This symposium explores where feminism has traveled and where it has yet to travel in international law since the groundbreaking 1991 article that Hilary Charlesworth, Christine Chinkin, and Shelley Wright published in the American Journal of International Law , “ Feminist Approaches to International Law. ” 1 Their article emerged following a “ particularly frustrating conference where female voice was notably absent, ” at which point Charlesworth, Chinkin, and Wright “ retired to a pub and scribbled thoughts on a napkin that ultimately became [their 1991 article]. ” 2 At a subsequent meeting of eminent (mostly male) international law scholars, the three feminist co-authors presented this work, which generated a degree of controversy. Charlesworth humorously alludes to the controversy in Alienating Oscar , referring to Oscar Schachter, the preeminent former AJIL editor-in-chief. 3 In fact, as Charlesworth noted, even while Schachter disagreed with some of the analysis that they had advanced, he was curious and encouraging, as was characteristic of him. 4 central authors examined arrangement typical to examine discipline based on the experience of women. By challenging the system, feminist theory could identify possibilities for of international law. 5 The authors queried “ whether ” 6
{"title":"Introduction to the Symposium on Feminist Approaches to International Law Thirty Years on: Still Alienating Oscar?","authors":"C. Powell, A. Wing","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.43","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.43","url":null,"abstract":"This symposium explores where feminism has traveled and where it has yet to travel in international law since the groundbreaking 1991 article that Hilary Charlesworth, Christine Chinkin, and Shelley Wright published in the American Journal of International Law , “ Feminist Approaches to International Law. ” 1 Their article emerged following a “ particularly frustrating conference where female voice was notably absent, ” at which point Charlesworth, Chinkin, and Wright “ retired to a pub and scribbled thoughts on a napkin that ultimately became [their 1991 article]. ” 2 At a subsequent meeting of eminent (mostly male) international law scholars, the three feminist co-authors presented this work, which generated a degree of controversy. Charlesworth humorously alludes to the controversy in Alienating Oscar , referring to Oscar Schachter, the preeminent former AJIL editor-in-chief. 3 In fact, as Charlesworth noted, even while Schachter disagreed with some of the analysis that they had advanced, he was curious and encouraging, as was characteristic of him. 4 central authors examined arrangement typical to examine discipline based on the experience of women. By challenging the system, feminist theory could identify possibilities for of international law. 5 The authors queried “ whether ” 6","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43348541","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}
Should the climate change crisis be framed in security terms? Many argue that it is dangerous to treat non-military threats as security issues. Such “securitization” is associated with the expansion of executive power and the exercise of exceptional measures involving the suspension of individual rights, secrecy, state violence, and a weakening of the rule of law. Nonetheless, climate change has already been identified as a security issue by many government agencies and international institutions.1 But, as J. Benton Heath explores in “Making Sense of Security,” the very concept of security is both ambiguous and contested.2 There are different and competing ideas about what it means, when, and by whom it should be invoked, the kinds of law and policy responses it should trigger, and, crucially, who gets to decide these questions. Heath argues that differing approaches to security reflect deeper struggles over whose knowledge matters in identifying and responding to security threats. He develops a typology for assessing these different approaches, and the implications they have for international law and institutions. But, while he notes that climate change is precisely one of those issues around which there are competing security claims, he leaves to others the question of whether, or how, to frame climate change in security terms. This essay takes up that question, continuing the inquiry into how best to understand the concept of security, and how Heath's typology helps think about the question. It argues that it may indeed be important to frame climate change in security terms, but as a matter of global security rather than national security.
{"title":"Climate Change and Global Security: Framing an Existential Threat","authors":"Craig Martin","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.39","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.39","url":null,"abstract":"Should the climate change crisis be framed in security terms? Many argue that it is dangerous to treat non-military threats as security issues. Such “securitization” is associated with the expansion of executive power and the exercise of exceptional measures involving the suspension of individual rights, secrecy, state violence, and a weakening of the rule of law. Nonetheless, climate change has already been identified as a security issue by many government agencies and international institutions.1 But, as J. Benton Heath explores in “Making Sense of Security,” the very concept of security is both ambiguous and contested.2 There are different and competing ideas about what it means, when, and by whom it should be invoked, the kinds of law and policy responses it should trigger, and, crucially, who gets to decide these questions. Heath argues that differing approaches to security reflect deeper struggles over whose knowledge matters in identifying and responding to security threats. He develops a typology for assessing these different approaches, and the implications they have for international law and institutions. But, while he notes that climate change is precisely one of those issues around which there are competing security claims, he leaves to others the question of whether, or how, to frame climate change in security terms. This essay takes up that question, continuing the inquiry into how best to understand the concept of security, and how Heath's typology helps think about the question. It argues that it may indeed be important to frame climate change in security terms, but as a matter of global security rather than national security.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46419072","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":"Introduction to the Symposium on J. Benton Heath, “Making Sense of Security”","authors":"Antony T. Anghie","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.42","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.42","url":null,"abstract":"provision of Treaty of the of the other.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41711056","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}
M. Mehling, H. van Asselt, Susanne Droege, Kasturi Das
The European Union's (EU) proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) underscores that the introduction of climate-motivated trade measures is no longer just a matter of academic debate. With countries ramping up domestic climate action at different speeds and levels of ambition, the likelihood of other countries following the EU's lead and adopting a border carbon adjustment (BCA)1 of their own will only increase. International cooperation can help avoid a fragmented landscape of varying BCA designs, mitigate concerns about trade protectionism, and ensure that the further development of BCAs leads to stronger global action on climate change. Some countries have begun to show an interest in pursuing international cooperation involving joint trade measures through “climate clubs.” Yet such international cooperation also raises new questions concerning the legal form, the forum through which cooperation should be pursued, and the (normative) substance of any international agreement on BCAs. The answers to these questions matter not only for the development and implementation of BCAs, but may also affect the future trajectory of the international legal regime for climate change and trade.
{"title":"The Form and Substance of International Cooperation on Border Carbon Adjustments","authors":"M. Mehling, H. van Asselt, Susanne Droege, Kasturi Das","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.33","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union's (EU) proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) underscores that the introduction of climate-motivated trade measures is no longer just a matter of academic debate. With countries ramping up domestic climate action at different speeds and levels of ambition, the likelihood of other countries following the EU's lead and adopting a border carbon adjustment (BCA)1 of their own will only increase. International cooperation can help avoid a fragmented landscape of varying BCA designs, mitigate concerns about trade protectionism, and ensure that the further development of BCAs leads to stronger global action on climate change. Some countries have begun to show an interest in pursuing international cooperation involving joint trade measures through “climate clubs.” Yet such international cooperation also raises new questions concerning the legal form, the forum through which cooperation should be pursued, and the (normative) substance of any international agreement on BCAs. The answers to these questions matter not only for the development and implementation of BCAs, but may also affect the future trajectory of the international legal regime for climate change and trade.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44673251","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 global trade liberalization project has been one of the most successful efforts at international cooperation ever. Estimates of industrial nations ’ average tariffs in 1947, when the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was negotiated, range from 20 – 40 percent. 1 The World Bank reports that in 1994, the year before the World Trade Organization (WTO) came into existence, the global applied average weighted tariff was still 8.57 percent. 2 Twenty years later, that number had fallen below 3 percent, and many developed nations, including the United States and the European Union (EU), have applied average tariffs around 1.5 percent. 3 Beyond tariff rates, the GATTexpanded from twenty-three original parties to the WTO ’ s 164. Along with over three hundred regional free trade agreements and customs unions currently in force, the WTO has also reduced non-tariff barriers to trade in goods and liberalized trade in services. 4 From a historical, economy-wide perspective, we live in a world that the GATT framers would likely have thought approximates free trade. Trade liberalization bene fi ts: helping rebuild Europe and Japan after solidi-fying support during and lifting millions of people worldwide out of trade liberalization Workers face increased disruptions to their prospects and long-term economic security due to competition from countries in which the state provides substantial comparative certain creating And low trade, along falling few they
{"title":"Taxing, Regulating, and Trading Carbon: An Introduction to the Symposium","authors":"Timothy Meyer","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.35","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.35","url":null,"abstract":"The global trade liberalization project has been one of the most successful efforts at international cooperation ever. Estimates of industrial nations ’ average tariffs in 1947, when the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was negotiated, range from 20 – 40 percent. 1 The World Bank reports that in 1994, the year before the World Trade Organization (WTO) came into existence, the global applied average weighted tariff was still 8.57 percent. 2 Twenty years later, that number had fallen below 3 percent, and many developed nations, including the United States and the European Union (EU), have applied average tariffs around 1.5 percent. 3 Beyond tariff rates, the GATTexpanded from twenty-three original parties to the WTO ’ s 164. Along with over three hundred regional free trade agreements and customs unions currently in force, the WTO has also reduced non-tariff barriers to trade in goods and liberalized trade in services. 4 From a historical, economy-wide perspective, we live in a world that the GATT framers would likely have thought approximates free trade. Trade liberalization bene fi ts: helping rebuild Europe and Japan after solidi-fying support during and lifting millions of people worldwide out of trade liberalization Workers face increased disruptions to their prospects and long-term economic security due to competition from countries in which the state provides substantial comparative certain creating And low trade, along falling few they","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42411270","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 European Union (EU) recently proposed the introduction of a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) and suddenly transformed into reality an almost two decade-long debate over the hypothetical use of CBAMs as antidotes to uneven carbon prices. The European Commission presented the scheme as a climate measure aimed at reducing the risk of carbon leakage for energy intensive and trade-exposed industries facing the cost of increased climate ambition.1 At the same time, however, it listed the mechanism among the instruments that support a “competitive [green] transition” for EU businesses in the context of the new industrial strategy supporting the EU Green Deal.2 This ambiguity risks undermining the credibility of the scheme as a legitimate climate response unless it can be shown that the equalization of carbon costs (i.e., the fair competition/industrial component) is instrumental to achieving higher emission reduction levels than could have been achieved otherwise (i.e., the carbon leakage/climate component). While the exact balance between climate- and industrial-informed features is ultimately an issue of design, this essay argues that making the scheme (as) compatible (as possible) with the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) improves its environmental effectiveness and accordingly contributes to reconciling the CBAM with its stated climate purpose.
{"title":"Reconciling the Climate/Industrial Interplay of CBAMs: What Role for the WTO?","authors":"Ilaria Espa","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.31","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.31","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union (EU) recently proposed the introduction of a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) and suddenly transformed into reality an almost two decade-long debate over the hypothetical use of CBAMs as antidotes to uneven carbon prices. The European Commission presented the scheme as a climate measure aimed at reducing the risk of carbon leakage for energy intensive and trade-exposed industries facing the cost of increased climate ambition.1 At the same time, however, it listed the mechanism among the instruments that support a “competitive [green] transition” for EU businesses in the context of the new industrial strategy supporting the EU Green Deal.2 This ambiguity risks undermining the credibility of the scheme as a legitimate climate response unless it can be shown that the equalization of carbon costs (i.e., the fair competition/industrial component) is instrumental to achieving higher emission reduction levels than could have been achieved otherwise (i.e., the carbon leakage/climate component). While the exact balance between climate- and industrial-informed features is ultimately an issue of design, this essay argues that making the scheme (as) compatible (as possible) with the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) improves its environmental effectiveness and accordingly contributes to reconciling the CBAM with its stated climate purpose.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42431091","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 climate is changing, and so is climate diplomacy. Global treaties may be failing, while unilateral actions are proving to be contentious both within the climate and the trade regime. At the same time, countries need to be given the right incentives to participate in the fight against climate change and to start curbing their emissions substantially. The European Union's (EU) decision to introduce a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the momentum around carbon pricing may be the perfect opportunity to revisit these ideas in the form of clubs. What if small groups of countries got together and set the pace for a new era in climate diplomacy? What if they relied on trade measures to do so? Clubs are not new in international law, let alone in international climate law. Compared to global approaches, they may avoid freeriding; compared to unilateral ones, they may reduce the risk of trade frictions. And not all major emitters need to participate right away. As few as two parties could start a climate club, a sort of club within the club, gradually catalyzing or influencing action on climate change. In this essay, we argue that climate clubs enable like-minded countries to assume more ambitious commitments and gradually pull in other countries with them.
{"title":"“Clubbing in the Club”: Could Climate-Related Trade Arrangements Set the Pace for Future Climate Cooperation?","authors":"Makane Moïse Mbengue, Elena Cima","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.36","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.36","url":null,"abstract":"The climate is changing, and so is climate diplomacy. Global treaties may be failing, while unilateral actions are proving to be contentious both within the climate and the trade regime. At the same time, countries need to be given the right incentives to participate in the fight against climate change and to start curbing their emissions substantially. The European Union's (EU) decision to introduce a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the momentum around carbon pricing may be the perfect opportunity to revisit these ideas in the form of clubs. What if small groups of countries got together and set the pace for a new era in climate diplomacy? What if they relied on trade measures to do so? Clubs are not new in international law, let alone in international climate law. Compared to global approaches, they may avoid freeriding; compared to unilateral ones, they may reduce the risk of trade frictions. And not all major emitters need to participate right away. As few as two parties could start a climate club, a sort of club within the club, gradually catalyzing or influencing action on climate change. In this essay, we argue that climate clubs enable like-minded countries to assume more ambitious commitments and gradually pull in other countries with them.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48713446","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 European Union (EU) has been a frontrunner in curbing greenhouse gas emissions, having established in 2005 the Emission Trading System (ETS) and having adopted in July 2021 a proposal for a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). This essay explains how the design of the EU CBAM proposal complies with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, in particular with the principle of non-discrimination. It then discusses how the EU can cooperate with other countries that share similar climate ambitions to decarbonize industrial sectors and achieve the aims of the Paris Agreement. The essay argues that autonomous measures and international cooperation initiatives can work as complementary tools to attain climate neutrality.
{"title":"How WTO-Consistent Tools can Ensure the Decarbonization of Emission-Intensive Industrial Sectors","authors":"Chiara Galiffa, I. G. Bercero","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.32","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.32","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union (EU) has been a frontrunner in curbing greenhouse gas emissions, having established in 2005 the Emission Trading System (ETS) and having adopted in July 2021 a proposal for a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). This essay explains how the design of the EU CBAM proposal complies with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, in particular with the principle of non-discrimination. It then discusses how the EU can cooperate with other countries that share similar climate ambitions to decarbonize industrial sectors and achieve the aims of the Paris Agreement. The essay argues that autonomous measures and international cooperation initiatives can work as complementary tools to attain climate neutrality.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41858109","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}
International courts and tribunals must maintain a delicate balance between consent and coherence when they consider incidental questions as part of their dispute settlement function. There are compelling reasons, in the contemporary world of unprecedented complexity and interdependence, to instill coherence into dispute settlement procedures, so as to avoid the denial of justice. The exercise of jurisdiction over an “incidental question,” however, must not be forced to the point that it undermines the willingness of states to give their consent to such procedures.
{"title":"Between Consent and Coherence: Incidental Questions in an Imperfect World","authors":"Payam Akhavan, Eirik Bjorge","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.26","url":null,"abstract":"International courts and tribunals must maintain a delicate balance between consent and coherence when they consider incidental questions as part of their dispute settlement function. There are compelling reasons, in the contemporary world of unprecedented complexity and interdependence, to instill coherence into dispute settlement procedures, so as to avoid the denial of justice. The exercise of jurisdiction over an “incidental question,” however, must not be forced to the point that it undermines the willingness of states to give their consent to such procedures.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49489964","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 this essay, I discuss whether and to what extent the framing of the main dispute and incidental questions can have a gatekeeping function in relation to the jurisdiction and applicable law of a dispute settlement body. Recent cases have attached critical importance to the identification of the “real” main object of the dispute, and the “characterization” of claims to then determine which issues are incidental to the dispute, rather than focusing on which issues are within the tribunal's ratione materiae jurisdiction. Through an examination of selected case law, I argue that this “characterization approach” could in effect elevate a subjective framing of the “main” dispute to a jurisdictional gatekeeper. This approach introduces unnecessary evaluative determinations while obscuring normative clarity regarding the limits of consent-based jurisdiction and its relationship to incidentally applicable law.
{"title":"Incidental Questions as a Gatekeeping Doctrine","authors":"M. Papadaki","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.27","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.27","url":null,"abstract":"In this essay, I discuss whether and to what extent the framing of the main dispute and incidental questions can have a gatekeeping function in relation to the jurisdiction and applicable law of a dispute settlement body. Recent cases have attached critical importance to the identification of the “real” main object of the dispute, and the “characterization” of claims to then determine which issues are incidental to the dispute, rather than focusing on which issues are within the tribunal's ratione materiae jurisdiction. Through an examination of selected case law, I argue that this “characterization approach” could in effect elevate a subjective framing of the “main” dispute to a jurisdictional gatekeeper. This approach introduces unnecessary evaluative determinations while obscuring normative clarity regarding the limits of consent-based jurisdiction and its relationship to incidentally applicable law.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41510796","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：