Pub Date : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2020.1861062
Pablo Gilabert
ABSTRACT This précis offers a summary of key claims in my book Human Dignity and Human Rights.
本文概述了我在《人的尊严与人权》一书中的主要主张。
{"title":"Précis of Human Dignity and Human Rights","authors":"Pablo Gilabert","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2020.1861062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2020.1861062","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This précis offers a summary of key claims in my book Human Dignity and Human Rights.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449626.2020.1861062","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43183740","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 : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2020.1869058
M. Blake
ABSTRACT Pablo Gilabert’s Human Dignity and Human Rights offers an excellent, and welcome, defense of human dignity as a foundational concept for theorizing about human rights. In this paper, I defend the thought that concepts such as human dignity have an inescapably interpretive character, resting upon particular interpretations of human acts and lives. I defend this conclusion in three distinct domains: disability, which looks to the question of how to understand the relationship between dignity and a particular physical or mental impairment; defiance, which treats of how we ought to understand unsuccessful resistance to injustice; and death, and the question of how we might ascribe dignity to lives after they have ended.
{"title":"The hermeneutics of dignity: on disability, defiance, and death","authors":"M. Blake","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2020.1869058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2020.1869058","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Pablo Gilabert’s Human Dignity and Human Rights offers an excellent, and welcome, defense of human dignity as a foundational concept for theorizing about human rights. In this paper, I defend the thought that concepts such as human dignity have an inescapably interpretive character, resting upon particular interpretations of human acts and lives. I defend this conclusion in three distinct domains: disability, which looks to the question of how to understand the relationship between dignity and a particular physical or mental impairment; defiance, which treats of how we ought to understand unsuccessful resistance to injustice; and death, and the question of how we might ascribe dignity to lives after they have ended.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449626.2020.1869058","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42717936","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 : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2021.1873164
Nir Eisikovits
ABSTRACT I examine five arguments against removing controversial monuments. I argue that none of these arguments provides good reasons for leaving controversial monuments in place. A close examination of these arguments also points to some of our misconceptions about the nature of monuments. The arguments include the claim that removing monuments rewrites history, that removal amounts to ex-post facto moralizing, that controversial monuments are needed to stir people to healthy debate, that the focus on monuments is a distraction preventing us from making pragmatic progress, and that removing some monuments is the first step in a slippery slope that will lead to excessive censure of historical figures.
{"title":"Not set in stone: five bad arguments for letting monuments stand","authors":"Nir Eisikovits","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2021.1873164","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2021.1873164","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT I examine five arguments against removing controversial monuments. I argue that none of these arguments provides good reasons for leaving controversial monuments in place. A close examination of these arguments also points to some of our misconceptions about the nature of monuments. The arguments include the claim that removing monuments rewrites history, that removal amounts to ex-post facto moralizing, that controversial monuments are needed to stir people to healthy debate, that the focus on monuments is a distraction preventing us from making pragmatic progress, and that removing some monuments is the first step in a slippery slope that will lead to excessive censure of historical figures.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449626.2021.1873164","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49012608","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 : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2021.1883877
E. Palmer, C. Koggel
In the Editorial for the previous issue of Journal of Global Ethics, we selected to discuss COVID19, a global issue affecting very nearly all of us in unprecedented ways. The disease continues as a first priority health concern around the globe. Now that we have just entered the hopedfor era of vaccination, previously anticipated concerns for global justice regarding equitable distribution of the vaccine are now added. We cannot continue with expansion of the COVID-19 story in this issue’s editorial, since COVID-19 has meant delays in production and publication of this final issue for 2020, and uncertainty has also led us to an unexpected longer than usual page count. Consequently, the issue opens with what must be a brief editorial, and we have chosen to focus on the circumstances of the journal’s production. Some readers are very familiar with various aspects of editors’ approaches for compiling any given journal issue. But Journal of Global Ethics has as its ideal to be read around the globe, and to receive contributions from early-career professionals who may be less familiar with the mechanics of academic journals as well as non-academic practitioners concerned with diverse issues from around the globe. We can expect that some will be unfamiliar with standard practices, and nearly all will be unfamiliar with any given journal’s specific practices. For this editorial, we will use a bit of space to explain this journal’s practices further. We do so particularly for the purpose of transparency, and for encouraging contributions from those who may be less familiar with placement of material in this journal and in other such publications. We do this for the sake of the diverse readership we aspire to and to promote the aims of the journal itself: for global discourse is itself a part of global ethics. More than half of the material in Journal of Global Ethics includes full topical special issues, issues of selected papers from International Development Ethics Association conferences, guest-edited sections, and further invited content that is selected by ourselves, the journal editors. We think that guest-edited sections and full special issues, in particular, allow more diverse voices to enter discussion of global ethics. We encourage proposals for issues focused on less-discussed global, regional and disciplinary themes and promote open callsfor-papers. Further details concerning the process of making a proposal lie further below. Journal of Global Ethics is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, and refereed submissions to the journal generally fill a third to a half of its pages in any given year. We consider the process for publishing reviewed articles to be the journal’s main work and to take general priority with respect to timelines to publication also. The refereeing process for standard submissions received at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rjge is transparent as a matter of course. Such transparency is the very infrastructure of academe,
{"title":"On the editorial process","authors":"E. Palmer, C. Koggel","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2021.1883877","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2021.1883877","url":null,"abstract":"In the Editorial for the previous issue of Journal of Global Ethics, we selected to discuss COVID19, a global issue affecting very nearly all of us in unprecedented ways. The disease continues as a first priority health concern around the globe. Now that we have just entered the hopedfor era of vaccination, previously anticipated concerns for global justice regarding equitable distribution of the vaccine are now added. We cannot continue with expansion of the COVID-19 story in this issue’s editorial, since COVID-19 has meant delays in production and publication of this final issue for 2020, and uncertainty has also led us to an unexpected longer than usual page count. Consequently, the issue opens with what must be a brief editorial, and we have chosen to focus on the circumstances of the journal’s production. Some readers are very familiar with various aspects of editors’ approaches for compiling any given journal issue. But Journal of Global Ethics has as its ideal to be read around the globe, and to receive contributions from early-career professionals who may be less familiar with the mechanics of academic journals as well as non-academic practitioners concerned with diverse issues from around the globe. We can expect that some will be unfamiliar with standard practices, and nearly all will be unfamiliar with any given journal’s specific practices. For this editorial, we will use a bit of space to explain this journal’s practices further. We do so particularly for the purpose of transparency, and for encouraging contributions from those who may be less familiar with placement of material in this journal and in other such publications. We do this for the sake of the diverse readership we aspire to and to promote the aims of the journal itself: for global discourse is itself a part of global ethics. More than half of the material in Journal of Global Ethics includes full topical special issues, issues of selected papers from International Development Ethics Association conferences, guest-edited sections, and further invited content that is selected by ourselves, the journal editors. We think that guest-edited sections and full special issues, in particular, allow more diverse voices to enter discussion of global ethics. We encourage proposals for issues focused on less-discussed global, regional and disciplinary themes and promote open callsfor-papers. Further details concerning the process of making a proposal lie further below. Journal of Global Ethics is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, and refereed submissions to the journal generally fill a third to a half of its pages in any given year. We consider the process for publishing reviewed articles to be the journal’s main work and to take general priority with respect to timelines to publication also. The refereeing process for standard submissions received at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rjge is transparent as a matter of course. Such transparency is the very infrastructure of academe, ","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449626.2021.1883877","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47375315","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 : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2020.1861063
Pablo Gilabert
I am very grateful to Christian Barry, Michael Blake, Adam Etinson, and Cristina Lafont for their essays on Human Dignity and Human Rights. I admire and have learnt from their own philosophical work (See, e.g. Barry and Reddy 2008; Barry and Øverland 2016; Blake 2013; Etinson 2013, 2018; Lafont 2010, forthcoming), and it is indeed a great honor and a challenge to reply to their thoughtful comments on my book. I intend my (necessarily short) replies as part of what will hopefully be an ongoing conversation to sharpen and improve our views about human rights and social justice.
{"title":"Defending human dignity and human rights","authors":"Pablo Gilabert","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2020.1861063","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2020.1861063","url":null,"abstract":"I am very grateful to Christian Barry, Michael Blake, Adam Etinson, and Cristina Lafont for their essays on Human Dignity and Human Rights. I admire and have learnt from their own philosophical work (See, e.g. Barry and Reddy 2008; Barry and Øverland 2016; Blake 2013; Etinson 2013, 2018; Lafont 2010, forthcoming), and it is indeed a great honor and a challenge to reply to their thoughtful comments on my book. I intend my (necessarily short) replies as part of what will hopefully be an ongoing conversation to sharpen and improve our views about human rights and social justice.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449626.2020.1861063","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46911469","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 : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2021.1873166
D. Miranda
ABSTRACT Drawing on the works of Friedrich Nietzsche, this contribution will examine commemorative practices alongside critical modes of historical engagement. In Untimely Meditations, Friedrich Nietzsche documents three historical methodologies—the monumental, antiquarian and critical—which purposely use history in non-objective ways. In particular, critical history desires to judge and reject historical figures rather than repeat the past or venerate the dead. For instance, in recent protests against racism there have also been calls to decolonize public space through the defacement, destruction, and removal of monuments. There is thus much potential in critical history being used to address ongoing harms.
{"title":"Critical commemorations","authors":"D. Miranda","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2021.1873166","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2021.1873166","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Drawing on the works of Friedrich Nietzsche, this contribution will examine commemorative practices alongside critical modes of historical engagement. In Untimely Meditations, Friedrich Nietzsche documents three historical methodologies—the monumental, antiquarian and critical—which purposely use history in non-objective ways. In particular, critical history desires to judge and reject historical figures rather than repeat the past or venerate the dead. For instance, in recent protests against racism there have also been calls to decolonize public space through the defacement, destruction, and removal of monuments. There is thus much potential in critical history being used to address ongoing harms.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449626.2021.1873166","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47180122","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 : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2020.1861061
C. Lafont
ABSTRACT Pablo Gilabert's book Human Dignity and Human Rights offers a bold and fascinating account of the claim that human rights are grounded in human dignity. I am quite sympathetic to the dignitarian approach articulated in the book and agree with many of its argumentative goals. My critical comments are therefore lodged in the spirit of a family quarrel. I focus on three issues: the relationship between the humanistic and political perspectives on human rights (1), the suitability of the substantive account of human dignity offered in the book to function as the ground of human rights (2) and the plausibility of a sufficientarian interpretation of the aims of human rights practice (3).
{"title":"How demanding is human dignity? Remarks on Pablo Gilabert’s dignitarian approach to human rights","authors":"C. Lafont","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2020.1861061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2020.1861061","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Pablo Gilabert's book Human Dignity and Human Rights offers a bold and fascinating account of the claim that human rights are grounded in human dignity. I am quite sympathetic to the dignitarian approach articulated in the book and agree with many of its argumentative goals. My critical comments are therefore lodged in the spirit of a family quarrel. I focus on three issues: the relationship between the humanistic and political perspectives on human rights (1), the suitability of the substantive account of human dignity offered in the book to function as the ground of human rights (2) and the plausibility of a sufficientarian interpretation of the aims of human rights practice (3).","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449626.2020.1861061","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43409881","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 : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2021.1873165
Chong-Ming Lim
ABSTRACT In recent years, progressive activists around the world have fought to remove ‘problematic’ commemorations – typically, monuments commemorating and honoring individuals responsible for injustice, or even unjust events. Many of these problematic commemorations are vandalized before they are eventually removed. In this essay, I consider how the vandalism of problematic commemoration can transform the public honoring of a target, to a public repudiation or humiliation of that target. I discuss four obstacles to realizing the transformative potential of vandalism, and how they may be mitigated or overcome.
{"title":"Transforming problematic commemorations through vandalism","authors":"Chong-Ming Lim","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2021.1873165","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2021.1873165","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 In recent years, progressive activists around the world have fought to remove ‘problematic’ commemorations – typically, monuments commemorating and honoring individuals responsible for injustice, or even unjust events. Many of these problematic commemorations are vandalized before they are eventually removed. In this essay, I consider how the vandalism of problematic commemoration can transform the public honoring of a target, to a public repudiation or humiliation of that target. I discuss four obstacles to realizing the transformative potential of vandalism, and how they may be mitigated or overcome.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449626.2021.1873165","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48140147","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 : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2020.1869057
Christian Barry
ABSTRACT In this brief article, I will raise some challenges to each of Pablo Gilabert’s arguments for a HRD. First, I will question whether the instrumental case for affirming a HRD is as strong as Gilabert and others have suggested. I will then call into question the argument from moral risk, arguing that, for any particular country, we should not operate with a strong presumption that they should pursue further democratization as a high-priority goal. Finally, I will consider the strength of our intuitive support for a stringent human right to democracy. As Gilabert points out, there could be a genuine HRD, even if it did not always provide us with an overriding reason to call for the implementation of democracy. I will explore how much normative priority claims to respect democratic decisions have by considering what we have reason to do when democratic decisions would lead to violations of other, noncontroversial human rights.
{"title":"Reconsidering a human right to democracy","authors":"Christian Barry","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2020.1869057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2020.1869057","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this brief article, I will raise some challenges to each of Pablo Gilabert’s arguments for a HRD. First, I will question whether the instrumental case for affirming a HRD is as strong as Gilabert and others have suggested. I will then call into question the argument from moral risk, arguing that, for any particular country, we should not operate with a strong presumption that they should pursue further democratization as a high-priority goal. Finally, I will consider the strength of our intuitive support for a stringent human right to democracy. As Gilabert points out, there could be a genuine HRD, even if it did not always provide us with an overriding reason to call for the implementation of democracy. I will explore how much normative priority claims to respect democratic decisions have by considering what we have reason to do when democratic decisions would lead to violations of other, noncontroversial human rights.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449626.2020.1869057","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44019577","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 : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2021.1876144
Serene J. Khader
ABSTRACT This symposium brings together commentaries on Serene J. Khader’s Decolonizing Universalism: A Transnational Feminist Ethic from Linda Martín Alcoff, Sunaina Arya, and Olúfẹ'mi O. Táíwò with a reply from Khader. Khader’s book aims to develop a conception of feminism that is both universalist and anti-imperialist. Central to this feminism are (a) the idea that the normative core of feminism is opposition to sexist oppression and (b) the idea that the role of normative concepts in transnational feminist praxis is a justice-enhancing, or nonideal theoretical, one. Khader resists the universalism/relativism framing of debates in global feminisms and argues that opposition to sexist oppression can be detached from the values and social ontology of what she calls ‘Enlightenment liberalism’. She asks whether the values that are most often accused of being vehicles for Western imperialism, namely autonomy, individualism, and gender role eliminativism, are necessary for feminism at all.
{"title":"Introduction: Symposium on Serene J. Khader’s Decolonizing Universalism: A Transnational Feminist Ethic","authors":"Serene J. Khader","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2021.1876144","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2021.1876144","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This symposium brings together commentaries on Serene J. Khader’s Decolonizing Universalism: A Transnational Feminist Ethic from Linda Martín Alcoff, Sunaina Arya, and Olúfẹ'mi O. Táíwò with a reply from Khader. Khader’s book aims to develop a conception of feminism that is both universalist and anti-imperialist. Central to this feminism are (a) the idea that the normative core of feminism is opposition to sexist oppression and (b) the idea that the role of normative concepts in transnational feminist praxis is a justice-enhancing, or nonideal theoretical, one. Khader resists the universalism/relativism framing of debates in global feminisms and argues that opposition to sexist oppression can be detached from the values and social ontology of what she calls ‘Enlightenment liberalism’. She asks whether the values that are most often accused of being vehicles for Western imperialism, namely autonomy, individualism, and gender role eliminativism, are necessary for feminism at all.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449626.2021.1876144","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42976188","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：