Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2022.2052150
Anna E. Mudde
ABSTRACT In this paper, I explore the terrain of craft knowing as an area of expansion for feminist relational theory toward materials, instruments, and design work. I argue that an un(der)-developed attention to craft marginalizes forms of deep knowledge and relational practice. A lens critically oriented to craft affirms the importance of paying attention to how bodies and materials become-together, especially in sites that are usually overlooked, undervalued, and marginalized. If crafting is inherently relational, then craft training is training to negotiate those relations, and attending to craft is a way of understanding such relations and appreciating the knowledges they express. By attending to craft, one moves into a space of being with others where what we might have been trained to perceive as ‘problems’ are just lived realities, and our bodily, practiced responses to them show up as indications of our tendencies and desires. That attention can, I suggest, be leveraged toward greater solidarity practices, including those of accessibility.
{"title":"Crafting relations and feminist practices of access","authors":"Anna E. Mudde","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2022.2052150","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2022.2052150","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this paper, I explore the terrain of craft knowing as an area of expansion for feminist relational theory toward materials, instruments, and design work. I argue that an un(der)-developed attention to craft marginalizes forms of deep knowledge and relational practice. A lens critically oriented to craft affirms the importance of paying attention to how bodies and materials become-together, especially in sites that are usually overlooked, undervalued, and marginalized. If crafting is inherently relational, then craft training is training to negotiate those relations, and attending to craft is a way of understanding such relations and appreciating the knowledges they express. By attending to craft, one moves into a space of being with others where what we might have been trained to perceive as ‘problems’ are just lived realities, and our bodily, practiced responses to them show up as indications of our tendencies and desires. That attention can, I suggest, be leveraged toward greater solidarity practices, including those of accessibility.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41390628","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 : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.4135/9781412961288.n117
Matthew Tong
{"title":"Discussion Section","authors":"Matthew Tong","doi":"10.4135/9781412961288.n117","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288.n117","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70536940","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 : 2021-10-10DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2021.1969982
Sören Hilbrich
ABSTRACT In the last few decades, the democratic credentials of global governance institutions have been extensively debated in the fields of international relations and political philosophy. However, despite their prominent role in the architecture of global governance, club governance institutions like the Group of Seven (G7) or the Group of Twenty (G20) have rarely been considered from the perspective of democratic theory. Focussing on the G20, this paper analyses its functions in international political practice and discusses whether, in exercising these functions, the G20 exhibits a democratic deficit. As a standard of democracy, the analysis uses the all-affected principle, according to which all those who are affected by a policy decision should be given the opportunity to participate in decision-making. This paper identifies several democratic shortcomings of the G20, for instance related to the exclusion of citizens of non-member states and a lack of parliamentary and public control. By describing realisable reforms that could to some degree alleviate these shortcomings, it is shown that more democratic institutional alternatives are feasible. Thus, the ascription of a democratic deficit to the G20 is warranted.
{"title":"The democratic deficit of the G20","authors":"Sören Hilbrich","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2021.1969982","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2021.1969982","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the last few decades, the democratic credentials of global governance institutions have been extensively debated in the fields of international relations and political philosophy. However, despite their prominent role in the architecture of global governance, club governance institutions like the Group of Seven (G7) or the Group of Twenty (G20) have rarely been considered from the perspective of democratic theory. Focussing on the G20, this paper analyses its functions in international political practice and discusses whether, in exercising these functions, the G20 exhibits a democratic deficit. As a standard of democracy, the analysis uses the all-affected principle, according to which all those who are affected by a policy decision should be given the opportunity to participate in decision-making. This paper identifies several democratic shortcomings of the G20, for instance related to the exclusion of citizens of non-member states and a lack of parliamentary and public control. By describing realisable reforms that could to some degree alleviate these shortcomings, it is shown that more democratic institutional alternatives are feasible. Thus, the ascription of a democratic deficit to the G20 is warranted.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44305666","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 : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2021.1995024
S. Venkatapuram
ABSTRACT This essay identifies three insights about global equity and justice in light of the COVID pandemic. It discusses the need for greater recognition of the role of the global order in the distribution of harms; the lack of capacity within global institutions to reason about social and global equity and justice; and the necessity to recognize and address racism as a driver of human deprivations and death.
{"title":"Pandemic as revelation","authors":"S. Venkatapuram","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2021.1995024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2021.1995024","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This essay identifies three insights about global equity and justice in light of the COVID pandemic. It discusses the need for greater recognition of the role of the global order in the distribution of harms; the lack of capacity within global institutions to reason about social and global equity and justice; and the necessity to recognize and address racism as a driver of human deprivations and death.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45329783","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 : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2021.1990986
F. Robinson
ABSTRACT This paper presents a case for a feminist care ethics approach to thinking about ethics and justice in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Much of the existing commentary has been focused on arriving at a universally-acceptable principle of resource allocation – specifically for the global allocation of vaccine doses. A feminist care ethics approach, by contrast, begins not with prescriptive principles, but with the everyday practices of people existing in relations of responsibility for and interdependence with others. It thus gives rise to an expanded moral imaginary beyond the ‘cosmopolitan-nationalism’ binary, encouraging contextualized and multi-scalar inquiry into the enduring hierarchies that perpetuate global injustice.
{"title":"Global health and the COVID-19 pandemic: a care ethics approach","authors":"F. Robinson","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2021.1990986","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2021.1990986","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper presents a case for a feminist care ethics approach to thinking about ethics and justice in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Much of the existing commentary has been focused on arriving at a universally-acceptable principle of resource allocation – specifically for the global allocation of vaccine doses. A feminist care ethics approach, by contrast, begins not with prescriptive principles, but with the everyday practices of people existing in relations of responsibility for and interdependence with others. It thus gives rise to an expanded moral imaginary beyond the ‘cosmopolitan-nationalism’ binary, encouraging contextualized and multi-scalar inquiry into the enduring hierarchies that perpetuate global injustice.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44212706","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 : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2021.1993452
J. Crombie
ABSTRACT The failure of the Canadian pharmaceutical company Biolyse Pharma to obtain authorization under Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR) to produce 15 million badly needed doses of a generic copy of a vaccine needed by a developing country is the occasion for a reflection on the right to health and the compatibility of this right with the dominant system of intellectual property rights (IPR) under the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the Doha Declaration and subsequent decisions. Global health justice and intellectual property rights are difficult to reconcile because patent-supported pricing limits equitable access to medicines and, in addition, produces distortions in the allocation of resources in health research. A ‘delinkage’ of production and development costs is therefore called for. In spite of this, governments of countries with an important pharmaceutical sector are often hesitant to agree to sharing of information and technologies. The ‘flexibilities’ (mainly ‘waivers’ and ‘compulsory licenses’) provided for under the TRIPS system are not applied in a serious and consistent way in order to allow developing countries to deal with health crises, as is illustrated by extreme variation in rates of vaccination between the developed and the less developed world.
{"title":"Intellectual property rights trump the right to health: Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime and TRIPs flexibilities in the context of Bolivia’s quest for vaccines","authors":"J. Crombie","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2021.1993452","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2021.1993452","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The failure of the Canadian pharmaceutical company Biolyse Pharma to obtain authorization under Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR) to produce 15 million badly needed doses of a generic copy of a vaccine needed by a developing country is the occasion for a reflection on the right to health and the compatibility of this right with the dominant system of intellectual property rights (IPR) under the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the Doha Declaration and subsequent decisions. Global health justice and intellectual property rights are difficult to reconcile because patent-supported pricing limits equitable access to medicines and, in addition, produces distortions in the allocation of resources in health research. A ‘delinkage’ of production and development costs is therefore called for. In spite of this, governments of countries with an important pharmaceutical sector are often hesitant to agree to sharing of information and technologies. The ‘flexibilities’ (mainly ‘waivers’ and ‘compulsory licenses’) provided for under the TRIPS system are not applied in a serious and consistent way in order to allow developing countries to deal with health crises, as is illustrated by extreme variation in rates of vaccination between the developed and the less developed world.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48356271","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 : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2021.1998191
E. A. Rueda-Barrera
ABSTRACT Nowadays global inequalities in access to vaccines seem to be a growing problem. Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) have been playing an important role both in causing and worsening them. Firstly, IPRs have promoted a scheme of each-country/each-company negotiation, which clearly has left many low-income countries almost out of vaccine supplies. Several middle-income countries have had to make tremendous efforts, at the expense of reducing the budget for meeting other social needs, to pay for the vaccines as well. Secondly, the COVAX mechanism, which was precisely designed to ensure the availability of vaccines to the Global South, has been severely weakened under this dominant scheme of negotiation. And thirdly, the provided exceptional mechanisms to increase vaccine availability under the current IPR regime do not work in practice because of the many precise conditions that must be fulfilled under that regime. Since under these circumstances many lives can be prematurely lost, the waiver of vaccine IPRs becomes a morally crucial demand.
{"title":"The waiver of COVID-19 vaccine patents: a fairness-based approach","authors":"E. A. Rueda-Barrera","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2021.1998191","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2021.1998191","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Nowadays global inequalities in access to vaccines seem to be a growing problem. Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) have been playing an important role both in causing and worsening them. Firstly, IPRs have promoted a scheme of each-country/each-company negotiation, which clearly has left many low-income countries almost out of vaccine supplies. Several middle-income countries have had to make tremendous efforts, at the expense of reducing the budget for meeting other social needs, to pay for the vaccines as well. Secondly, the COVAX mechanism, which was precisely designed to ensure the availability of vaccines to the Global South, has been severely weakened under this dominant scheme of negotiation. And thirdly, the provided exceptional mechanisms to increase vaccine availability under the current IPR regime do not work in practice because of the many precise conditions that must be fulfilled under that regime. Since under these circumstances many lives can be prematurely lost, the waiver of vaccine IPRs becomes a morally crucial demand.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42754381","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 : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2021.2024995
E. Palmer, C. Koggel, Lori Keleher
This issue of Journal of Global Ethics contains a collection of accepted articles from among our refereed submissions and a special section focused on a matter of continuing concern, the COVID-19 global emergency. We open with the refereed articles of three authors, two of whom focus on governance in the context of the business management paradigm that is called corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR has been proposed as a model for self-regulation by the businesses themselves. It has been under some form of consideration since before Milton Friedman presented the familiar claim that ‘the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits... to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.’ CSR extends the claim on management’s responsibilities far beyond that limit, and it similarly makes a more expansive claim than a third familiar model, stakeholder theory, which requires management to consider those who are especially affected by a management decision. So, CSR is different in kind than both of these: it is intended to include as part of the corporate objective a regard for social purposes and social problems that businesses may alleviate through their activity. Businesses might be called upon to weigh the opportunity to reduce the opportunities for government corruption that would arise if they were to implement more costly accounting systems, for example. As different concerns have come under discussion, the specific responsibilities that are appropriate to consideration under a CSR approach have been a changing subject that extends into consideration of environmental concerns and wealth inequities especially in this century. CSR discourse is reconfigured within the two articles, presenting turns that are recent innovations in the business ethics literature, and that are generally unfamiliar within discussion of global ethics. Michael Aßländer, in ‘Subsidiarity, wicked problems and the matter of failing states’, and Juliette Schwak, in ‘Foreign aid and discourses of National Social Responsibility: evidence from South Korea’, both apply the approach of CSR to governance, rather than to business management, and each takes the conversation in a very different direction. Michael Aßländer applies concerns of social organization to business entities, extending the corporate objective to the ideal of a ‘corporate citoyen’/citizen. The ideal of subsidiarity is embodied in the principle that ‘societal tasks should be solved by subordinate entities in society if these entities have the competencies to solve such problems,’ and Aßländer hazards that the ideal may be applied to corporations as responsible problem-solvers. Aßländer continues a discussion begun in the pages of this journal by Tjidde Tempels, Vincent Blok, and Marcel Verweij in 2017 (13:1). Aßländer notes that ‘subsidiary responsibilities are often task-related and not always
{"title":"Editorial","authors":"E. Palmer, C. Koggel, Lori Keleher","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2021.2024995","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2021.2024995","url":null,"abstract":"This issue of Journal of Global Ethics contains a collection of accepted articles from among our refereed submissions and a special section focused on a matter of continuing concern, the COVID-19 global emergency. We open with the refereed articles of three authors, two of whom focus on governance in the context of the business management paradigm that is called corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR has been proposed as a model for self-regulation by the businesses themselves. It has been under some form of consideration since before Milton Friedman presented the familiar claim that ‘the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits... to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.’ CSR extends the claim on management’s responsibilities far beyond that limit, and it similarly makes a more expansive claim than a third familiar model, stakeholder theory, which requires management to consider those who are especially affected by a management decision. So, CSR is different in kind than both of these: it is intended to include as part of the corporate objective a regard for social purposes and social problems that businesses may alleviate through their activity. Businesses might be called upon to weigh the opportunity to reduce the opportunities for government corruption that would arise if they were to implement more costly accounting systems, for example. As different concerns have come under discussion, the specific responsibilities that are appropriate to consideration under a CSR approach have been a changing subject that extends into consideration of environmental concerns and wealth inequities especially in this century. CSR discourse is reconfigured within the two articles, presenting turns that are recent innovations in the business ethics literature, and that are generally unfamiliar within discussion of global ethics. Michael Aßländer, in ‘Subsidiarity, wicked problems and the matter of failing states’, and Juliette Schwak, in ‘Foreign aid and discourses of National Social Responsibility: evidence from South Korea’, both apply the approach of CSR to governance, rather than to business management, and each takes the conversation in a very different direction. Michael Aßländer applies concerns of social organization to business entities, extending the corporate objective to the ideal of a ‘corporate citoyen’/citizen. The ideal of subsidiarity is embodied in the principle that ‘societal tasks should be solved by subordinate entities in society if these entities have the competencies to solve such problems,’ and Aßländer hazards that the ideal may be applied to corporations as responsible problem-solvers. Aßländer continues a discussion begun in the pages of this journal by Tjidde Tempels, Vincent Blok, and Marcel Verweij in 2017 (13:1). Aßländer notes that ‘subsidiary responsibilities are often task-related and not always","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41940999","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 : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2021.2024996
Lori Keleher, C. Koggel, E. Palmer
{"title":"Journal of Global Ethics editorial announcement","authors":"Lori Keleher, C. Koggel, E. Palmer","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2021.2024996","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2021.2024996","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49439665","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 : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2021.2002391
Gabriela Arguedas-Ramírez
ABSTRACT The implementation of COVID-19 vaccine certificates or passports entails many difficult issues, both technical and ethical. Looking at the ethical issues from a decolonial approach to justice, it is possible to observe that some of them are embedded in long-standing forms of inequality and exclusion, rooted in the legacy of colonialist/imperialist governance. In this paper, my purpose is to explore the potential harms associated with the enforcement of vaccine passports and certificates that do not take into account structural barriers, in the context of global vaccine inequality, from a decolonial and global justice perspective.
{"title":"Build that wall! Vaccine certificates, passes and passports, the distribution of harms and decolonial global health justice","authors":"Gabriela Arguedas-Ramírez","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2021.2002391","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2021.2002391","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The implementation of COVID-19 vaccine certificates or passports entails many difficult issues, both technical and ethical. Looking at the ethical issues from a decolonial approach to justice, it is possible to observe that some of them are embedded in long-standing forms of inequality and exclusion, rooted in the legacy of colonialist/imperialist governance. In this paper, my purpose is to explore the potential harms associated with the enforcement of vaccine passports and certificates that do not take into account structural barriers, in the context of global vaccine inequality, from a decolonial and global justice perspective.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45775401","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：