Maritime Piracy is a major international problem and it requires attention as it effects the peaceful existence of states beyond international boundaries. This paper underlines the conditions and criteria where the act can be called as maritime piracy that is, it can be done only in high seas, also the paper tries to analyze the jurisdiction of maritime piracy cases. The problem of maritime piracy has been happening for a long time hence the paper tries to identify the main responses of international law on piracy.
{"title":"Maritime Piracy and Responses of International Law","authors":"Sonam Jambhulkar","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2347500","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2347500","url":null,"abstract":"Maritime Piracy is a major international problem and it requires attention as it effects the peaceful existence of states beyond international boundaries. This paper underlines the conditions and criteria where the act can be called as maritime piracy that is, it can be done only in high seas, also the paper tries to analyze the jurisdiction of maritime piracy cases. The problem of maritime piracy has been happening for a long time hence the paper tries to identify the main responses of international law on piracy.","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"64 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122814153","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 metaphor intimate enemy best captures the changing nature of international law vis-a-vis nations. Intimate enemy is a useful heuristic device that could be deployed to capture legal concepts of indeterminacy, dialectics, and reformulation within international law. In order to prove this thesis, this Article discusses international humanitarian law, international economic law, and international criminal law. More precisely, this Article will take up “war on terror,” laws of Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs), and the law of regional unions such as the European Union (EU) and the African Union (AU) to explicate the claims made. Across the board, this Article claims that an intimate animosity is on display.This Article invites scholars and researchers of international law to use intimate enemy as a new hermeneutics to unpack the real relationship of countries and international law.
{"title":"International Law as Intimate Enemy","authors":"Prabhakar Singh","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2154451","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2154451","url":null,"abstract":"The metaphor intimate enemy best captures the changing nature of international law vis-a-vis nations. Intimate enemy is a useful heuristic device that could be deployed to capture legal concepts of indeterminacy, dialectics, and reformulation within international law. In order to prove this thesis, this Article discusses international humanitarian law, international economic law, and international criminal law. More precisely, this Article will take up “war on terror,” laws of Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs), and the law of regional unions such as the European Union (EU) and the African Union (AU) to explicate the claims made. Across the board, this Article claims that an intimate animosity is on display.This Article invites scholars and researchers of international law to use intimate enemy as a new hermeneutics to unpack the real relationship of countries and international law.","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"06 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128733526","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}
Today the majority view seems to approve the general applicability of peacetime law during war in regard to certain types of peacetime treaties (see paras 5-11). The topic is still disputed as neither the UN Charter nor other multilateral treaties include rules in regard to the effect of armed conflict on treaties. The → Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) (‘VCLT’) only says that the Convention does not cover these questions (Art. 73: ‘The provisions of the present Convention shall not prejudge any question that may arise in regard to a treaty […] from the outbreak of hostilities between States’). This was due to the fact that the conduct of hostilities was seen wholly outside the scope of the general law of treaties to be codified in the articles of the VCLT by the drafters (Wetzel and Rauschning 480). Besides of this there is no decisive judgment or advisory opinion of the → International Court of Justice (ICJ) to the general question of the effects of armed conflicts on peacetime treaties (see United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran [United States of America v Iran], dealing only with the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations, see below para. 6; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons [Advisory Opinion], dealing with the question of the protection of the environment during armed conflict without giving a clear answer in regard to the question of the applicability of peacetime environmental treaties during armed conflicts, see below para. 10).
After World War II, expert bodies dealt with the problem of the effect of armed conflict on treaties. The first important resolution was drafted by the → Institut de Droit international (‘IDI’) in 1985 (see the resolution ‘The Effects of Armed Conflict on Treaties’). The → International Law Commission (ILC) finally included this topic in its current programme of work in 2004 (UNGA Res 59/41 of 16 December 2004), a first report was drafted by special rapporteur Ian Brownlie in 2005 and in 2008 the ILC adopted, on first reading, a set of 18 draft articles on the effects of armed conflicts on treaties (‘ILC Draft Articles’). In 2010 Lucius Caflisch, the new special rapporteur, proposed a number of changes to the initial set of draft articles after these articles were commented by States. The most crucial topics of discussion have been inter alia the scope of the articles; effects of non-international armed conflicts; the indicia for identifying treaties which continue in operation; the types of treaties whose subject matter implies their survival in whole or in part; and the effects of international or civil war conditions involving a single State Party or several States Parties to treaties.
{"title":"Armed Conflict, Effect on Treaties","authors":"Silja Voeneky (Vöneky)","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3369609","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3369609","url":null,"abstract":"Today the majority view seems to approve the general applicability of peacetime law during war in regard to certain types of peacetime treaties (see paras 5-11). The topic is still disputed as neither the UN Charter nor other multilateral treaties include rules in regard to the effect of armed conflict on treaties. The → Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) (‘VCLT’) only says that the Convention does not cover these questions (Art. 73: ‘The provisions of the present Convention shall not prejudge any question that may arise in regard to a treaty […] from the outbreak of hostilities between States’). This was due to the fact that the conduct of hostilities was seen wholly outside the scope of the general law of treaties to be codified in the articles of the VCLT by the drafters (Wetzel and Rauschning 480). Besides of this there is no decisive judgment or advisory opinion of the → International Court of Justice (ICJ) to the general question of the effects of armed conflicts on peacetime treaties (see United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran [United States of America v Iran], dealing only with the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations, see below para. 6; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons [Advisory Opinion], dealing with the question of the protection of the environment during armed conflict without giving a clear answer in regard to the question of the applicability of peacetime environmental treaties during armed conflicts, see below para. 10).<br><br>After World War II, expert bodies dealt with the problem of the effect of armed conflict on treaties. The first important resolution was drafted by the → Institut de Droit international (‘IDI’) in 1985 (see the resolution ‘The Effects of Armed Conflict on Treaties’). The → International Law Commission (ILC) finally included this topic in its current programme of work in 2004 (UNGA Res 59/41 of 16 December 2004), a first report was drafted by special rapporteur Ian Brownlie in 2005 and in 2008 the ILC adopted, on first reading, a set of 18 draft articles on the effects of armed conflicts on treaties (‘ILC Draft Articles’). In 2010 Lucius Caflisch, the new special rapporteur, proposed a number of changes to the initial set of draft articles after these articles were commented by States. The most crucial topics of discussion have been inter alia the scope of the articles; effects of non-international armed conflicts; the indicia for identifying treaties which continue in operation; the types of treaties whose subject matter implies their survival in whole or in part; and the effects of international or civil war conditions involving a single State Party or several States Parties to treaties.","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131218657","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}
Enforcement is a fundamental challenge for international law. Sanctions are costly to impose, difficult to coordinate, and often ineffective in accomplishing their goals. Rewards are likewise costly and domestically unpopular. Thus, efforts to address pressing international problems - such as reversing climate change and coordinating monetary policy - often fall short. This article offers a novel approach to international enforcement and demonstrates how it would apply to those challenging problems. It develops a mechanism of Reversible Rewards, which combine sticks and carrots in a unique, previously unexplored, way. Reversible Rewards require a precommitted fund aimed to reward the target state for its compliance. Alternatively, the same reward can be used to pay for sanctions in case of target’s non-compliance. Reversible Rewards solve two (related) problems that undermine existing efforts to enforce international law: high costs and low credibility. The article demonstrates that, relative to sanctions or rewards used alone, Reversible Rewards double the incentives for compliance that any given enforcement fund can generate.d.
{"title":"Efficient Enforcement in International Law","authors":"A. Bradford, O. Ben‐Shahar","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1558493","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1558493","url":null,"abstract":"Enforcement is a fundamental challenge for international law. Sanctions are costly to impose, difficult to coordinate, and often ineffective in accomplishing their goals. Rewards are likewise costly and domestically unpopular. Thus, efforts to address pressing international problems - such as reversing climate change and coordinating monetary policy - often fall short. This article offers a novel approach to international enforcement and demonstrates how it would apply to those challenging problems. It develops a mechanism of Reversible Rewards, which combine sticks and carrots in a unique, previously unexplored, way. Reversible Rewards require a precommitted fund aimed to reward the target state for its compliance. Alternatively, the same reward can be used to pay for sanctions in case of target’s non-compliance. Reversible Rewards solve two (related) problems that undermine existing efforts to enforce international law: high costs and low credibility. The article demonstrates that, relative to sanctions or rewards used alone, Reversible Rewards double the incentives for compliance that any given enforcement fund can generate.d.","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132703156","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 last year John B. Bellinger III, Chief Legal Adviser to the United States Department of State, has been engaging in a dialogue with politicians and legal scholars in European countries. These speeches and public appearances, like the remarks delivered at the London School of Economics in 2006 and republished in the issue of the German Law Journal, were meant to address the misimpressions, as Mr. Bellinger sees it, that have become prevalent in Europe over the last few years with respect to the U.S. positions on questions of the legal basis and legal limits of the “war on terror” and the treatment of detained terrorists.
In order to enhance the dialogue concerning these matters, it is important — as a first step — to make very clear the differences that exist in the interpretation of the relevant legal rules. Those concern, for instance, the limits of the law of self defense; the applicability of the laws of war; lacunae in the laws of war; the question of defining the terms “unlawful combatant” versus “offensive civilian;” the question of who is a prisoner of war; the treatment of detainees who are not prisoners of war; the legal limits of the Third Geneva Convention and of Common Art. 3 of the Geneva Conventions; the applicability of human right treaties; the core principles of humane treatment; the range of procedural rights; and the interpretation of the prohibition of torture.
This contribution tries to find “European” approaches and answers to the legal questions relating to the fight against terrorism. It serves as a European response to Mr. Bellinger’s recent invitation for dialogue. Importantly, this response goes so far as to propose how misperceptions and misunderstandings might be avoided in the future.
去年，美国国务院首席法律顾问约翰·b·贝林格三世一直在同欧洲国家的政治家和法律学者进行对话。贝林格认为，这些演讲和公开露面，就像他2006年在伦敦经济学院(London School of Economics)发表并在《德国法律期刊》(German Law Journal)上重新发表的讲话一样，是为了纠正过去几年在欧洲流行的误解，即美国在“反恐战争”的法律基础和法律限制问题上的立场，以及如何对待被拘留的恐怖分子。为了加强关于这些事项的对话，重要的是- -作为第一步- -非常清楚地说明在解释有关法律规则方面存在的分歧。例如，这些问题涉及到自卫法的限制;战争法的适用性;战争法中的空白;定义“非法战斗员”和“进攻性平民”的问题;谁是战俘的问题;非战俘被拘留者的待遇;《日内瓦第三公约》和《日内瓦公约》共同第3条的法律界限;人权条约的适用性;人道待遇的核心原则;程序性权利的范围;以及对禁止酷刑的解释。这篇文章试图找到与反恐斗争有关的法律问题的“欧洲”方法和答案。这是欧洲对贝林格最近邀请进行对话的回应。重要的是，这一回应甚至提出了如何在未来避免误解和误解。
{"title":"Response — The Fight against Terrorism and the Rules of International Law — Comment on Papers and Speeches of John B. Bellinger, Chief Legal Advisor to the United States State Department","authors":"Silja Voeneky (Vöneky)","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3369611","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3369611","url":null,"abstract":"In the last year John B. Bellinger III, Chief Legal Adviser to the United States Department of State, has been engaging in a dialogue with politicians and legal scholars in European countries. These speeches and public appearances, like the remarks delivered at the London School of Economics in 2006 and republished in the issue of the German Law Journal, were meant to address the misimpressions, as Mr. Bellinger sees it, that have become prevalent in Europe over the last few years with respect to the U.S. positions on questions of the legal basis and legal limits of the “war on terror” and the treatment of detained terrorists.<br><br>In order to enhance the dialogue concerning these matters, it is important — as a first step — to make very clear the differences that exist in the interpretation of the relevant legal rules. Those concern, for instance, the limits of the law of self defense; the applicability of the laws of war; lacunae in the laws of war; the question of defining the terms “unlawful combatant” versus “offensive civilian;” the question of who is a prisoner of war; the treatment of detainees who are not prisoners of war; the legal limits of the Third Geneva Convention and of Common Art. 3 of the Geneva Conventions; the applicability of human right treaties; the core principles of humane treatment; the range of procedural rights; and the interpretation of the prohibition of torture.<br><br>This contribution tries to find “European” approaches and answers to the legal questions relating to the fight against terrorism. It serves as a European response to Mr. Bellinger’s recent invitation for dialogue. Importantly, this response goes so far as to propose how misperceptions and misunderstandings might be avoided in the future.","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127649204","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}
There is a well-established principle of international law according to which whenever an insurrectional movement succeeds in creating a new state, the new state should be held responsible for obligations arising from internationally wrongful acts committed by the insurrectional movement against third states during the armed struggle for independence. The principle is clearly stated in Article 10(2) of the International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. The issue has, surprisingly, not been the object of great attention by legal scholars. This article examines the different possible theoretical foundations in support of this principle. It is submitted that the new state should remain responsible for acts which took place before its independence because there is a 'structural' and 'organic' continuity of the legal personality of the organization of the rebels with that of the new state. There is, however, only limited state practice in support of this principle. The analysis of the concrete application of this principle for different types of succession of states leads the author to conclude that it should find application in all cases because of its fair and equitable consequences.
{"title":"New State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts by an Insurrectional Movement","authors":"P. Dumberry","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chl016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chl016","url":null,"abstract":"There is a well-established principle of international law according to which whenever an insurrectional movement succeeds in creating a new state, the new state should be held responsible for obligations arising from internationally wrongful acts committed by the insurrectional movement against third states during the armed struggle for independence. The principle is clearly stated in Article 10(2) of the International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. The issue has, surprisingly, not been the object of great attention by legal scholars. This article examines the different possible theoretical foundations in support of this principle. It is submitted that the new state should remain responsible for acts which took place before its independence because there is a 'structural' and 'organic' continuity of the legal personality of the organization of the rebels with that of the new state. There is, however, only limited state practice in support of this principle. The analysis of the concrete application of this principle for different types of succession of states leads the author to conclude that it should find application in all cases because of its fair and equitable consequences.","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"2015 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128588371","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}
Usually, subjects other than States and International Organizations (such as communities) could not legitimately act in the international legal instrument (treaties, recommendations, etc.) implementation. Nevertheless, for different reasons, some roles have been given to communities.The purpose of this study is to show, as thoroughly as possible, the ways in which communities play a role in the implementation of international legal instruments, in the fields of human rights, environment, health, cultural properties and intellectual property. The result of this analysis is that the UNESCO Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage deserves special attention because of the central role given to community participation in its implementation.
{"title":"The Community Participation in International Law","authors":"S. Urbinati","doi":"10.4000/BOOKS.GUP.218","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4000/BOOKS.GUP.218","url":null,"abstract":"Usually, subjects other than States and International Organizations (such as communities) could not legitimately act in the international legal instrument (treaties, recommendations, etc.) implementation. Nevertheless, for different reasons, some roles have been given to communities.The purpose of this study is to show, as thoroughly as possible, the ways in which communities play a role in the implementation of international legal instruments, in the fields of human rights, environment, health, cultural properties and intellectual property. The result of this analysis is that the UNESCO Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage deserves special attention because of the central role given to community participation in its implementation.","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"18 23","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113976905","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 chapter discusses what is a treaty and what is its significance in international law; the process by which treaties are formed and the legal effects of treaties at various stages of their formation; the nature, validity and legal consequences of reservations to treaties; the process of treaty interpretation; the grounds on which the invalidity of a treaty may be invoked and the effect of invalidity; and the grounds on which a party may terminate or suspend the operation of a treaty and the consequences of such termination or suspension.
{"title":"Law of Treaties","authors":"A. Mitchell","doi":"10.18356/b375c1a4-en","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18356/b375c1a4-en","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter discusses what is a treaty and what is its significance in international law; the process by which treaties are formed and the legal effects of treaties at various stages of their formation; the nature, validity and legal consequences of reservations to treaties; the process of treaty interpretation; the grounds on which the invalidity of a treaty may be invoked and the effect of invalidity; and the grounds on which a party may terminate or suspend the operation of a treaty and the consequences of such termination or suspension.","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116169960","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 investigates treaty making by the People’s Republic of China (‘China’) and its Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong (‘HKSAR’) with a focus on the delineation of treaty-making powers between the Central Government and the Region. Though China is a unitary state, the Region of Hong Kong enjoys farreaching autonomy that allows it to maintain its capitalist system and own institutions, independent judicial authority and a legal system that is separate from Mainland China. The autonomy of the HKSAR includes the power to conclude certain international agreements on its own. This study of treaty-making powers takes a doctrinal approach. It analyses Chinese and HKSAR legislation including scholarly views and the relevant treaty-making practice.
{"title":"The Delineation of Treaty-Making Powers between the Central Government of the People's Republic of China and the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong","authors":"Björn Ahl","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2830222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2830222","url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates treaty making by the People’s Republic of China (‘China’) and its Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong (‘HKSAR’) with a focus on the delineation of treaty-making powers between the Central Government and the Region. Though China is a unitary state, the Region of Hong Kong enjoys farreaching autonomy that allows it to maintain its capitalist system and own institutions, independent judicial authority and a legal system that is separate from Mainland China. The autonomy of the HKSAR includes the power to conclude certain international agreements on its own. This study of treaty-making powers takes a doctrinal approach. It analyses Chinese and HKSAR legislation including scholarly views and the relevant treaty-making practice.","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126163929","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：