Journal on the Use of Force and International Law最新文献

英文中文

The changing law of non-intervention in civil wars – assessing the production of legality in state practice after 2011 不断变化的不干涉内战法——评估2011年后国家实践中合法性的产生

Q3 Social Sciences

Journal on the Use of Force and International Law

Pub Date : 2018-01-02 DOI: 10.1080/20531702.2018.1431457

Christine Nowak

ABSTRACT It is, especially since the beginning of the ‘Arab Spring’, increasingly difficult satisfactorily to draw the line between an unfriendly but legal interference and an unlawful intervention. This article identifies as one root cause for the material vagueness of non-intervention the fact that on the formal level, the underlying parameters determining the formation and change of customary law are equally imprecise. Current state practice shows that, rather than solely distinguishing between legal and extralegal reasoning, states use a spectrum of reasoning adjusted to the political, moral or strategic relevance of the issue in question. This article suggests how to deal with governmental behaviour that cannot be classified within the existing categories without provoking even more controversies. Emphasis should be placed on the sub-tunes of state behaviour as it is, in fact, this in-between stage that states use to test, reformulate or ultimately reject what is potentially a new legal argument.

特别是自“阿拉伯之春”开始以来，在不友好但合法的干预和非法干预之间划清界限变得越来越困难。本文认为，在正式层面上，决定习惯法形成和变化的基本参数同样不精确，这一事实是不干预的实质含混不清的一个根本原因。目前的国家实践表明，国家不是单独区分法律推理和法外推理，而是根据所讨论问题的政治、道德或战略相关性使用一系列推理。本文建议如何在不引发更多争议的情况下，对无法归类于现有类别的政府行为进行处理。重点应该放在国家行为的次级曲调上，因为它实际上是国家用来测试、重新制定或最终拒绝潜在的新法律论据的中间阶段。

引用次数: 3

Beyond rhetoric? Evaluating the Responsibility to Protect as a norm of humanitarian intervention 除了言辞?评估作为人道主义干预规范的保护责任

Q3 Social Sciences

Journal on the Use of Force and International Law

Pub Date : 2018-01-02 DOI: 10.1080/20531702.2018.1448156

G. Melling

ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to examine whether, after 16 years or more of its development, Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has emerged as an international norm of intervention. As an idea, it is clear that R2P has a considerable degree of prominence within international discourse. As will be shown in this article, there has been much work undertaken in the development of its language and conceptual framework over the years. However, whilst this architecture is important to the process of its development as an international norm, it will be argued that more is needed to support the claim that R2P has fully emerged as an international norm, that is, R2P’s capacity to influence and shape the decision-making of states.

摘要本文旨在考察保护责任（R2P）经过16年或更长时间的发展，是否已成为一项国际干预规范。作为一种理念，很明显，保护责任在国际话语中具有相当重要的地位。正如本文所示，多年来，在语言和概念框架的发展方面已经做了很多工作。然而，尽管这一架构对其作为国际规范的发展过程很重要，但有人认为，还需要更多的证据来支持保护责任已完全成为国际规范的说法，即保护责任影响和塑造国家决策的能力。

引用次数: 3

Introduction 介绍

Q3 Social Sciences

Journal on the Use of Force and International Law

Pub Date : 2018-01-02 DOI: 10.1080/20531702.2018.1455416

James A. Green, C. Henderson, T. Ruys

This issue of the Journal on the Use of Force and International Law (JUFIL) begins with another excellent guest editorial comment, this time by Alexander Orakhelashvili. In his comment, Orakhelashvili critiques the approach that has been taken by the High Court in England and Wales in relation to the crime of aggression. The articles section of this issue then comprises four pieces that, while taking very different points of focus, touch on some similar underlying themes related to states’ legal argumentation and invocation of the law in the ad bellum context, and possible disconnects between the status of law (whether perceived or actual) and what states may say or do. The issue’s first article, by Christian Marxsen, takes as a starting point the apparent contradiction between states’ verbal commitments to the law and the prevalence of armed conflicts. He provides empirical insights into how states invoke international law to justify their uses of force, and develops a typology of how law can be confirmed by its invocation – even in cases where it may be coupled by illegal action – through an inductive approach based on case-analysis. The second article in this issue is a contribution by Christina Nowak, who uses intervention in civil wars as a lens through which to examine the complexities of legal argumentation in the ad bellum context. She uses state practice to show that states employ a spectrum of reasoning and argumentation adjusted to the political, moral or strategic relevance of the issue in question, and argues that emphasis should be placed on an ‘in-between stage’ of quasi-legality in which states test, reformulate or reject potential new legal arguments. Graham Melling’s contribution to the issue focuses on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, and considers whether the considerable degree of prominence of R2P within international discourse may be at odds with its emergence (or lack of) as an international norm with the capacity to influence and shape the decision-making of states. Finally in this section, Victor Kattan argues that there has been an attempt to expand the scope of the right of self-defence, and particularly the right of anticipatory self-defence through the provision of a new standard of ‘imminence’. In so doing, his arguments centre more on the process of development of the legal arguments rather than the arguments themselves, with a notable – although not exclusive – focus on the Principles Relevant to the Scope of a State’s Right of Self-Defense Against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors published by Sir Daniel Bethlehem in the American Journal of International Law in 2012.

本期《使用武力与国际法杂志》(JUFIL)以亚历山大·奥拉赫拉什维利(Alexander Orakhelashvili)的另一篇出色的客座评论开始。在他的评论中，Orakhelashvili批评了英格兰和威尔士高等法院对侵略罪所采取的方法。本期的文章部分由四篇文章组成，虽然侧重点非常不同，但触及了一些类似的潜在主题，这些主题与国家在战时背景下的法律论证和援引法律有关，以及法律地位(无论是感知的还是实际的)与国家可能说或做的事情之间可能存在的脱节。这期杂志的第一篇文章由克里斯蒂安·马克思森(Christian Marxsen)撰写，以各国对法律的口头承诺与武装冲突的普遍存在之间的明显矛盾为出发点。他提供了关于国家如何援引国际法来证明其使用武力的合理性的经验见解，并通过基于案例分析的归纳方法，发展了一种法律如何通过援引国际法来确认的类型学-即使在可能与非法行为相结合的情况下。本期的第二篇文章是克里斯蒂娜·诺瓦克的贡献，她以干预内战为视角，审视战时背景下法律论证的复杂性。她使用国家实践来表明国家采用一系列的推理和论证来适应问题的政治，道德或战略相关性，并认为重点应该放在准合法性的“中间阶段”，在这个阶段，国家测试，重新制定或拒绝潜在的新的法律论点。格雷厄姆·梅林对这一问题的贡献集中在保护责任(R2P)原则上，并考虑了R2P在国际话语中相当突出的程度是否可能与它作为一种具有影响和塑造国家决策能力的国际规范的出现(或缺乏)相矛盾。在本节的最后，维克多·卡坦认为，人们一直试图通过提供一种新的“迫在眉睫”标准来扩大自卫权利的范围，特别是预期自卫权利。在此过程中，他的论点更多地集中在法律论点的发展过程上，而不是论点本身，并特别关注丹尼尔·伯利恒爵士(Sir Daniel Bethlehem) 2012年在《美国国际法杂志》(American Journal of International Law)上发表的《关于国家对非国家行为体即将或实际武装攻击的自卫权范围的相关原则》(尽管并非唯一)。

{"title":"Introduction","authors":"James A. Green, C. Henderson, T. Ruys","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2018.1455416","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2018.1455416","url":null,"abstract":"This issue of the Journal on the Use of Force and International Law (JUFIL) begins with another excellent guest editorial comment, this time by Alexander Orakhelashvili. In his comment, Orakhelashvili critiques the approach that has been taken by the High Court in England and Wales in relation to the crime of aggression. The articles section of this issue then comprises four pieces that, while taking very different points of focus, touch on some similar underlying themes related to states’ legal argumentation and invocation of the law in the ad bellum context, and possible disconnects between the status of law (whether perceived or actual) and what states may say or do. The issue’s first article, by Christian Marxsen, takes as a starting point the apparent contradiction between states’ verbal commitments to the law and the prevalence of armed conflicts. He provides empirical insights into how states invoke international law to justify their uses of force, and develops a typology of how law can be confirmed by its invocation – even in cases where it may be coupled by illegal action – through an inductive approach based on case-analysis. The second article in this issue is a contribution by Christina Nowak, who uses intervention in civil wars as a lens through which to examine the complexities of legal argumentation in the ad bellum context. She uses state practice to show that states employ a spectrum of reasoning and argumentation adjusted to the political, moral or strategic relevance of the issue in question, and argues that emphasis should be placed on an ‘in-between stage’ of quasi-legality in which states test, reformulate or reject potential new legal arguments. Graham Melling’s contribution to the issue focuses on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, and considers whether the considerable degree of prominence of R2P within international discourse may be at odds with its emergence (or lack of) as an international norm with the capacity to influence and shape the decision-making of states. Finally in this section, Victor Kattan argues that there has been an attempt to expand the scope of the right of self-defence, and particularly the right of anticipatory self-defence through the provision of a new standard of ‘imminence’. In so doing, his arguments centre more on the process of development of the legal arguments rather than the arguments themselves, with a notable – although not exclusive – focus on the Principles Relevant to the Scope of a State’s Right of Self-Defense Against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors published by Sir Daniel Bethlehem in the American Journal of International Law in 2012.","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"5 1","pages":"1 - 2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43233577","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}

引用次数: 0

Digest of state practice: 1 July 2017 – 31 December 2017 国家实践文摘:2017年7月1日- 2017年12月31日

Q3 Social Sciences

Journal on the Use of Force and International Law

Pub Date : 2018-01-02 DOI: 10.1080/20531702.2018.1455463

T. Ruys, N. Verlinden, C. Vander Maelen, Sebastiaan Van Severen

Regional Coordinators: Marie Aronsson-Storrier, Heather Brandon, Patrick Butchard, Kenneth Chan, Sina Etezazian, Ben Murphy, Sten VerhoevenDigest Contents: Europe Ukraine – Russia: violations of th...

区域协调员:Marie Aronsson-Storrier, Heather Brandon, Patrick Butchard, Kenneth Chan, Sina Etezazian, Ben Murphy, Sten verhoevest内容:欧洲乌克兰-俄罗斯:违反…

引用次数: 1

International law and new wars 国际法与新战争

Q3 Social Sciences

Journal on the Use of Force and International Law

Pub Date : 2018-01-02 DOI: 10.1080/20531702.2018.1455415

Lynsey Mitchell

引用次数: 0

The High Court and the crime of aggression 高等法院与侵略罪

Q3 Social Sciences

Journal on the Use of Force and International Law

Pub Date : 2017-12-22 DOI: 10.1080/20531702.2018.1411129

Alexander Orakhelashvili

As is well known, in 2003, a US-led coalition (that included the UK) invaded Iraq, without the UN Security Council’s authorisation under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The operation was widely seen...

众所周知，2003年，美国领导的联盟（包括英国）在未经联合国安理会根据《联合国宪章》第七章授权的情况下入侵伊拉克。手术被广泛看到。。。

引用次数: 1

Furthering the ‘war on terrorism’ through international law: how the United States and the United Kingdom resurrected the Bush doctrine on using preventive military force to combat terrorism* 通过国际法推进“反恐战争”:美国和英国如何复活布什关于使用预防性军事力量打击恐怖主义的学说*

Q3 Social Sciences

Journal on the Use of Force and International Law

Pub Date : 2017-09-22 DOI: 10.1080/20531702.2017.1376929

Victor Kattan

ABSTRACT This article revisits the Principles Relevant to the Scope of a State’s Right of Self-Defense Against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors published by Sir Daniel Bethlehem in the American Journal of International Law in 2012. As disclosed in documents revealed by WikiLeaks, the principles were the product of intergovernmental discussions led by the United States to secure greater understanding of the jus ad bellum that had their origins in the controversial ‘Bush doctrine’ published in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America in 2002. In 2017, the UK Attorney General announced that the UK ‘follows and endorses’ Principle 8 of ‘The Bethlehem Principles’, as did Australia’s Attorney General. Principle 8 reflects an expansion of the right of anticipatory self-defence by providing a new standard of imminence to enable preventive military strikes against threats outside traditional conflict zones.

本文回顾了丹尼尔·伯利恒爵士在2012年《美国国际法杂志》上发表的《国家对非国家行为者迫在眉睫或实际的武装攻击的自卫权范围相关原则》。根据维基解密披露的文件，这些原则是由美国领导的政府间讨论的产物，目的是为了更好地理解战争法，而战争法起源于2002年发表在《美国国家安全战略》上的有争议的“布什主义”。2017年，英国司法部长宣布，英国“遵循并支持”“伯利恒原则”的第8项原则，澳大利亚司法部长也是如此。原则8反映了预期自卫权利的扩大，提供了一种新的紧急标准，以便能够对传统冲突地区以外的威胁进行预防性军事打击。

引用次数: 7

Violation and confirmation of the law: the intricate effects of the invocation of the law in armed conflict 违反和确认法律:在武装冲突中援引法律的复杂影响

Q3 Social Sciences

Journal on the Use of Force and International Law

Pub Date : 2017-08-29 DOI: 10.1080/20531702.2017.1365488

Christian Marxsen

ABSTRACT Within the jus contra bellum there is an apparent contradiction between states’ verbal commitments to the law and the prevalence of armed conflicts. Taking this contradiction as a starting point, this article aims to provide empirical insights into how states invoke international law to justify their participation in armed conflicts. It develops a typology of how law can be confirmed by its invocation, taking an inductive approach based on case analysis. Do recent military interventions indicate a decline of international law? This article argues that there are three dimensions of confirmation. Firstly, law can be confirmed as an instrument of communication between states. Secondly, in a set of uncontroversial cases, the specific substantive rules of international law are confirmed through what is described as coherent practice. Thirdly, the article explains why even in controversial cases substantive rules may be confirmed through their invocation, even where the action is in fact illegal.

在反法战争中，国家对法律的口头承诺与武装冲突的普遍性之间存在明显的矛盾。本文以这一矛盾为出发点，旨在为各国如何援引国际法为其参与武装冲突辩护提供实证见解。它发展了一种法律如何通过其调用来确认的类型学，采用基于案例分析的归纳方法。最近的军事干预是否表明国际法的衰落?本文认为确认有三个维度。首先，法律可以被确认为国家之间沟通的工具。其次，在一系列无争议的案例中，国际法的具体实质性规则通过所谓的连贯实践得到确认。第三，文章解释了为什么即使在有争议的案件中，即使行为实际上是非法的，也可以通过援引实体规则来确认。

引用次数: 16

Introduction 介绍

Q3 Social Sciences

Journal on the Use of Force and International Law

Pub Date : 2017-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/20531702.2017.1383063

James A. Green, C. Henderson, T. Ruys

This issue of the Journal on the Use of Force and International Law (JUFIL) features a guest editorial comment – co-written by Claus Kreß (a member of our Advisory Board) and Benjamin Nußberger (a previous contributor to this journal) – considering the crisis in The Gambia in the early part of 2017, following the refusal of President Yahya Jammeh to transfer power to the president-elect, Adama Barrow. Kreß and Nußberger use The Gambia example, which has received relatively little consideration as yet in scholarship, to highlight a subtle interplay between a UN resolution and the notion of ‘intervention by invitation’ (in the context of cases involving considerations of democratic legitimacy). The articles section of this issue begins with a piece that, to some extent, moves beyond the ‘pure’ ad bellum mandate of this journal, but one that had such significant points of overlap that the JUFIL editors were very keen to publish it: Matteo Tondini examines – and attempts to clarify – the scope and contents of international law principles and rules applicable to the use of force in maritime law enforcement operations. Tondini’s analysis is focused on how the criteria of unavoidability, reasonableness and necessity, as developed by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, are to be interpreted according to, and complemented by, the principles and rules contained in international human rights law instruments and in the related case law. Chris O’Meara’s contribution then returns us to more traditional ad bellum territory – self-defence – but does so in a way that is notably unique. O’Meara argues that academic and judicial consideration of the right of self-defence in international law has focused on the right as it applies to states, meaning that little attention has been paid to how this right of national (i.e. state) selfdefence relates to, and interacts with, the concurrent right of military personnel and their units to defend themselves. O’Meara highlights some fundamental problems that stem from this focus on national self-defence alone, and offers some unified thinking – taking into account both national and personal/unit self-defence – with regard to a range of issues that relate to the application of the inherent right. It is clear that predominant opinion is now that (at least some) cyberattacks should rightly be considered to be violations of Article 2(4), and that, in extreme cases, a cyber-attack may lead to self-defence under

本期《使用武力与国际法杂志》（JUFIL）刊登了一篇客座编辑评论——由Claus Kreß（我们的咨询委员会成员）和Benjamin Nuß; berger（本杂志的前撰稿人）共同撰写——考虑到2017年初冈比亚的危机，当时叶海亚·贾梅总统拒绝将权力移交给当选总统，阿达马·巴罗。Kreß和Nu 223; berger以冈比亚为例，强调了联合国决议与“邀请干预”概念之间的微妙相互作用（在涉及民主合法性考虑的案件中）。本期的文章部分以一篇文章开头，在某种程度上，这篇文章超越了本杂志战前的“纯粹”授权，但有一个非常重要的重叠点，JUFIL的编辑们非常热衷于发表它：Matteo Tondini审查并试图澄清适用于海事执法行动中使用武力的国际法原则和规则的范围和内容。Tondini的分析侧重于如何根据国际人权法律文书和相关判例法所载的原则和规则来解释国际海洋法法庭制定的不可避免性、合理性和必要性标准，并加以补充。Chris O’Meara的贡献让我们回到了战前更传统的领域——自卫——但这种方式非常独特。O’Meara认为，国际法中对自卫权的学术和司法考虑集中在适用于国家的权利上，这意味着很少关注这种国家（即国家）自卫权如何与军事人员及其部队同时拥有的自卫权相关联和相互作用。O’Meara强调了仅关注国家自卫而产生的一些根本问题，并就与固有权利的适用有关的一系列问题提出了一些统一的想法——同时考虑到国家自卫和个人/单位自卫。很明显，现在的主流观点是，（至少有些）网络攻击应该被正确地视为违反了第2条第4款，在极端情况下，网络攻击可能导致自卫

{"title":"Introduction","authors":"James A. Green, C. Henderson, T. Ruys","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2017.1383063","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2017.1383063","url":null,"abstract":"This issue of the Journal on the Use of Force and International Law (JUFIL) features a guest editorial comment – co-written by Claus Kreß (a member of our Advisory Board) and Benjamin Nußberger (a previous contributor to this journal) – considering the crisis in The Gambia in the early part of 2017, following the refusal of President Yahya Jammeh to transfer power to the president-elect, Adama Barrow. Kreß and Nußberger use The Gambia example, which has received relatively little consideration as yet in scholarship, to highlight a subtle interplay between a UN resolution and the notion of ‘intervention by invitation’ (in the context of cases involving considerations of democratic legitimacy). The articles section of this issue begins with a piece that, to some extent, moves beyond the ‘pure’ ad bellum mandate of this journal, but one that had such significant points of overlap that the JUFIL editors were very keen to publish it: Matteo Tondini examines – and attempts to clarify – the scope and contents of international law principles and rules applicable to the use of force in maritime law enforcement operations. Tondini’s analysis is focused on how the criteria of unavoidability, reasonableness and necessity, as developed by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, are to be interpreted according to, and complemented by, the principles and rules contained in international human rights law instruments and in the related case law. Chris O’Meara’s contribution then returns us to more traditional ad bellum territory – self-defence – but does so in a way that is notably unique. O’Meara argues that academic and judicial consideration of the right of self-defence in international law has focused on the right as it applies to states, meaning that little attention has been paid to how this right of national (i.e. state) selfdefence relates to, and interacts with, the concurrent right of military personnel and their units to defend themselves. O’Meara highlights some fundamental problems that stem from this focus on national self-defence alone, and offers some unified thinking – taking into account both national and personal/unit self-defence – with regard to a range of issues that relate to the application of the inherent right. It is clear that predominant opinion is now that (at least some) cyberattacks should rightly be considered to be violations of Article 2(4), and that, in extreme cases, a cyber-attack may lead to self-defence under","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"4 1","pages":"237 - 238"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2017.1383063","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48077287","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}

引用次数: 0

Digest of state practice: 1 January – 30 June 2017 国家实践摘要：2017年1月1日至6月30日

Q3 Social Sciences

Journal on the Use of Force and International Law

Pub Date : 2017-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/20531702.2017.1385347

T. Ruys, Luca Ferro, C. Vander Maelen

引用次数: 0

首页上一页

下一页尾页

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

Journal on the Use of Force and International Law

全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.

﹀