The United Kingdom was due to leave the European Union on 29 March 2019 and to enter a period of ‘transition’ pending the entry into force of an agreement establishing the future relationship between the EU and the UK. This transition or implementation period was intended to offer continuity and cer-tainty to states, businesses and citizens; a safety net against a cliff-edge disorderly departure and a po-tential bridge to a future relationship. However, as a consequence of the failure to gain domestic par-liamentary approval for the text of the Withdrawal Agreement, things have not gone to plan. Instead of entering a period of transition, the UK remains a Member State of the EU until 31 October 2019. With a new Prime Minister in the UK talking up his willingness to take the UK out of the EU without a deal and without a transition period in place, this article reflects on what the negotiators sought to achieve in agreeing a transition period in the first place and why the politics of Brexit has undermined the purposes of transition.
{"title":"After EU Membership – The United Kingdom in Transition","authors":"Kenneth A. Armstrong","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3427123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3427123","url":null,"abstract":"The United Kingdom was due to leave the European Union on 29 March 2019 and to enter a period of ‘transition’ pending the entry into force of an agreement establishing the future relationship between the EU and the UK. This transition or implementation period was intended to offer continuity and cer-tainty to states, businesses and citizens; a safety net against a cliff-edge disorderly departure and a po-tential bridge to a future relationship. However, as a consequence of the failure to gain domestic par-liamentary approval for the text of the Withdrawal Agreement, things have not gone to plan. Instead of entering a period of transition, the UK remains a Member State of the EU until 31 October 2019. With a new Prime Minister in the UK talking up his willingness to take the UK out of the EU without a deal and without a transition period in place, this article reflects on what the negotiators sought to achieve in agreeing a transition period in the first place and why the politics of Brexit has undermined the purposes of transition.","PeriodicalId":121229,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: National eJournal","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115584098","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the social life, human activity may be performed by one person, but in some other people can contribute to the same activity. If this human activity is characterized by committing an act provided by the Criminal Law, and other persons are contributing to this deed, we are in the presence of participation to the commission of an offense under Criminal Law. In other words, we have a plurality of people who commit a crime stipulated by the criminal law. So who directly commits the deed directly is the author and the others are participants. In order to be in the presence of a criminal participation, it is not enough that other people participate, but the participants need to be animated by a common will, together with the author, to commit the crime provided by the Criminal Law. Another condition is that the crime provided by the Criminal Law has been committed by a larger number of persons than necessary, according to the nature of the act otherwise we will have either a plurality constituted either by natural plurality. The Romanian Criminal Law incriminates this form of plurality of offenders (also called occasional) in Title II, Chapter 6, entitled “The Author and the Participants.�?
{"title":"Some Aspects of Criminal Participation","authors":"Silviu-Ștefan Petriman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3434135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3434135","url":null,"abstract":"In the social life, human activity may be performed by one person, but in some other people can contribute to the same activity. If this human activity is characterized by committing an act provided by the Criminal Law, and other persons are contributing to this deed, we are in the presence of participation to the commission of an offense under Criminal Law. In other words, we have a plurality of people who commit a crime stipulated by the criminal law. So who directly commits the deed directly is the author and the others are participants. In order to be in the presence of a criminal participation, it is not enough that other people participate, but the participants need to be animated by a common will, together with the author, to commit the crime provided by the Criminal Law. Another condition is that the crime provided by the Criminal Law has been committed by a larger number of persons than necessary, according to the nature of the act otherwise we will have either a plurality constituted either by natural plurality. The Romanian Criminal Law incriminates this form of plurality of offenders (also called occasional) in Title II, Chapter 6, entitled “The Author and the Participants.�?","PeriodicalId":121229,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: National eJournal","volume":"54 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120968862","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The report discusses the enforcement of competition law in Poland in the context of the digital economy. Topics covered include the goals of competition law in the digital era, market power and market definition, the characteristics of behaviour considered anticompetitive, as well as regulatory overlaps and enforcement challenges. The report has been prepared as of 31 December 2019.
{"title":"Competition Law and the Digital Economy: Poland","authors":"M. Bernatt","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3431641","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3431641","url":null,"abstract":"The report discusses the enforcement of competition law in Poland in the context of the digital economy. Topics covered include the goals of competition law in the digital era, market power and market definition, the characteristics of behaviour considered anticompetitive, as well as regulatory overlaps and enforcement challenges. The report has been prepared as of 31 December 2019.","PeriodicalId":121229,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: National eJournal","volume":"139 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128866925","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
No common reasons can be identified for the fundaments of the right to punish, the right not to punish or the right to decriminalize, although, at first sight, the three rights seem to have similar origins. As the right to impose a punishment derives from the law, so a law must also reflect the right to defer a punishment, to waive its application, or to decriminalize a certain conduct. A brief analysis of the right not to punish can also reflect the reason, the conditions, and, possibly, its limits. These can often be arbitrarily interpreted in practice due to reasons that must be identified. An arbitrary exercise of the right to amnesty or to grace, or poor implementation in the Romanian-German law of restorative justice, may have adverse consequences in terms of the safety of social values. To prevent arbitrariness and to ensure social security, the functions of the public authorities play an essential role. At present, only the legislative function generates the law, and the judicial function ensures that the law is implemented or it may order a punishment to be enforced if the law is violated.
{"title":"The Right Not to Punish","authors":"Tiberiu-Viorel Popescu","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3388047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3388047","url":null,"abstract":"No common reasons can be identified for the fundaments of the right to punish, the right not to punish or the right to decriminalize, although, at first sight, the three rights seem to have similar origins. As the right to impose a punishment derives from the law, so a law must also reflect the right to defer a punishment, to waive its application, or to decriminalize a certain conduct. A brief analysis of the right not to punish can also reflect the reason, the conditions, and, possibly, its limits. These can often be arbitrarily interpreted in practice due to reasons that must be identified. An arbitrary exercise of the right to amnesty or to grace, or poor implementation in the Romanian-German law of restorative justice, may have adverse consequences in terms of the safety of social values. To prevent arbitrariness and to ensure social security, the functions of the public authorities play an essential role. At present, only the legislative function generates the law, and the judicial function ensures that the law is implemented or it may order a punishment to be enforced if the law is violated.","PeriodicalId":121229,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: National eJournal","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116809792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Die sogenannte Ministererlaubnis als Teil der deutschen Fusionskontrolle reprasentiert wahrscheinlich das umstrittenste Instrument sowohl in der juristischen als auch in der okonomischen Fachdiskussion. Vereinfachend ausgedruckt ermoglicht die Ministererlaubnis dem Bundeswirtschaftsminister, ein Zusammenschlussverbot des Bundeskartellamtes aufgrund von erwarteten positiven Gemeinwohleffekten aufzuheben. Zu den Kritikpunkten zahlt dabei, dass die tatsachlichen Erlaubnisentscheidungen weniger durch Gemeinwohlerwagungen zu begrunden seien als vielmehr durch politokonomische Interessen bzw. erfolgreiche Lobbyaktivitaten. Zwar konnen wir im vorliegenden Beitrag nicht die tatsachlichen Motivationen der Erlaubnisentscheidungen nachweisen, aber wir konnen mit Hilfe von Ex-Post-Analysen zeigen, dass sich nur in einem geringen Teil der Erlaubnisfalle die Grunde, welche zur Erlaubnis fuhrten, ex-post empirisch bestatigt haben und auch auf die Fusion zuruckzufuhren sind. Damit kann die Ministererlaubnis in ihrer gegenwartigen Form nicht als effektives Instrument einer gemeinwohlorientierten Korrektur von Fusionskontrollentscheidungen eingestuft werden.
{"title":"Ex-post Analyse der Ministererlaubnis-Fälle – Gemeinwohl durch Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen? (Ex-post Analysis of the Ministerial Exemption Cases in German Merger Control – Social Welfare Through Market Power?)","authors":"A. Stöhr, Oliver Budzinski","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3378957","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3378957","url":null,"abstract":"Die sogenannte Ministererlaubnis als Teil der deutschen Fusionskontrolle reprasentiert wahrscheinlich das umstrittenste Instrument sowohl in der juristischen als auch in der okonomischen Fachdiskussion. Vereinfachend ausgedruckt ermoglicht die Ministererlaubnis dem Bundeswirtschaftsminister, ein Zusammenschlussverbot des Bundeskartellamtes aufgrund von erwarteten positiven Gemeinwohleffekten aufzuheben. Zu den Kritikpunkten zahlt dabei, dass die tatsachlichen Erlaubnisentscheidungen weniger durch Gemeinwohlerwagungen zu begrunden seien als vielmehr durch politokonomische Interessen bzw. erfolgreiche Lobbyaktivitaten. Zwar konnen wir im vorliegenden Beitrag nicht die tatsachlichen Motivationen der Erlaubnisentscheidungen nachweisen, aber wir konnen mit Hilfe von Ex-Post-Analysen zeigen, dass sich nur in einem geringen Teil der Erlaubnisfalle die Grunde, welche zur Erlaubnis fuhrten, ex-post empirisch bestatigt haben und auch auf die Fusion zuruckzufuhren sind. Damit kann die Ministererlaubnis in ihrer gegenwartigen Form nicht als effektives Instrument einer gemeinwohlorientierten Korrektur von Fusionskontrollentscheidungen eingestuft werden.","PeriodicalId":121229,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: National eJournal","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122674043","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nowadays, many countries suffer from loss of confidence of their citizens. Huge protests are spread throughout many states even in the EU. The time has come to analyse the principles of good governance in order to make states trustworthy organisations again. This paper aims to contribute to the discussion by focusing on independence of state authorities. As public spending is often a cause of citizens’ dissatisfaction with governments, the independence of public procurement authorities shall be analysed in particular. This paper deals with requirements for independence and applies them to a chosen public procurement authority, the Office for Public Procurement, which is the central authority for administration of public procurements in the Slovak Republic. Since there have been many affairs related to misspending of public resources, the de facto independence of the Office for Public Procurement can be questioned. Therefore, the paper puts forward the legal framework in which the Office for Public Procurement operates, discusses its functioning in practice.
{"title":"Independence of Public Procurement Authority","authors":"M. Patakyová","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3546673","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3546673","url":null,"abstract":"Nowadays, many countries suffer from loss of confidence of their citizens. Huge protests are spread throughout many states even in the EU. The time has come to analyse the principles of good governance in order to make states trustworthy organisations again. This paper aims to contribute to the discussion by focusing on independence of state authorities. As public spending is often a cause of citizens’ dissatisfaction with governments, the independence of public procurement authorities shall be analysed in particular. This paper deals with requirements for independence and applies them to a chosen public procurement authority, the Office for Public Procurement, which is the central authority for administration of public procurements in the Slovak Republic. Since there have been many affairs related to misspending of public resources, the de facto independence of the Office for Public Procurement can be questioned. Therefore, the paper puts forward the legal framework in which the Office for Public Procurement operates, discusses its functioning in practice.","PeriodicalId":121229,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: National eJournal","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114997692","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article argues that Brexit is a collective failure of the legal profession. The existing legal narrative of the European Union implies that power relationships reflect the division of institutional and sovereign competences. This misrepresentation was passed onto the general public who framed their personal frustration in this conventional narrative and demanded “taking back control”.
The vote for Brexit resulted from a combination of four key features of the constitutional narrative - the ethos of interdependence, the promise of inclusion of the other, the claim of people’s political incapacity and the policy making in terms of the extent of national sovereignty. This framework does not offer an explanation of the United Kingdom’s true position in the Union and in the world as well as gives false hope to those belittled and excluded. This article suggests an alternative account of the Union and calls for a new research agenda needed for the future of Europe – inquiring into the role of lawyers in the deconstruction of the European Union.
{"title":"The Legal Profession's Responsibility for Brexit","authors":"Damjan Kukovec","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3386315","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3386315","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that Brexit is a collective failure of the legal profession. The existing legal narrative of the European Union implies that power relationships reflect the division of institutional and sovereign competences. This misrepresentation was passed onto the general public who framed their personal frustration in this conventional narrative and demanded “taking back control”. <br><br>The vote for Brexit resulted from a combination of four key features of the constitutional narrative - the ethos of interdependence, the promise of inclusion of the other, the claim of people’s political incapacity and the policy making in terms of the extent of national sovereignty. This framework does not offer an explanation of the United Kingdom’s true position in the Union and in the world as well as gives false hope to those belittled and excluded. This article suggests an alternative account of the Union and calls for a new research agenda needed for the future of Europe – inquiring into the role of lawyers in the deconstruction of the European Union.","PeriodicalId":121229,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: National eJournal","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122166666","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-16DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198755517.003.0008
Sionaidh Douglas-Scott
This paper discusses Scotland’s relationship with the EU in the context of two different secession events. The first concerns the question of an independent Scotland’s EU membership in the event of Scotland’s secession from the UK. The second discusses the position of Scotland in the context of a UK in-out referendum on EU membership. This chapter concludes that in neither case should Scotland be forced to leave the EU against its will.The context of both of these secession movements is a sense of shifting constitutional loyalties, and a concern about the nature and bounds of the political community and locus of ultimate authority. In some cases, this results in a claim for statehood, in others, for self-government. In investigating this context, there are interesting insights to be had as to the nature of the EU and the British constitution.This paper was published as chapter 8 of The Scottish Independence Referendum: Constitutional and Political Implications eds McHarg, Mullen, Page and Walker (Oxford University Press, 2016).
本文在两个不同的分裂事件的背景下讨论了苏格兰与欧盟的关系。第一个问题涉及在苏格兰脱离英国的情况下，苏格兰独立后的欧盟成员国身份问题。第二篇文章讨论了苏格兰在英国退欧公投背景下的立场。本章的结论是，在这两种情况下，苏格兰都不应该被迫违背自己的意愿离开欧盟。这两场分裂运动的背景都是一种对宪法忠诚的转变，以及对政治共同体的性质和界限以及最终权力所在地的担忧。在某些情况下，这导致要求建国，在其他情况下，要求自治。在调查这一背景时，我们可以对欧盟和英国宪法的性质有一些有趣的见解。本文发表于McHarg, Mullen, Page and Walker(牛津大学出版社，2016)的《苏格兰独立公投:宪法和政治影响》第8章。
{"title":"Scotland, Secession, and the European Union","authors":"Sionaidh Douglas-Scott","doi":"10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198755517.003.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198755517.003.0008","url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses Scotland’s relationship with the EU in the context of two different secession events. The first concerns the question of an independent Scotland’s EU membership in the event of Scotland’s secession from the UK. The second discusses the position of Scotland in the context of a UK in-out referendum on EU membership. This chapter concludes that in neither case should Scotland be forced to leave the EU against its will.The context of both of these secession movements is a sense of shifting constitutional loyalties, and a concern about the nature and bounds of the political community and locus of ultimate authority. In some cases, this results in a claim for statehood, in others, for self-government. In investigating this context, there are interesting insights to be had as to the nature of the EU and the British constitution.This paper was published as chapter 8 of The Scottish Independence Referendum: Constitutional and Political Implications eds McHarg, Mullen, Page and Walker (Oxford University Press, 2016).","PeriodicalId":121229,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: National eJournal","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122017671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In addition to the procedural fairness of tax authorities, the legislative level is also of utmost importance for the degree of trust of citizens in taxation. This trust is grounded in the perception of the fairness and justice of the tax law and as such is closely related to the quality of this legislation. Legal principles, the normative core of a value-oriented conception of (tax) law, function as essential criteria of this quality of tax legislation. Trust in taxation thus requires the tax legislator to respect the three core principles of tax legislation – equality, certainty and clarity – as these principles reflect basic societal values. The lack of sufficient respect of the legislator for these principles have been found to influence the extent to which tax legislation is perceived as (un)fair by citizens. After having described these generally accepted principles of good tax law, the importance of these principles for the trust in tax legislation will subsequently be illustrated by testing the legislative quality of the current rules for taxing capital income. This article concludes with a plea to legislators for enhancing the respect for the underlying principles of law to warrant citizens trust in taxation.
{"title":"Trust and Tax Principles: A Dutch Case Study","authors":"Sonja Dusarduijn","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3315433","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3315433","url":null,"abstract":"In addition to the procedural fairness of tax authorities, the legislative level is also of utmost importance for the degree of trust of citizens in taxation. This trust is grounded in the perception of the fairness and justice of the tax law and as such is closely related to the quality of this legislation. Legal principles, the normative core of a value-oriented conception of (tax) law, function as essential criteria of this quality of tax legislation. Trust in taxation thus requires the tax legislator to respect the three core principles of tax legislation – equality, certainty and clarity – as these principles reflect basic societal values. The lack of sufficient respect of the legislator for these principles have been found to influence the extent to which tax legislation is perceived as (un)fair by citizens. After having described these generally accepted principles of good tax law, the importance of these principles for the trust in tax legislation will subsequently be illustrated by testing the legislative quality of the current rules for taxing capital income. This article concludes with a plea to legislators for enhancing the respect for the underlying principles of law to warrant citizens trust in taxation.","PeriodicalId":121229,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: National eJournal","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128171165","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Άρειος Πάγος, the Hellenic Supreme Court, issued last year its first ruling on the immunity of foreign states against execution. The judgment follows the path introduced by the German Constitutional Court in the famous Philippinische Botschaft case.
{"title":"Greek Supreme Court Ruling on the Maxim Ne Impediatur Legatio","authors":"Apostolos Anthimos","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3262207","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3262207","url":null,"abstract":"Άρειος Πάγος, the Hellenic Supreme Court, issued last year its first ruling on the immunity of foreign states against execution. The judgment follows the path introduced by the German Constitutional Court in the famous Philippinische Botschaft case.","PeriodicalId":121229,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: National eJournal","volume":"41 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120865554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","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：