This Article explores how bribery and extortion in international business transactions and foreign direct investment may be prevented by holding States accountable under international law, improving the viability of investor-State arbitration for corruption claims, and making appropriate use of State-to-State dispute resolution mechanisms like diplomatic protection. It examines the content of States' obligations to prevent and eradicate corruption and considers the conditions and circumstances under which a State may be held responsible under international law for the solicitation and extortion of bribes from foreign investors and the denial of justice to foreign investors subjected to such corruption. It then assesses the opportunities and obstacles currently associated with invoking State responsibility through investor-State arbitration and State-to-State dispute resolution mechanisms such as diplomatic protection. Based on this analysis, it offers a series of suggested improvements that should better enable these international dispute resolution mechanisms to help prevent corruption by encouraging the disclosure of it, securing redress for foreign investors subjected to it, and holding States accountable for it.
{"title":"State Responsibility for Bribe Solicitation and Extortion: Obligations, Obstacles, and Opportunities","authors":"Bruce W. Klaw","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2298886","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2298886","url":null,"abstract":"This Article explores how bribery and extortion in international business transactions and foreign direct investment may be prevented by holding States accountable under international law, improving the viability of investor-State arbitration for corruption claims, and making appropriate use of State-to-State dispute resolution mechanisms like diplomatic protection. It examines the content of States' obligations to prevent and eradicate corruption and considers the conditions and circumstances under which a State may be held responsible under international law for the solicitation and extortion of bribes from foreign investors and the denial of justice to foreign investors subjected to such corruption. It then assesses the opportunities and obstacles currently associated with invoking State responsibility through investor-State arbitration and State-to-State dispute resolution mechanisms such as diplomatic protection. Based on this analysis, it offers a series of suggested improvements that should better enable these international dispute resolution mechanisms to help prevent corruption by encouraging the disclosure of it, securing redress for foreign investors subjected to it, and holding States accountable for it.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131141070","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 adopts a critical but constructive look at the case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding same-sex marriage, in light of the recent US case law on the issue.
{"title":"Same-Sex Marriage - Building an Argument Before the European Court of Human Rights in Light of the U.S. Experience","authors":"E. Bribosia, Isabelle Rorive, Laura Van den Eynde","doi":"10.15779/Z38HH2Q","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38HH2Q","url":null,"abstract":"This article adopts a critical but constructive look at the case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding same-sex marriage, in light of the recent US case law on the issue.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127784951","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}
Approximately 300,000 child soldiers currently serve in more than 30 conflicts around the world. The international legal community widely considers these children to be victims of severe human rights violations in spite of the atrocities that many of them commit. Although few of these children will ever make it to the United States, those who do manage to escape and arrive in the U.S. face a number of challenges in achieving immigration status. In general, advocates for child soldiers have focused on how the United States’ asylum laws could be changed to make it easier for former child soldiers to receive asylum status. In particular, the proposals have urged clarification of the definition of “particular social group” and incorporation of duress and infancy defenses into the exclusionary bars to asylum. These proposals, although they have merit, fail to acknowledge the floodgates and national security concerns that have likely stalled these needed changes to the asylum laws. This article offers a solution for child soldiers outside the context of asylum law: a Child Soldier Visa that applies only to former child soldiers and which attempts to reconcile the United States’ humanitarian and national security interests. While acknowledging the need to ultimately reform U.S. asylum laws so they conform to the Refugee Convention and state practice, this article discusses a solution that may be more realistic in the short-term than amending the asylum laws.
{"title":"A 'Special Track' for Former Child Soldiers: Enacting a 'Child Soldier Visa' as an Alternative to Asylum Protection","authors":"E. Rossi","doi":"10.15779/Z381H1G","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z381H1G","url":null,"abstract":"Approximately 300,000 child soldiers currently serve in more than 30 conflicts around the world. The international legal community widely considers these children to be victims of severe human rights violations in spite of the atrocities that many of them commit. Although few of these children will ever make it to the United States, those who do manage to escape and arrive in the U.S. face a number of challenges in achieving immigration status. In general, advocates for child soldiers have focused on how the United States’ asylum laws could be changed to make it easier for former child soldiers to receive asylum status. In particular, the proposals have urged clarification of the definition of “particular social group” and incorporation of duress and infancy defenses into the exclusionary bars to asylum. These proposals, although they have merit, fail to acknowledge the floodgates and national security concerns that have likely stalled these needed changes to the asylum laws. This article offers a solution for child soldiers outside the context of asylum law: a Child Soldier Visa that applies only to former child soldiers and which attempts to reconcile the United States’ humanitarian and national security interests. While acknowledging the need to ultimately reform U.S. asylum laws so they conform to the Refugee Convention and state practice, this article discusses a solution that may be more realistic in the short-term than amending the asylum laws.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132409245","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 United States and Europe there has been a remarkable change in the legal recognition of same-sex relationships over the past two decades. Twenty years ago, no nation recognized same-sex marriage. Today in the United States, thirteen states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex couples to marry, while another six provide varying legal recognition of same-sex relationships, such as partnerships and civil unions. In Europe, nine nations permit same-sex marriage, and an additional thirteen nations provide varying levels of recognition to same-sex couples.Support for same-sex marriage has been linked to age, political party, and education. In this paper, we examine the relationship between religiosity (defined as belief in God and importance of religion in a person’s life) and support for same-sex marriage. We caution that correlation is not causation, but find that in the United States and Western Europe, there is a strong correlation, while in Eastern Europe there is not.In the United States, the correlation is remarkably strong. The most religious states (the highest quartile of States in religiosity) all have constitutional bans of same-sex marriage. Of the twelve states in the lowest religiosity quartile, eight permit same-sex marriage, while three more provide some legal recognition of same-sex relationships. In Western Europe, the correlation is not quite as strong, but some of the exceptions can probably be explained by temporary mismatches between popular support and political leadership. In Eastern Europe, however, the correlation is weak, with low religiosity often combined with low support for same-sex marriage. We suspect that this is a result of the legacy of communism, and its suppression of religion.
{"title":"Religiosity and Same-Sex Marriage in the United States and Europe","authors":"D. Oppenheimer, A. Oliveira, Aaron Blumenthal","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2287286","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2287286","url":null,"abstract":"In the United States and Europe there has been a remarkable change in the legal recognition of same-sex relationships over the past two decades. Twenty years ago, no nation recognized same-sex marriage. Today in the United States, thirteen states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex couples to marry, while another six provide varying legal recognition of same-sex relationships, such as partnerships and civil unions. In Europe, nine nations permit same-sex marriage, and an additional thirteen nations provide varying levels of recognition to same-sex couples.Support for same-sex marriage has been linked to age, political party, and education. In this paper, we examine the relationship between religiosity (defined as belief in God and importance of religion in a person’s life) and support for same-sex marriage. We caution that correlation is not causation, but find that in the United States and Western Europe, there is a strong correlation, while in Eastern Europe there is not.In the United States, the correlation is remarkably strong. The most religious states (the highest quartile of States in religiosity) all have constitutional bans of same-sex marriage. Of the twelve states in the lowest religiosity quartile, eight permit same-sex marriage, while three more provide some legal recognition of same-sex relationships. In Western Europe, the correlation is not quite as strong, but some of the exceptions can probably be explained by temporary mismatches between popular support and political leadership. In Eastern Europe, however, the correlation is weak, with low religiosity often combined with low support for same-sex marriage. We suspect that this is a result of the legacy of communism, and its suppression of religion.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126042701","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}
A central debate among international law scholars revolves around the question of how, if at all, international human rights are enforced. Based on recent empirical research, the leading explanations for human rights enforcement are: 1) the democracy thesis; 2) the constitutional thesis; and 3) the international non-governmental organization (INGO) thesis. In order to gain better insight into the causal mechanisms involved and the interplay between these different factors in human rights enforcement, this article tests these competing theories through controlled comparisons and qualitative case studies focused on a single widely ratified right, the right to education. It identifies transnational rights enforcement as an alternative mechanism of human rights enforcement. In this model, transnational civil society actors contribute to human rights enforcement by overcoming international constraints, leveraging domestic commitments, and accelerating compliance with regional norms.
{"title":"Transnational Rights Enforcement","authors":"David Gartner","doi":"10.15779/Z38FP9T","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38FP9T","url":null,"abstract":"A central debate among international law scholars revolves around the question of how, if at all, international human rights are enforced. Based on recent empirical research, the leading explanations for human rights enforcement are: 1) the democracy thesis; 2) the constitutional thesis; and 3) the international non-governmental organization (INGO) thesis. In order to gain better insight into the causal mechanisms involved and the interplay between these different factors in human rights enforcement, this article tests these competing theories through controlled comparisons and qualitative case studies focused on a single widely ratified right, the right to education. It identifies transnational rights enforcement as an alternative mechanism of human rights enforcement. In this model, transnational civil society actors contribute to human rights enforcement by overcoming international constraints, leveraging domestic commitments, and accelerating compliance with regional norms.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"53 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122870395","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}
{"title":"Led Astray by the Moral Compass: Incorporating Morality into European Union Biotechnology Patent Law","authors":"D. M. Gitter","doi":"10.15779/Z38PH11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38PH11","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"350 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126684438","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}
One of a series of both published and planned studies of the history of European reparations following World War II. This paper narrates the history of the first period of that era, from 1945 to approximately 1952. This period is marked by the disappointment of the expectations of former Allies, especially those that had been under German occupation, to obtain adequate reparations through multilateral arrangements; a frustration that led to later bilateral reparations treaties with the Federal Republic of Germany. It also marks the beginning of the era in which individual subjects who had suffered persecution struggled to establish their own agency - efforts that contributed to the establishment of international human rights in later decades.
{"title":"From Paris to London: The Legal History of European Reparation Claims 1946-1953","authors":"R. Buxbaum","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1914802","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1914802","url":null,"abstract":"One of a series of both published and planned studies of the history of European reparations following World War II. This paper narrates the history of the first period of that era, from 1945 to approximately 1952. This period is marked by the disappointment of the expectations of former Allies, especially those that had been under German occupation, to obtain adequate reparations through multilateral arrangements; a frustration that led to later bilateral reparations treaties with the Federal Republic of Germany. It also marks the beginning of the era in which individual subjects who had suffered persecution struggled to establish their own agency - efforts that contributed to the establishment of international human rights in later decades.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"198 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115162755","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 United States has policed the multinational effects of multinational corporations more aggressively than any other coun-try, but recent decisions under the Alien Tort Statute indicate that it is now backtracking. Europe, paradoxically, is moving in the other direction. Why do some countries retract extraterritorial jurisdiction while others step forward? The article traces the opposing trends through corporate human rights cases and suggests that the answer may lie in attitudes towards national sovereignty. The developments raise important questions regarding the position of the United States in a globalizing world and its role in upholding international norms.
{"title":"Why is the U.S. Abdicating the Policing of Multinational Corporations to Europe?: Extraterritoriality, Sovereignty, and the Alien Tort Statute","authors":"J. A. Kirshner","doi":"10.15779/Z38CW7K","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38CW7K","url":null,"abstract":"The United States has policed the multinational effects of multinational corporations more aggressively than any other coun-try, but recent decisions under the Alien Tort Statute indicate that it is now backtracking. Europe, paradoxically, is moving in the other direction. Why do some countries retract extraterritorial jurisdiction while others step forward? The article traces the opposing trends through corporate human rights cases and suggests that the answer may lie in attitudes towards national sovereignty. The developments raise important questions regarding the position of the United States in a globalizing world and its role in upholding international norms.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124967958","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}
Fifteen years after the Israeli Supreme Court decided in Mizrahi that Israel's "Basic Laws" amount to Israel's formal Constitution and it enjoys the power of judicial review, the debate about Israel's constitutional development is far from over. This essay makes the following four propositions: First, the Israeli political branches have been debating the wrong question. Rather than lingering on the threshold question of whether or not Israel has a formal Constitution at all, they should be discussing what kind of Constitution is developing in Israel. Second, the consensus among scholars who recognize Israel’s formal Constitution is that its existence is best explained by the Constituent Authority theory. But they have adopted a myopic understanding of Israel’s constitutional development. Like so many other aspects of Israel’s national evolution, a single theory cannot adequately explain the existence of its formal constitution. Rather, this national rite of passage occurred incrementally, supported by four different, and at times conflicting, constitutional theories, each with its own strengths and weaknesses as suitable analytical frameworks. Third, depending on the theory one ascribes to Israel's constitutional development, present and future constitutional debates may be resolved differently. As examples, I illustrate how the theories diverge when applied to two contemporary constitutional matters: (1) whether referenda can be used to decide territorial concessions; and (2) whether Ultra-Orthodox Yeshiva students may be singled out for special financial treatment. Broader questions of judicial power are even more pressing, and I further explore how the various theories may affect the use of the legislative override power to overcome judicial review. Last, underlying my discussion is the assertion that there is a strong nexus between the process of enactment of a constitution and the kind of judicial review - whether strong or weak - that may emerge. This thesis deviates from the conventional view that the nature of judicial review is solely dependent on the mechanisms adopted in the constitutional document itself, rather than on the processes by which the constitution was adopted. I pursue this scheme in discussing the ramifications of the Israeli case study for Commonwealth constitutionalism in particular and comparative purposes more broadly.
{"title":"Hybrid Constitutionalism: The Israeli Case for Judicial Review and Why We Should Care","authors":"R. Weill","doi":"10.15779/Z384D36","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z384D36","url":null,"abstract":"Fifteen years after the Israeli Supreme Court decided in Mizrahi that Israel's \"Basic Laws\" amount to Israel's formal Constitution and it enjoys the power of judicial review, the debate about Israel's constitutional development is far from over. This essay makes the following four propositions: First, the Israeli political branches have been debating the wrong question. Rather than lingering on the threshold question of whether or not Israel has a formal Constitution at all, they should be discussing what kind of Constitution is developing in Israel. Second, the consensus among scholars who recognize Israel’s formal Constitution is that its existence is best explained by the Constituent Authority theory. But they have adopted a myopic understanding of Israel’s constitutional development. Like so many other aspects of Israel’s national evolution, a single theory cannot adequately explain the existence of its formal constitution. Rather, this national rite of passage occurred incrementally, supported by four different, and at times conflicting, constitutional theories, each with its own strengths and weaknesses as suitable analytical frameworks. Third, depending on the theory one ascribes to Israel's constitutional development, present and future constitutional debates may be resolved differently. As examples, I illustrate how the theories diverge when applied to two contemporary constitutional matters: (1) whether referenda can be used to decide territorial concessions; and (2) whether Ultra-Orthodox Yeshiva students may be singled out for special financial treatment. Broader questions of judicial power are even more pressing, and I further explore how the various theories may affect the use of the legislative override power to overcome judicial review. Last, underlying my discussion is the assertion that there is a strong nexus between the process of enactment of a constitution and the kind of judicial review - whether strong or weak - that may emerge. This thesis deviates from the conventional view that the nature of judicial review is solely dependent on the mechanisms adopted in the constitutional document itself, rather than on the processes by which the constitution was adopted. I pursue this scheme in discussing the ramifications of the Israeli case study for Commonwealth constitutionalism in particular and comparative purposes more broadly.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114837862","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}
Many scholars of international refugee law assert that there is no definition of refugee under international law except that given in the Refugee Convention. This assertion, however, overlooks the dynamic way that the Refugee Convention is interpreted and is usually made without a detailed analysis of customary international law. This article attempts to address this shortcoming in the literature by examining conventional and customary international law contributing to the contemporary definition of refugee. Furthermore, it will attempt to do this is an even-handed manner, concluding that the definition has expanded in favor of claimants in some aspects, but, actually, contracted against the favor of claimants in others. First, the article will examine the definition of refugee under the Refugee Convention, especially the evolving technique for interpreting the Convention, to determine whether the definition has outgrown its conventional shell. Second, the article will undertake a comprehensive analysis of state practice and opinio juris on this question, examining the most up-to-date sources. In particular, it will reflect on the role of specially interested or specially affected states in the formation of customary international law and the growth of “subsidiary” protection. Also the article will consider the contribution of the practice and opinio juris of international organizations in the frame of the contemporary international law’s understanding of the contribution international organizations can make. Lastly, the article will look at the opposite side of the coin: the ways in which customary international law may have narrowed the definition beyond the terms of the Refugee Convention. It will conclude by proposing the new definition of a refugee under conventional and customary international law based on the findings.
{"title":"The Evolving Definition of the Refugee in Contemporary International Law","authors":"W. T. Worster","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1736547","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1736547","url":null,"abstract":"Many scholars of international refugee law assert that there is no definition of refugee under international law except that given in the Refugee Convention. This assertion, however, overlooks the dynamic way that the Refugee Convention is interpreted and is usually made without a detailed analysis of customary international law. This article attempts to address this shortcoming in the literature by examining conventional and customary international law contributing to the contemporary definition of refugee. Furthermore, it will attempt to do this is an even-handed manner, concluding that the definition has expanded in favor of claimants in some aspects, but, actually, contracted against the favor of claimants in others. First, the article will examine the definition of refugee under the Refugee Convention, especially the evolving technique for interpreting the Convention, to determine whether the definition has outgrown its conventional shell. Second, the article will undertake a comprehensive analysis of state practice and opinio juris on this question, examining the most up-to-date sources. In particular, it will reflect on the role of specially interested or specially affected states in the formation of customary international law and the growth of “subsidiary” protection. Also the article will consider the contribution of the practice and opinio juris of international organizations in the frame of the contemporary international law’s understanding of the contribution international organizations can make. Lastly, the article will look at the opposite side of the coin: the ways in which customary international law may have narrowed the definition beyond the terms of the Refugee Convention. It will conclude by proposing the new definition of a refugee under conventional and customary international law based on the findings.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"88 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131959085","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：