self-described “peasants” (small farmers) worldwide. This movement defends a vision of the future based on relocalized, sustainable, and just agri-food systems, self-governed through direct and participatory democratic processes. Yet, food sovereignty is conspicuously absent from quantified scenarios of global food futures. As part of the roundtable, “Ethics and the Future of the Global Food System,” this essay identifies seven obstacles that undermine the creation of food sovereignty scenarios by examining two attempts at crafting such scenarios.","PeriodicalId":11772,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & International Affairs","volume":"243 1","pages":"51 - 67"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77419370","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0892679421000125
Adam Henschke
Abstract It is a long-held belief that states must retain the monopoly over political violence in order to be states, and to survive. However, there are recent criticisms of this view forcing us to consider not just the state's use of political violence but the very nature of the state. Elizabeth Frazer and Kimberly Hutchings's Can Political Violence Ever Be Justified? argues that it cannot. Ned Dobos's Ethics, Security, and the War-Machine raises a series of arguments against states having standing militaries, and Alex Vitale's The End of Policing similarly raises a series of arguments against the institution of the police. In this review essay, I suggest that these arguments all force us to revisit the very nature of the state. There are concerns about simply abolishing these institutions of political violence, but we can indeed conceive of states without the monopoly on violence.
{"title":"Rethinking the Nature of States and Political Violence","authors":"Adam Henschke","doi":"10.1017/S0892679421000125","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679421000125","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It is a long-held belief that states must retain the monopoly over political violence in order to be states, and to survive. However, there are recent criticisms of this view forcing us to consider not just the state's use of political violence but the very nature of the state. Elizabeth Frazer and Kimberly Hutchings's Can Political Violence Ever Be Justified? argues that it cannot. Ned Dobos's Ethics, Security, and the War-Machine raises a series of arguments against states having standing militaries, and Alex Vitale's The End of Policing similarly raises a series of arguments against the institution of the police. In this review essay, I suggest that these arguments all force us to revisit the very nature of the state. There are concerns about simply abolishing these institutions of political violence, but we can indeed conceive of states without the monopoly on violence.","PeriodicalId":11772,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & International Affairs","volume":"30 1","pages":"145 - 158"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73642850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0892679421000496
Péter Bálint
Peter Balint is convenor of the International Ethics Research Group and a senior lecturer in international and political studies at UNSW Canberra. His most recent book is Respecting Toleration: Traditional Liberalism and Contemporary Diversity (), which the Australian Political Studies Association awarded a Crisp Prize in . He is a founding member of the Global Justice Network and a regular editor of its journal, Global Justice: Theory, Practice, Rhetoric. p.balint@unsw.edu.au
{"title":"Contributors","authors":"Péter Bálint","doi":"10.1017/s0892679421000496","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0892679421000496","url":null,"abstract":"Peter Balint is convenor of the International Ethics Research Group and a senior lecturer in international and political studies at UNSW Canberra. His most recent book is Respecting Toleration: Traditional Liberalism and Contemporary Diversity (), which the Australian Political Studies Association awarded a Crisp Prize in . He is a founding member of the Global Justice Network and a regular editor of its journal, Global Justice: Theory, Practice, Rhetoric. p.balint@unsw.edu.au","PeriodicalId":11772,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & International Affairs","volume":"8 1","pages":"325 - 327"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82910320","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0892679421000010
Sea Young Kim, Leif-Eric Easley
Abstract North Korea references gender equality in its socialist constitution, but the de facto social and legal circumstances that women face in the country are far below the de jure status they are purported to enjoy. North Korean women endure extremely low public health standards and pervasive harassment. Yet their growing market power and social influence are underestimated. Women account for the majority of North Korean border crossers, and their informal economic activities are supporting families while modernizing the economy. This essay examines the dangers of exploitation that North Korean women face and highlights the ethical and legal imperatives of supporting their roles in marketizing the economy and liberalizing the society in one of the worst human rights–violating states. Women are North Korea's most deserving recipients of international assistance and the country's most promising partners to the world.
{"title":"The Neglected North Korean Crisis: Women's Rights","authors":"Sea Young Kim, Leif-Eric Easley","doi":"10.1017/s0892679421000010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0892679421000010","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract North Korea references gender equality in its socialist constitution, but the de facto social and legal circumstances that women face in the country are far below the de jure status they are purported to enjoy. North Korean women endure extremely low public health standards and pervasive harassment. Yet their growing market power and social influence are underestimated. Women account for the majority of North Korean border crossers, and their informal economic activities are supporting families while modernizing the economy. This essay examines the dangers of exploitation that North Korean women face and highlights the ethical and legal imperatives of supporting their roles in marketizing the economy and liberalizing the society in one of the worst human rights–violating states. Women are North Korea's most deserving recipients of international assistance and the country's most promising partners to the world.","PeriodicalId":11772,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & International Affairs","volume":"22 1","pages":"19 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89548413","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0892679421000307
Achille Mbembe, Ermelinda Liberato
Extraordinary! This is how we can characterize the present work of Achille Mbembe, a well-known and recognized African philosopher, political scientist, historian, intellectual, professor and researcher, in this work that, although it was originally published in French in 2010, only in 2014 was translated into Portuguese, a boldness by the Mulemba Editions of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the Universidade Agostinho Neto (FCS-UAN – Angola), in collaboration with Edições Pedago (Portugal). Through a fluid, assertive, firm and descriptive narrative, Achille Mbembe proposes, therefore, to make a general check up on the health status of the continent, both in physical, emotional and affective levels, analyzing key issues and at the same time the sensitive, such as colonization, decolonization, miscegenation, among others. The author thus clearly delineates a rigorously well-founded and bibliographically well-documented theoretical framework, equipped with contradictions and ambiguities, which at the bottom constitute the characteristics of the continent itself, which forces us to reflect more deeply and carefully. The general objective of the work, the “interrogation about the decolonized community” (p. 19), is presented to us right in the introduction (p. 19-30) where the author reinforces the position on the need for debate and criticism around the subject matter. To this end, it begins by characterizing the concept
{"title":"Out of the Dark Night: Essays on Decolonization, Achille Mbembe (New York: Columbia University Press, 2021), 280 pp., cloth $30, eBook $29.99.","authors":"Achille Mbembe, Ermelinda Liberato","doi":"10.1017/s0892679421000307","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0892679421000307","url":null,"abstract":"Extraordinary! This is how we can characterize the present work of Achille Mbembe, a well-known and recognized African philosopher, political scientist, historian, intellectual, professor and researcher, in this work that, although it was originally published in French in 2010, only in 2014 was translated into Portuguese, a boldness by the Mulemba Editions of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the Universidade Agostinho Neto (FCS-UAN – Angola), in collaboration with Edições Pedago (Portugal). Through a fluid, assertive, firm and descriptive narrative, Achille Mbembe proposes, therefore, to make a general check up on the health status of the continent, both in physical, emotional and affective levels, analyzing key issues and at the same time the sensitive, such as colonization, decolonization, miscegenation, among others. The author thus clearly delineates a rigorously well-founded and bibliographically well-documented theoretical framework, equipped with contradictions and ambiguities, which at the bottom constitute the characteristics of the continent itself, which forces us to reflect more deeply and carefully. The general objective of the work, the “interrogation about the decolonized community” (p. 19), is presented to us right in the introduction (p. 19-30) where the author reinforces the position on the need for debate and criticism around the subject matter. To this end, it begins by characterizing the concept","PeriodicalId":11772,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & International Affairs","volume":"9 1","pages":"321 - 322"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89137069","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0892679421000186
Austin Carson
Transparency in international organizations (IOs) is at the top of the list of practices traditionally thought to comprise good governance and is often argued to be associated with greater accountability to their member states and enhanced information sharing among the states. However, in Secrets in Global Governance, Allison Carnegie and Austin Carson use information from interviews and new data on the sensitive datatransparency practices of different IOs to argue that, paradoxically, confidentiality systems, which are designed to protect sensitive intelligence and economic information, actually increase an IO’s policing power and ability to punish states and private firms that break the rules-based order. Carnegie and Carson analyze why countries and firms may not feel comfortable sharing information with IOs, even if doing so would absolve them of accusations or incriminate a rival, or would allow the IO to punish a rule breaker, such as an accused war criminal. While member states may choose to share such information, they also run the risk that the information could be leaked, allowing their rivals to adapt their practices, which happened, for example, when Bosnian Serbs destroyed mass graves after Germany released surveillance photos showing evidence of the graves (p. ). Through reviewing case studies in four areas of international relations (nuclear nonproliferation, international trade, international war crime tribunals, and foreign direct investment), Carnegie and Carson analyze under what conditions states and nonstate actors share sensitive information with IOs, and whether the sharing of sensitive information increases compliance or cooperation within that IO. Each case study examines an international organization’s ability to uphold its rules-based order after confidentiality systems are introduced, or taken away, through reforms. For example, the authors explain how in the early s, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), spurred by the discovery of a clandestine nuclear weapons development program in Iraq, shifted from verifying members’ selfreported nuclear activities to accepting intelligence provided by member states about other members. This shift resulted in the IAEA being able to act on intelligence provided by the United States and to insist on visiting additional nuclear sites in Iran during an IAEA inspection.
{"title":"Secrets in Global Governance: Disclosure Dilemmas and the Challenge of International Cooperation in World Politics, Allison Carnegie and Austin Carson (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 362 pp., $99.99 cloth, $34.99 paperback.","authors":"Austin Carson","doi":"10.1017/s0892679421000186","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0892679421000186","url":null,"abstract":"Transparency in international organizations (IOs) is at the top of the list of practices traditionally thought to comprise good governance and is often argued to be associated with greater accountability to their member states and enhanced information sharing among the states. However, in Secrets in Global Governance, Allison Carnegie and Austin Carson use information from interviews and new data on the sensitive datatransparency practices of different IOs to argue that, paradoxically, confidentiality systems, which are designed to protect sensitive intelligence and economic information, actually increase an IO’s policing power and ability to punish states and private firms that break the rules-based order. Carnegie and Carson analyze why countries and firms may not feel comfortable sharing information with IOs, even if doing so would absolve them of accusations or incriminate a rival, or would allow the IO to punish a rule breaker, such as an accused war criminal. While member states may choose to share such information, they also run the risk that the information could be leaked, allowing their rivals to adapt their practices, which happened, for example, when Bosnian Serbs destroyed mass graves after Germany released surveillance photos showing evidence of the graves (p. ). Through reviewing case studies in four areas of international relations (nuclear nonproliferation, international trade, international war crime tribunals, and foreign direct investment), Carnegie and Carson analyze under what conditions states and nonstate actors share sensitive information with IOs, and whether the sharing of sensitive information increases compliance or cooperation within that IO. Each case study examines an international organization’s ability to uphold its rules-based order after confidentiality systems are introduced, or taken away, through reforms. For example, the authors explain how in the early s, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), spurred by the discovery of a clandestine nuclear weapons development program in Iraq, shifted from verifying members’ selfreported nuclear activities to accepting intelligence provided by member states about other members. This shift resulted in the IAEA being able to act on intelligence provided by the United States and to insist on visiting additional nuclear sites in Iran during an IAEA inspection.","PeriodicalId":11772,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & International Affairs","volume":"49 1","pages":"169 - 170"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90949429","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0892679421000368
Péter Bálint
Abstract Just war theory has traditionally focused on jus ad bellum (the justice of war) and jus in bello (justice in war). What has been neglected is the question of jus ante bellum, or justice before war. In particular: Under what circumstances is it justifiable for a polity to prepare for war by militarizing? When (if ever) and why (if at all) is it morally permissible or even obligatory to create and maintain the potential to wage war? What are the alternatives to the military? And if we do have militaries, how should they be arranged, trained, and equipped? These considerations are not about whether war making is justified, but about whether war building is justified. In Ethics, Security, and the War-Machine, Ned Dobos argues that we have not sufficiently calculated the true (noneconomic) costs of the military, and that if we did, having a standing defense force would not seem like as good an idea. Dobos pushes us to reflect on something we have taken for granted: that one of the biggest institutions in our society, which is supposed to keep us safe and allow us to lead our own lives, may in fact pose great dangers and risks to us physically, morally, and culturally. The essays in this symposium take Dobos's work as a starting point and show the importance, complexity, and richness of this new strand of ethical inquiry.
传统的正义战争理论主要关注战争正义(jus ad bellum)和战争正义(jus in bello)。被忽视的是战争前的正义问题。特别是:在什么情况下，一个政体通过军事化来准备战争是合理的?什么时候(如果有的话)和为什么(如果有的话)在道德上允许甚至是必须创造和维持发动战争的可能性?除了参军还有什么选择?如果我们真的有军队，他们应该如何安排、训练和装备?这些考虑不是关于战争是否合理，而是关于战争建设是否合理。在《伦理、安全和战争机器》一书中，Ned Dobos认为，我们没有充分计算出军事的真实(非经济)成本，如果我们这样做了，那么拥有一支常备防御力量似乎就不是个好主意。Dobos促使我们反思一些我们认为理所当然的事情:我们社会中最大的机构之一，本应保护我们的安全，允许我们过自己的生活，但实际上可能在身体上、道德上和文化上给我们带来巨大的危险和风险。本次研讨会的论文以Dobos的工作为起点，展示了这一新的伦理探究的重要性、复杂性和丰富性。
{"title":"Introduction: Is a Military Really Worth Having?","authors":"Péter Bálint","doi":"10.1017/S0892679421000368","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679421000368","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Just war theory has traditionally focused on jus ad bellum (the justice of war) and jus in bello (justice in war). What has been neglected is the question of jus ante bellum, or justice before war. In particular: Under what circumstances is it justifiable for a polity to prepare for war by militarizing? When (if ever) and why (if at all) is it morally permissible or even obligatory to create and maintain the potential to wage war? What are the alternatives to the military? And if we do have militaries, how should they be arranged, trained, and equipped? These considerations are not about whether war making is justified, but about whether war building is justified. In Ethics, Security, and the War-Machine, Ned Dobos argues that we have not sufficiently calculated the true (noneconomic) costs of the military, and that if we did, having a standing defense force would not seem like as good an idea. Dobos pushes us to reflect on something we have taken for granted: that one of the biggest institutions in our society, which is supposed to keep us safe and allow us to lead our own lives, may in fact pose great dangers and risks to us physically, morally, and culturally. The essays in this symposium take Dobos's work as a starting point and show the importance, complexity, and richness of this new strand of ethical inquiry.","PeriodicalId":11772,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & International Affairs","volume":"42 1","pages":"343 - 352"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78796223","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0892679421000423
C. Finlay
Abstract Proponents of nonviolent tactics often highlight the extent to which they rival arms as effective means of resistance. Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, for instance, compare civil resistance favorably to armed insurrection as means of bringing about progressive political change. In Ethics, Security, and the War-Machine, Ned Dobos cites their work in support of the claim that similar methods—organized according to Gene Sharp's idea of “civilian-based defense”—may be substituted for regular armed forces in the face of international aggression. I deconstruct this line of pacifist thought by arguing that it builds on the wrong binary. Turning away from a violence-nonviolence dichotomy structured around harmfulness, I look to Richard B. Gregg and Hannah Arendt for an account of nonviolent power defined by non-coercion. Whereas nonviolent coercion in the wrong hands still has the potential to subvert democratic institutions—just as armed methods can—Gregg's and Arendt's conceptions of nonviolent power identify a necessary bulwark against both forms of subversion. The dangers of nonviolent coercion can be seen in the largely nonviolent attempts at civil subversion by supporters of Donald Trump during Trump's attempts to overturn the results of the U.S. presidential election in 2020, while the effectiveness of noncoercive, nonviolent power is illustrated by the resistance of U.S. democratic institutions to resist them.
{"title":"Deconstructing Nonviolence and the War-Machine: Unarmed Coups, Nonviolent Power, and Armed Resistance","authors":"C. Finlay","doi":"10.1017/S0892679421000423","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679421000423","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Proponents of nonviolent tactics often highlight the extent to which they rival arms as effective means of resistance. Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, for instance, compare civil resistance favorably to armed insurrection as means of bringing about progressive political change. In Ethics, Security, and the War-Machine, Ned Dobos cites their work in support of the claim that similar methods—organized according to Gene Sharp's idea of “civilian-based defense”—may be substituted for regular armed forces in the face of international aggression. I deconstruct this line of pacifist thought by arguing that it builds on the wrong binary. Turning away from a violence-nonviolence dichotomy structured around harmfulness, I look to Richard B. Gregg and Hannah Arendt for an account of nonviolent power defined by non-coercion. Whereas nonviolent coercion in the wrong hands still has the potential to subvert democratic institutions—just as armed methods can—Gregg's and Arendt's conceptions of nonviolent power identify a necessary bulwark against both forms of subversion. The dangers of nonviolent coercion can be seen in the largely nonviolent attempts at civil subversion by supporters of Donald Trump during Trump's attempts to overturn the results of the U.S. presidential election in 2020, while the effectiveness of noncoercive, nonviolent power is illustrated by the resistance of U.S. democratic institutions to resist them.","PeriodicalId":11772,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & International Affairs","volume":"17 1","pages":"421 - 433"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86165837","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：