Pub Date : 2017-02-08DOI: 10.1163/22116427_008010004
Lisa Parker
Thank you for inviting me today to the Eighth Polar Law Symposium. I understand this is the first time the Polar Law Symposium has been held on North American soil making me honored and humbled that you would invite me to share a few thoughts. This is an exciting time for Alaska and the Arctic. If my father, Walt Parker, were alive he would be at every meeting engaging in as many of the issues as possible. And he would have wondered why President Obama hadn’t met with him while visiting earlier this month.1 While he is not here with us physically he is still providing guidance to many he mentored, taught and loved. Alaska, its people, and its beauty offer many opportunities. As Alaskans we fight hard to make sure this land we love is protected while allowing us the ability to maintain our lifestyle. While people in Washington DC and others give the impression that Alaskans believe in ‘rape, ruin, and run’ this is far, far from the truth. We treasure this land upon which we live and enjoy every day, which is why we remain – to continue to work to protect the land and the resources, and provide for our people. Many of us have seen great change occur over the years – this change has impacted communities all around the state – from the smallest village to large metropolitan areas like Anchorage. For the indigenous Alaskans who have been here thousands of years – the change they have seen has been staggering. As a lifelong resident even I have noticed change in our landscape – more people, more roads, more homes, less open space – at least here in the Anchorage
{"title":"Responsible Resource Development in Alaska: A Developer’s Perspective on the Red Dog Mine","authors":"Lisa Parker","doi":"10.1163/22116427_008010004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22116427_008010004","url":null,"abstract":"Thank you for inviting me today to the Eighth Polar Law Symposium. I understand this is the first time the Polar Law Symposium has been held on North American soil making me honored and humbled that you would invite me to share a few thoughts. This is an exciting time for Alaska and the Arctic. If my father, Walt Parker, were alive he would be at every meeting engaging in as many of the issues as possible. And he would have wondered why President Obama hadn’t met with him while visiting earlier this month.1 While he is not here with us physically he is still providing guidance to many he mentored, taught and loved. Alaska, its people, and its beauty offer many opportunities. As Alaskans we fight hard to make sure this land we love is protected while allowing us the ability to maintain our lifestyle. While people in Washington DC and others give the impression that Alaskans believe in ‘rape, ruin, and run’ this is far, far from the truth. We treasure this land upon which we live and enjoy every day, which is why we remain – to continue to work to protect the land and the resources, and provide for our people. Many of us have seen great change occur over the years – this change has impacted communities all around the state – from the smallest village to large metropolitan areas like Anchorage. For the indigenous Alaskans who have been here thousands of years – the change they have seen has been staggering. As a lifelong resident even I have noticed change in our landscape – more people, more roads, more homes, less open space – at least here in the Anchorage","PeriodicalId":202575,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Polar Law Online","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121430078","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 : 2017-02-08DOI: 10.1163/22116427_008010011
M. Smieszek, A. Stępień, P. Kankaanpää
The scientific assessments of the Arctic Council (AC) have been widely regarded as the most effective products of the AC. Yet, so far comparatively little scholarly attention has been given to this primary area of the Council’s work. This paper examines the most recent assessment work within the Arctic Council. In order to do this, we build on the literature on global environmental assessments to analyze whether this work exhibits design features and is carried out in a way that enhances the potential for AC assessments to be effective. We understand the effectiveness of assessments to influence decision and policy-making in the Arctic Council itself, but we also look beyond its structures. This paper focuses on four case studies: Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA), Arctic Human Development Report-II (ADHR-II), Arctic Resilience Report/Arctic Resilience Assessment (ARR/ARA) and Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic (AACA). Whereas detailed examination of such influence is at this point not possible due to either very short time from their completion (ABA, ADHR-II) or the fact that the projects are still ongoing (ARA, AACA), the analysis of those assessments through the lens of a series of their design features provides us with some guidance in relation to their expected effectiveness in bridging science with decision-making in the AC and beyond. The article finds that whereas different processes exhibit different individual characteristics, all the studied assessments rank from relatively high to very high in terms of how their design may affect their salience, credibility and legitimacy. However, their actual policy influence will depend first and foremost on the political will of those ordering the assessments and wielding decision-making power in the Arctic Council.
{"title":"The Recent Arctic Council Assessments: Influential Tools in Policy-Making in the Council and Beyond?","authors":"M. Smieszek, A. Stępień, P. Kankaanpää","doi":"10.1163/22116427_008010011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22116427_008010011","url":null,"abstract":"The scientific assessments of the Arctic Council (AC) have been widely regarded as the most effective products of the AC. Yet, so far comparatively little scholarly attention has been given to this primary area of the Council’s work. This paper examines the most recent assessment work within the Arctic Council. In order to do this, we build on the literature on global environmental assessments to analyze whether this work exhibits design features and is carried out in a way that enhances the potential for AC assessments to be effective. We understand the effectiveness of assessments to influence decision and policy-making in the Arctic Council itself, but we also look beyond its structures. This paper focuses on four case studies: Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA), Arctic Human Development Report-II (ADHR-II), Arctic Resilience Report/Arctic Resilience Assessment (ARR/ARA) and Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic (AACA). Whereas detailed examination of such influence is at this point not possible due to either very short time from their completion (ABA, ADHR-II) or the fact that the projects are still ongoing (ARA, AACA), the analysis of those assessments through the lens of a series of their design features provides us with some guidance in relation to their expected effectiveness in bridging science with decision-making in the AC and beyond. The article finds that whereas different processes exhibit different individual characteristics, all the studied assessments rank from relatively high to very high in terms of how their design may affect their salience, credibility and legitimacy. However, their actual policy influence will depend first and foremost on the political will of those ordering the assessments and wielding decision-making power in the Arctic Council.","PeriodicalId":202575,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Polar Law Online","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125998628","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 : 2017-02-08DOI: 10.1163/22116427_008010014
Aileen M. Nimick, B. Harris
Commercial fisheries in the United States are managed by eight regional fisheries management councils operating under the authority of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, Department of Commerce) and governed by the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act and accompanying federal guidelines. The Act mandates that NMFS identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for fish stocks and minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse effects to EFH through the councils’ fishery management plan development and revisions process. The statute and regulatory guidelines implicitly assume that NMFS and councils have the scientific information necessary to make informed EFH designations for all commercially harvested species, assess the realized or potential threats to EFH, and have the management tools to protect EFH. Further, the interpretation and implementation of several important, but ambiguous, terms in the guidelines are left to NMFS and the councils. Our thesis is that these factors (specifically, insufficient information support and regulatory ambiguities) can and are resulting in inconsistent and potentially sub-optimal fish habitat management throughout the country. As we enter an era of increased climate variability these factors may be having a disproportionally high impact in higher latitudes where change is expected to be more rapid. Here we provide a brief history of essential fish habitat regulations, explain the issues arising from the state of the science and regulatory ambiguities, and conclude with a discussion of the implications and recommendations for United States high latitude EFH management.
{"title":"Essential Fish Habitat Regulation in the United States: Lessons for High Latitudes?","authors":"Aileen M. Nimick, B. Harris","doi":"10.1163/22116427_008010014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22116427_008010014","url":null,"abstract":"Commercial fisheries in the United States are managed by eight regional fisheries management councils operating under the authority of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, Department of Commerce) and governed by the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act and accompanying federal guidelines. The Act mandates that NMFS identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for fish stocks and minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse effects to EFH through the councils’ fishery management plan development and revisions process. The statute and regulatory guidelines implicitly assume that NMFS and councils have the scientific information necessary to make informed EFH designations for all commercially harvested species, assess the realized or potential threats to EFH, and have the management tools to protect EFH. Further, the interpretation and implementation of several important, but ambiguous, terms in the guidelines are left to NMFS and the councils. Our thesis is that these factors (specifically, insufficient information support and regulatory ambiguities) can and are resulting in inconsistent and potentially sub-optimal fish habitat management throughout the country. As we enter an era of increased climate variability these factors may be having a disproportionally high impact in higher latitudes where change is expected to be more rapid. Here we provide a brief history of essential fish habitat regulations, explain the issues arising from the state of the science and regulatory ambiguities, and conclude with a discussion of the implications and recommendations for United States high latitude EFH management.","PeriodicalId":202575,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Polar Law Online","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130258802","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 : 2017-02-08DOI: 10.1163/22116427_008010009
Akiho Shibata, Maiko Raita
At the Arctic Council’s Iqaluit Ministerial Meeting in April 2015, the eight Arctic States decided to extend the mandate of the Task Force on Enhancing Scientific Cooperation in the Arctic (SCTF) in order to work toward a legally binding agreement on scientific cooperation. Based on the Oslo Draft of February 2015, this paper finds that the Agreement may improve the legal environment for Arctic science beyond current international law, including the law of the sea. The Agreement would lower the hurdles heretofore identified in international Arctic scientific cooperation, for example, the difficulties in accessing research areas and research facilities; and, the delays in border crossing procedures for entry and exit of scientists and their equipment and materials. Such an agreement is a good idea and should be promoted. However, non-Arctic States and their scientists may have an issue because the improved legal environment that is sought may benefit only the eight Arctic States and their scientists. In effect, the Agreement may create a two-category system where non-Arctic States and their scientists do not benefit from such improved environment. This paper examines whether they have substantial interests recognized under international law or by the Arctic scientific community by which they can claim certain benefits of the Agreement. We argue that the degree of benefits to non-Arctic States and their scientists under the Agreement should be commensurate with the degree of substantial interests accorded them by international law and by the Arctic scientific community.
{"title":"An Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation: Only for the Eight Arctic States and Their Scientists?","authors":"Akiho Shibata, Maiko Raita","doi":"10.1163/22116427_008010009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22116427_008010009","url":null,"abstract":"At the Arctic Council’s Iqaluit Ministerial Meeting in April 2015, the eight Arctic States decided to extend the mandate of the Task Force on Enhancing Scientific Cooperation in the Arctic (SCTF) in order to work toward a legally binding agreement on scientific cooperation. Based on the Oslo Draft of February 2015, this paper finds that the Agreement may improve the legal environment for Arctic science beyond current international law, including the law of the sea. The Agreement would lower the hurdles heretofore identified in international Arctic scientific cooperation, for example, the difficulties in accessing research areas and research facilities; and, the delays in border crossing procedures for entry and exit of scientists and their equipment and materials. Such an agreement is a good idea and should be promoted. However, non-Arctic States and their scientists may have an issue because the improved legal environment that is sought may benefit only the eight Arctic States and their scientists. In effect, the Agreement may create a two-category system where non-Arctic States and their scientists do not benefit from such improved environment. This paper examines whether they have substantial interests recognized under international law or by the Arctic scientific community by which they can claim certain benefits of the Agreement. We argue that the degree of benefits to non-Arctic States and their scientists under the Agreement should be commensurate with the degree of substantial interests accorded them by international law and by the Arctic scientific community.","PeriodicalId":202575,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Polar Law Online","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129599882","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 : 2017-02-08DOI: 10.1163/22116427_008010003
Mead Treadwell
{"title":"Support and Opposition: An Informal History of the Law of the Sea Convention in the United States and Alaska, Including a Tribute to Walter B. Parker","authors":"Mead Treadwell","doi":"10.1163/22116427_008010003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22116427_008010003","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":202575,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Polar Law Online","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127397987","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 : 2017-02-08DOI: 10.1163/22116427_008010007
Kathryn J. Mengerink, D. Roche, Greta Swanson
Co-management is an effective tool through which Alaska Native communities can pursue self-governance and self-determination in regards to marine mammal resources. In the Arctic, co-management typically aims to promote environmental conservation, sustainable resource use, and equitable sharing of resource-related benefits and responsibilities. This paper traces a variety of co-management regimes and other international management frameworks, and posits that co-management of subsistence resources is not just a legal issue or a governance issue, but rather, it is an issue of human rights and environmental justice. It concludes that co-management regimes are most successful when they integrate frameworks for shared responsibility, and build long-term relationships on mutual trust and strong legal agreements.
{"title":"Understanding Arctic Co-Management: The U.S. Marine Mammal Approach","authors":"Kathryn J. Mengerink, D. Roche, Greta Swanson","doi":"10.1163/22116427_008010007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22116427_008010007","url":null,"abstract":"Co-management is an effective tool through which Alaska Native communities can pursue self-governance and self-determination in regards to marine mammal resources. In the Arctic, co-management typically aims to promote environmental conservation, sustainable resource use, and equitable sharing of resource-related benefits and responsibilities. This paper traces a variety of co-management regimes and other international management frameworks, and posits that co-management of subsistence resources is not just a legal issue or a governance issue, but rather, it is an issue of human rights and environmental justice. It concludes that co-management regimes are most successful when they integrate frameworks for shared responsibility, and build long-term relationships on mutual trust and strong legal agreements.","PeriodicalId":202575,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Polar Law Online","volume":"43 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132004289","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1163/22116427_010010004
E. Albanesi
The 1995 Treaty concerning the accession of Finland and Sweden to the EU makes some express exceptions for their domestic legislation vis-à-vis EU legislation regarding some aspects of traditional reindeer husbandry carried out by the Sámi people. However, other fields in the EU law lack an express regulation concerning reindeer husbandry and this has led to much controversy. In Sweden, legislation on EU Natura 2000 areas identifies reindeer herders as stakeholders among many others, i.e. it does not as such address the Sámi as indigenous people. In Finland, the Act on Metsähallitus was amended in 2016 to be in compliance with EU trade laws; however, the new Act does not recognise any special status of the Sámi as indigenous people, giving rise to concerns especially with regards to reindeer husbandry. The extension of Protocol No 3 to the Accession Treaty to other matters by a unanimous vote of the Council could be a solution to protect Sámi’s reindeer husbandry vis-à-vis EU legislation. Simultaneously, EU legislation should be interpreted in the light of the relevant rules of international law concerning indigenous peoples.
{"title":"Sámi’s Reindeer Husbandry and EU Legislation (beyond Finland and Sweden’s Accession Treaty)","authors":"E. Albanesi","doi":"10.1163/22116427_010010004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22116427_010010004","url":null,"abstract":"The 1995 Treaty concerning the accession of Finland and Sweden to the EU makes some express exceptions for their domestic legislation vis-à-vis EU legislation regarding some aspects of traditional reindeer husbandry carried out by the Sámi people. However, other fields in the EU law lack an express regulation concerning reindeer husbandry and this has led to much controversy. In Sweden, legislation on EU Natura 2000 areas identifies reindeer herders as stakeholders among many others, i.e. it does not as such address the Sámi as indigenous people. In Finland, the Act on Metsähallitus was amended in 2016 to be in compliance with EU trade laws; however, the new Act does not recognise any special status of the Sámi as indigenous people, giving rise to concerns especially with regards to reindeer husbandry. The extension of Protocol No 3 to the Accession Treaty to other matters by a unanimous vote of the Council could be a solution to protect Sámi’s reindeer husbandry vis-à-vis EU legislation. Simultaneously, EU legislation should be interpreted in the light of the relevant rules of international law concerning indigenous peoples.","PeriodicalId":202575,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Polar Law Online","volume":"16 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":"114417385","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1163/22116427_010010006
E. Zmyvalova
There are 47 groups of indigenous peoples in Russia. Many languages of indigenous peoples are at the edge of extinction. From 1995 to 2010 the proportion of indigenous pupils among all indigenous peoples learning their mother tongue decreased by almost half. This article examines the legal regulation of the Russian system of school education and defines what place indigenous languages have in this system. The author comes to the conclusion that realising the right of indigenous children to learn their mother tongue in Russia is complicated by many factors of both legal and non-legal character.
{"title":"The Place of Indigenous Languages in the Russian System of School Education: A Legal Analysis","authors":"E. Zmyvalova","doi":"10.1163/22116427_010010006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22116427_010010006","url":null,"abstract":"There are 47 groups of indigenous peoples in Russia. Many languages of indigenous peoples are at the edge of extinction. From 1995 to 2010 the proportion of indigenous pupils among all indigenous peoples learning their mother tongue decreased by almost half. This article examines the legal regulation of the Russian system of school education and defines what place indigenous languages have in this system. The author comes to the conclusion that realising the right of indigenous children to learn their mother tongue in Russia is complicated by many factors of both legal and non-legal character.","PeriodicalId":202575,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Polar Law Online","volume":"34 1 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":"116341305","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1163/22116427_010010020
Nengye Liu
{"title":"China’s Arctic Policy and Belt and Road Initiative: Synergy or Conflict?","authors":"Nengye Liu","doi":"10.1163/22116427_010010020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22116427_010010020","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":202575,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Polar Law Online","volume":"33 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":"123828655","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1163/22116427_010010026
S. Kirchner
{"title":"Timo Koivurova, Qin Tianbao, Sébastien Duyck and Tapio Nykänen (eds), Arctic Law and Governance – The Role of China and Finland (1st edn. Bloomsbury/Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, 2017) 312 pp.","authors":"S. Kirchner","doi":"10.1163/22116427_010010026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22116427_010010026","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":202575,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Polar Law Online","volume":"106 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":"122607380","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：