Pub Date : 2021-07-29DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190904418.013.30
J. Doyle
Peacebuilding—in one form or another—is likely to persist for the duration of a liberal world order. Power-sharing models of government as a contribution to peacemaking have dominated constitutional design since the mid-1990s, but they remain highly contested. Consociational power-sharing offers a means to move beyond armed conflict acceptable to political actors, for whom a return to hegemonic majoritarianism is unacceptable and a hope of conflict transformation too distant. Critics claim that it locks in divided identities and prevents other options emerging. This chapter argues that the causal impact of power-sharing in cases such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, compared to other features of these conflicts, such as excessive canonization, is not clear-cut and that in other situations, such as Northern Ireland, the outcomes are more positive. Basing each cycle of power-sharing executive formation on the results of the previous election rather than historic balances of power or population can facilitate internal electoral competition within political communities and the emergence of new parties outside of the traditional political divisions. It could also facilitate other forms of representation, such as gender quotas. The external influences on power-sharing and international intervention are not well explored, and engaging with the “local turn” in peacemaking could allow a better understanding of the positive and negative factors in the interaction between external support and local agency.
{"title":"Power-Sharing in Divided Societies","authors":"J. Doyle","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190904418.013.30","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190904418.013.30","url":null,"abstract":"Peacebuilding—in one form or another—is likely to persist for the duration of a liberal world order. Power-sharing models of government as a contribution to peacemaking have dominated constitutional design since the mid-1990s, but they remain highly contested. Consociational power-sharing offers a means to move beyond armed conflict acceptable to political actors, for whom a return to hegemonic majoritarianism is unacceptable and a hope of conflict transformation too distant. Critics claim that it locks in divided identities and prevents other options emerging. This chapter argues that the causal impact of power-sharing in cases such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, compared to other features of these conflicts, such as excessive canonization, is not clear-cut and that in other situations, such as Northern Ireland, the outcomes are more positive. Basing each cycle of power-sharing executive formation on the results of the previous election rather than historic balances of power or population can facilitate internal electoral competition within political communities and the emergence of new parties outside of the traditional political divisions. It could also facilitate other forms of representation, such as gender quotas. The external influences on power-sharing and international intervention are not well explored, and engaging with the “local turn” in peacemaking could allow a better understanding of the positive and negative factors in the interaction between external support and local agency.","PeriodicalId":293895,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Peacebuilding, Statebuilding, and Peace Formation","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123287001","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 : 2021-06-09DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190904418.013.31
D. Chandler
This chapter analyzes how international statebuilding has shifted from problem-solving to a new discursive regime of acceptance and affirmation. It seeks to explore how the shift to bottom-up or postliberal approaches in the early 2000s led to a focus on epistemological barriers to intervention and an appreciation of complexity. It describes a process of reflection upon statebuilding as a policy practice, whereby the need to focus on local context and relations in order to take problems seriously further undermines confidence in the Western episteme. In other words, the bottom-up approach, rather than resolving the crisis of policy practices of statebuilding, seems to have further intensified it. It is argued that the way out of this crisis is to reject the problem-solving external authority and instead to “unlearn” from the opportunities opened up through the practices of exploring and engaging with the “other.”
{"title":"Statebuilding","authors":"D. Chandler","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190904418.013.31","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190904418.013.31","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter analyzes how international statebuilding has shifted from problem-solving to a new discursive regime of acceptance and affirmation. It seeks to explore how the shift to bottom-up or postliberal approaches in the early 2000s led to a focus on epistemological barriers to intervention and an appreciation of complexity. It describes a process of reflection upon statebuilding as a policy practice, whereby the need to focus on local context and relations in order to take problems seriously further undermines confidence in the Western episteme. In other words, the bottom-up approach, rather than resolving the crisis of policy practices of statebuilding, seems to have further intensified it. It is argued that the way out of this crisis is to reject the problem-solving external authority and instead to “unlearn” from the opportunities opened up through the practices of exploring and engaging with the “other.”","PeriodicalId":293895,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Peacebuilding, Statebuilding, and Peace Formation","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117341157","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 : 2021-06-09DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190904418.013.19
Nathalie. Tocci
This chapter looks at the European Union’s peacebuilding approach. The chapter argues that the EU has moved from a hyperliberal idealist approach based on conditionality, social learning, and passive enforcement to building peace and reconstructing states to a more bottom-up principled pragmatism centered around supporting states’ and societies’ resilience and integrating the EU’s capabilities and instruments to leverage greater and above all more coherent impact. To trace this journey, this chapter will briefly recount what the EU’s approach to peacebuilding looked like in the 1990s and 2000s, notably in the Union’s surrounding regions, and what it is now transforming into, largely as a result of the changed strategic context both in Europe and in the wider world.
{"title":"The European Union and Peacebuilding","authors":"Nathalie. Tocci","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190904418.013.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190904418.013.19","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter looks at the European Union’s peacebuilding approach. The chapter argues that the EU has moved from a hyperliberal idealist approach based on conditionality, social learning, and passive enforcement to building peace and reconstructing states to a more bottom-up principled pragmatism centered around supporting states’ and societies’ resilience and integrating the EU’s capabilities and instruments to leverage greater and above all more coherent impact. To trace this journey, this chapter will briefly recount what the EU’s approach to peacebuilding looked like in the 1990s and 2000s, notably in the Union’s surrounding regions, and what it is now transforming into, largely as a result of the changed strategic context both in Europe and in the wider world.","PeriodicalId":293895,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Peacebuilding, Statebuilding, and Peace Formation","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115603945","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 : 2021-06-09DOI: 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190904418.013.41
J. Brewer
This chapter explores the relationship between religion and politics through the lens of religious peacebuilding. Instead of asking the usual question of what happens to politics when it is infused with religion, it explores what happens to religion when it becomes politicized. Politicized religion distorts the meaning and practice of religion, one consequence of which is to constrain the potential for religious peacebuilding. Instead of becoming part of the solution in conflict transformation, politicized religion becomes part of the problem. The chapter goes on to discuss the far greater role religion has played in transitional justice.
{"title":"Religion and Peacebuilding","authors":"J. Brewer","doi":"10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190904418.013.41","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190904418.013.41","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores the relationship between religion and politics through the lens of religious peacebuilding. Instead of asking the usual question of what happens to politics when it is infused with religion, it explores what happens to religion when it becomes politicized. Politicized religion distorts the meaning and practice of religion, one consequence of which is to constrain the potential for religious peacebuilding. Instead of becoming part of the solution in conflict transformation, politicized religion becomes part of the problem. The chapter goes on to discuss the far greater role religion has played in transitional justice.","PeriodicalId":293895,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Peacebuilding, Statebuilding, and Peace Formation","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114465879","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 : 2021-06-09DOI: 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190904418.013.36
Catherine Turner
This chapter outlines transitional justice as it has been institutionalized in international law, policy, and practice. As such it focuses on transitional justice as an elite discourse rather than as a grassroots project. The reason for this is the potential of elite discourses to constrain what is considered appropriate at the local level, and because it is the tension between international frameworks and local peacebuilding that is the subject of most of the critique of transitional justice from a peacebuilding perspective. The chapter provides an overview of the key transitional mechanisms and explores how each mechanism is intended to contribute to the goal of peace. The chapter considers the professionalization of transitional justice as a field and its embeddedness in normative ideas of justice. In addressing a peacebuilding audience the chapter seeks first to explain the arguments made in favor of legally normative transitional justice mechanisms, before exploring the difficult relationship between law and politics in transitional justice scholarship that contributes to the disciplinary gap that is so evident between transitional justice and peacebuilding.
{"title":"Transitional Justice and Peacebuilding","authors":"Catherine Turner","doi":"10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190904418.013.36","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190904418.013.36","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter outlines transitional justice as it has been institutionalized in international law, policy, and practice. As such it focuses on transitional justice as an elite discourse rather than as a grassroots project. The reason for this is the potential of elite discourses to constrain what is considered appropriate at the local level, and because it is the tension between international frameworks and local peacebuilding that is the subject of most of the critique of transitional justice from a peacebuilding perspective. The chapter provides an overview of the key transitional mechanisms and explores how each mechanism is intended to contribute to the goal of peace. The chapter considers the professionalization of transitional justice as a field and its embeddedness in normative ideas of justice. In addressing a peacebuilding audience the chapter seeks first to explain the arguments made in favor of legally normative transitional justice mechanisms, before exploring the difficult relationship between law and politics in transitional justice scholarship that contributes to the disciplinary gap that is so evident between transitional justice and peacebuilding.","PeriodicalId":293895,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Peacebuilding, Statebuilding, and Peace Formation","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121143442","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 : 2021-06-09DOI: 10.1017/9781316107010.007
W. Kilroy
The protection of civilians was first included the mandate of a UN peacekeeping operation in 1999, and has since become a standard item on the list of tasks for integrated missions. The wording of the mandates has also become more ambitious, and force is not only permitted but has been used in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in tackling armed groups that were preying on civilians. Protecting civilians from direct physical violence is not simply a military matter, and it includes promoting political processes and improving the human rights environment. But the possibility of UN peacekeepers using force is a further step in the fundamental changes seen in peace operations since they began as a cautious, neutral presence where peace was already in place. Protecting civilians goes to the heart of peacekeeping, with very real dilemmas on whether and how to act. There can be significant consequences for civilians and conflict dynamics, whatever decisions are made.
{"title":"Protection of Civilians","authors":"W. Kilroy","doi":"10.1017/9781316107010.007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316107010.007","url":null,"abstract":"The protection of civilians was first included the mandate of a UN peacekeeping operation in 1999, and has since become a standard item on the list of tasks for integrated missions. The wording of the mandates has also become more ambitious, and force is not only permitted but has been used in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in tackling armed groups that were preying on civilians. Protecting civilians from direct physical violence is not simply a military matter, and it includes promoting political processes and improving the human rights environment. But the possibility of UN peacekeepers using force is a further step in the fundamental changes seen in peace operations since they began as a cautious, neutral presence where peace was already in place. Protecting civilians goes to the heart of peacekeeping, with very real dilemmas on whether and how to act. There can be significant consequences for civilians and conflict dynamics, whatever decisions are made.","PeriodicalId":293895,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Peacebuilding, Statebuilding, and Peace Formation","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125312929","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 : 2021-06-09DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190904418.013.16
Aidan Hehir
This chapter explores the relationship between state sovereignty and the vexed question of intervention. While the sovereign state has become the dominant political unit in the international system, the rights afforded to ostensibly sovereign states remain prey to power politics, and—especially in recent decades—the rise in support for international human rights. This chapter contrasts the laws governing intervention with actual state practice and notes that while international law has advanced considerably in the past hundred years—in terms of both depth and breadth—there has been little substantive change to the mechanism by which these laws are actually enforced.
{"title":"International Interventions","authors":"Aidan Hehir","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190904418.013.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190904418.013.16","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores the relationship between state sovereignty and the vexed question of intervention. While the sovereign state has become the dominant political unit in the international system, the rights afforded to ostensibly sovereign states remain prey to power politics, and—especially in recent decades—the rise in support for international human rights. This chapter contrasts the laws governing intervention with actual state practice and notes that while international law has advanced considerably in the past hundred years—in terms of both depth and breadth—there has been little substantive change to the mechanism by which these laws are actually enforced.","PeriodicalId":293895,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Peacebuilding, Statebuilding, and Peace Formation","volume":"231 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122864203","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 : 2021-06-09DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190904418.013.46
Gëzim Visoka
The quest for emancipation remains an aspirational project in critical peace and conflict studies. Recently, however, new proposals for emancipatory peace have emerged in conflict-affected societies. This chapter gives an overview of different visions of emancipatory peace and examines their key features. Whereas, for the proponents of liberal peace, local subjects need to be freed from the local practices, identities, habits, and structures that have caused violent conflict in the first place, critical scholars focus their emancipatory project on the importance of not only tackling the root causes of conflict but also unmaking the negative legacies of liberal peacebuilding’s failed attempts to resolve the tier-one suppressive structures. The first part of the chapter briefly outlines the significance of emancipation for different strands of critical theory. The tensions between deconstructive and reconstructive modes of critique will be examined to shed light on the extent to which critical theory can contribute to the development of emancipatory knowledge for social and political change. The discussion then surveys the early critiques of liberal peacebuilding and outlines some of the emerging visions of what emancipatory peace would look like in conflict-affected societies. Finally, the chapter traces some of the critiques of and responses to the visions of an emancipatory peace, and it concludes by exploring the limits of existing work in critical peace and conflict studies and exploring ideas for a future direction.
{"title":"Emancipatory Peace","authors":"Gëzim Visoka","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190904418.013.46","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190904418.013.46","url":null,"abstract":"The quest for emancipation remains an aspirational project in critical peace and conflict studies. Recently, however, new proposals for emancipatory peace have emerged in conflict-affected societies. This chapter gives an overview of different visions of emancipatory peace and examines their key features. Whereas, for the proponents of liberal peace, local subjects need to be freed from the local practices, identities, habits, and structures that have caused violent conflict in the first place, critical scholars focus their emancipatory project on the importance of not only tackling the root causes of conflict but also unmaking the negative legacies of liberal peacebuilding’s failed attempts to resolve the tier-one suppressive structures. The first part of the chapter briefly outlines the significance of emancipation for different strands of critical theory. The tensions between deconstructive and reconstructive modes of critique will be examined to shed light on the extent to which critical theory can contribute to the development of emancipatory knowledge for social and political change. The discussion then surveys the early critiques of liberal peacebuilding and outlines some of the emerging visions of what emancipatory peace would look like in conflict-affected societies. Finally, the chapter traces some of the critiques of and responses to the visions of an emancipatory peace, and it concludes by exploring the limits of existing work in critical peace and conflict studies and exploring ideas for a future direction.","PeriodicalId":293895,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Peacebuilding, Statebuilding, and Peace Formation","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131196154","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 : 2021-06-09DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190904418.013.21
Jackie Smith
Conventional scholarship on peace and peacebuilding fail to consider how the capitalist world-system is implicated in the structural violence that fuels violent conflicts around the world. This helps to account for the widespread failures of state-led peacebuilding interventions. Although social movement and civil society actors are deemed critical to successful peacebuilding, they are typically denied meaningful roles in shaping these processes. Yet subaltern groups are critical agents pressing for attention to latent conflicts before they escalate into violent confrontations, and they work to reduce violent conflicts and their harmful effects on communities. By shifting our gaze from the realm of states and the interstate system, we see an array of forces working “from below” to articulate projects to transform social relations in ways that Oliver Richmond calls “peace formation.” Global human rights discourses have provided a unifying framework and focal point for these grassroots initiatives, which eschew mainstream notions of rights as formal protections for individuals while advancing new foundations for transformative peacebuilding based upon “people-centered human rights.”
{"title":"Globalization of Peace","authors":"Jackie Smith","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190904418.013.21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190904418.013.21","url":null,"abstract":"Conventional scholarship on peace and peacebuilding fail to consider how the capitalist world-system is implicated in the structural violence that fuels violent conflicts around the world. This helps to account for the widespread failures of state-led peacebuilding interventions. Although social movement and civil society actors are deemed critical to successful peacebuilding, they are typically denied meaningful roles in shaping these processes. Yet subaltern groups are critical agents pressing for attention to latent conflicts before they escalate into violent confrontations, and they work to reduce violent conflicts and their harmful effects on communities. By shifting our gaze from the realm of states and the interstate system, we see an array of forces working “from below” to articulate projects to transform social relations in ways that Oliver Richmond calls “peace formation.” Global human rights discourses have provided a unifying framework and focal point for these grassroots initiatives, which eschew mainstream notions of rights as formal protections for individuals while advancing new foundations for transformative peacebuilding based upon “people-centered human rights.”","PeriodicalId":293895,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Peacebuilding, Statebuilding, and Peace Formation","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114541262","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 : 2021-06-09DOI: 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190904418.013.11
Cecilia M. Bailliet
Contemporary international law is in a state of flux based on shifts within the geopolitical order. This chapter discusses the normative evolution of the concept of peace international law from peaceful coexistence to the current identification of a right to peace and discusses the interface with the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. It discusses a wide range of dilemmas presented by peace treaties, Jus Post Bellum, and the interface between the umbrella terms of Human Security, Security, and Peace. The chapter suggests that these normative iterations represent a watershed in human rights and international law as non-Western approaches to conflict prevention gain traction.
{"title":"The International Law of Peace","authors":"Cecilia M. Bailliet","doi":"10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190904418.013.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190904418.013.11","url":null,"abstract":"Contemporary international law is in a state of flux based on shifts within the geopolitical order. This chapter discusses the normative evolution of the concept of peace international law from peaceful coexistence to the current identification of a right to peace and discusses the interface with the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. It discusses a wide range of dilemmas presented by peace treaties, Jus Post Bellum, and the interface between the umbrella terms of Human Security, Security, and Peace. The chapter suggests that these normative iterations represent a watershed in human rights and international law as non-Western approaches to conflict prevention gain traction.","PeriodicalId":293895,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Peacebuilding, Statebuilding, and Peace Formation","volume":"122 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134475047","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：