Pub Date : 2020-12-05DOI: 10.1163/22134514-00704005
{"title":"Contents","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/22134514-00704005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-00704005","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37233,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2020-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43292255","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 : 2020-09-23DOI: 10.1163/22134514-00703001
A. Mccann
Covid-19 demands that we embrace the ‘positivistic approach of good governance’.1 This claim presupposes three things. First, that we see ‘good governance’ as part of the legal system – this means identifying the principles of good governance, their development as legal norms, and ensuring the necessary enforcement of those norms.2 Second, that good governance is nothing but empty rhetoric if we do not take that last point seriously – the relevant principles must be enforceable as rights.3 Third, that Covid-19 has thrown our legal systems into very risky and unprecedented territory. Individual rights are, perhaps justifiably so, at immense risk. This is clearly evident in the domain of criminal justice. Of particular interest here is the mass roll-out of ‘virtual attendance’ at criminal hearings via video links (VLs). Why is this of particular interest? Unlike other emergency measures (such as the suspension of jury trials or the introduction of radical public order/health offences), there is evidence to suggest the widespread use of VLs had political momentum preCovid 19.4
{"title":"Virtual Criminal Justice and Good Governance during Covid-19","authors":"A. Mccann","doi":"10.1163/22134514-00703001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-00703001","url":null,"abstract":"Covid-19 demands that we embrace the ‘positivistic approach of good governance’.1 This claim presupposes three things. First, that we see ‘good governance’ as part of the legal system – this means identifying the principles of good governance, their development as legal norms, and ensuring the necessary enforcement of those norms.2 Second, that good governance is nothing but empty rhetoric if we do not take that last point seriously – the relevant principles must be enforceable as rights.3 Third, that Covid-19 has thrown our legal systems into very risky and unprecedented territory. Individual rights are, perhaps justifiably so, at immense risk. This is clearly evident in the domain of criminal justice. Of particular interest here is the mass roll-out of ‘virtual attendance’ at criminal hearings via video links (VLs). Why is this of particular interest? Unlike other emergency measures (such as the suspension of jury trials or the introduction of radical public order/health offences), there is evidence to suggest the widespread use of VLs had political momentum preCovid 19.4","PeriodicalId":37233,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2020-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47180414","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 : 2020-06-22DOI: 10.1163/22134514-bja10003
Matthew Channon
The Motor Insurers’ Bureau (mib) was formed in 1946 to provide compensation for victims of road traffic accidents from uninsured drivers and later untraced drivers. 1 The mib and its agreements have been criticised by academics due to potential gaps in coverage. 2 The mib agreements are seen as ‘an entirely novel piece of extra-statutory machinery’, 3 due to not being based in statute and therefore without parliamentary control. This has brought challenges involving issues of transparency when new agreements are created. Claims against the mib, particularly in relation to untraced drivers, have also been controversial. With the UK in a transition period in terms of its relationship with the EU and with the potential absence of a cause of action against the mib post-transition period, the question arises as to whether the mib should be put on a statutory footing. This article therefore aims to explore whether the mib should be put on a statutory footing. It will examine the relationships between the mib, its members, the state, and Parliament. It will further examine issues involving transparency and enforcement. It will go on to compare the Australian Capital Territory (act) approach in legislation with the United Kingdom (UK) approach, to see what will be gained or lost with the UK adopting the legislative route. It will then conclude on which, if any, examine potential reform options – radical or otherwise – might be usefully pursued to meet the criticisms of to the system in the UK.
{"title":"The Nature of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau and Its Agreements","authors":"Matthew Channon","doi":"10.1163/22134514-bja10003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-bja10003","url":null,"abstract":"The Motor Insurers’ Bureau (mib) was formed in 1946 to provide compensation for victims of road traffic accidents from uninsured drivers and later untraced drivers.\u00001\u0000 The mib and its agreements have been criticised by academics due to potential gaps in coverage.\u00002\u0000 The mib agreements are seen as ‘an entirely novel piece of extra-statutory machinery’,\u00003\u0000 due to not being based in statute and therefore without parliamentary control. This has brought challenges involving issues of transparency when new agreements are created. Claims against the mib, particularly in relation to untraced drivers, have also been controversial. With the UK in a transition period in terms of its relationship with the EU and with the potential absence of a cause of action against the mib post-transition period, the question arises as to whether the mib should be put on a statutory footing.\u0000This article therefore aims to explore whether the mib should be put on a statutory footing. It will examine the relationships between the mib, its members, the state, and Parliament. It will further examine issues involving transparency and enforcement. It will go on to compare the Australian Capital Territory (act) approach in legislation with the United Kingdom (UK) approach, to see what will be gained or lost with the UK adopting the legislative route. It will then conclude on which, if any, examine potential reform options – radical or otherwise – might be usefully pursued to meet the criticisms of to the system in the UK.","PeriodicalId":37233,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2020-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/22134514-bja10003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44406698","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 : 2020-06-22DOI: 10.1163/22134514-00702003
A. C. Ciacchi
In the past weeks, scholars from different disciplines – including myself – have been comparing the publicly available data from different countries about the coronavirus pandemic (covid-19) on a daily basis. For a researcher in comparative law-and-governance, these data are very tempting. Would they allow to draw at least some very raw conclusions about the goodness or badness of some countries’ governance concerning the prevention of covid-19 deaths?1 The more I progressed in this research, the more conscious I became of the dangers lurking in a numeric comparative law2 approach to the covid-19 pandemic. At least three mistakes should be avoided: The first mistake is to focus on the case fatality rate, i.e. the number of covid-19 deaths compared to the number of persons tested positive to the virus in a certain country. For example, one may be tempted to assume that in Germany the governance of the pandemic has been much better than in Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden, just because in Germany the case fatality rate has been (and still is) lower than in the
{"title":"The covid-19 Crisis: A Challenge for Numeric Comparative Law and Governance","authors":"A. C. Ciacchi","doi":"10.1163/22134514-00702003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-00702003","url":null,"abstract":"In the past weeks, scholars from different disciplines – including myself – have been comparing the publicly available data from different countries about the coronavirus pandemic (covid-19) on a daily basis. For a researcher in comparative law-and-governance, these data are very tempting. Would they allow to draw at least some very raw conclusions about the goodness or badness of some countries’ governance concerning the prevention of covid-19 deaths?1 The more I progressed in this research, the more conscious I became of the dangers lurking in a numeric comparative law2 approach to the covid-19 pandemic. At least three mistakes should be avoided: The first mistake is to focus on the case fatality rate, i.e. the number of covid-19 deaths compared to the number of persons tested positive to the virus in a certain country. For example, one may be tempted to assume that in Germany the governance of the pandemic has been much better than in Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden, just because in Germany the case fatality rate has been (and still is) lower than in the","PeriodicalId":37233,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2020-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/22134514-00702003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45139451","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 : 2020-03-02DOI: 10.1163/22134514-00701004
S. Erp
We are all, more and more, convinced that the major fault lines characteristic of today’s legal systems are the impact of Information Technology (IT), more particularly the emerging (or so-called “disruptive”) technologies, on the law and how the law can contribute to reversing our changing climate. In the Netherlands, but not only there, the latter aspect has drawn quite some attention because of the recent decision by the Netherlands Supreme Court in the “Urgenda case”, demanding the government to reduce the level of greenhouse gases with 25% before the end of 2020.1 The decision seems quite severe, especially in a country where the Constitution forbids the judiciary to decide on the constitutionality of statutes, but at the same time allows that same judiciary to rule on the compatibility of these very statutes with international treaties. The decision brings to the surface the growing tensions within the country’s political system (legislature and executive) and its judiciary. However, except when it comes to privacy protection, no such far-reaching and principled cases seem to have thus far reached Supreme Courts in Europe in the area of IT and law, for example regarding the legal nature of smart contracts (i.e. self-executing computer programmes), replacing more traditional standardised or boilerplate contracts. Although legislation in this area seems to be growing, particularly when looking at the micro-jurisdictions within Europe (Malta, Liechtenstein), still many questions are unanswered and even in states with a beginning of a legislative framework no case law has developed yet.2
{"title":"Which Governance Structure for Law Making Projects Regarding Emerging Technologies?","authors":"S. Erp","doi":"10.1163/22134514-00701004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-00701004","url":null,"abstract":"We are all, more and more, convinced that the major fault lines characteristic of today’s legal systems are the impact of Information Technology (IT), more particularly the emerging (or so-called “disruptive”) technologies, on the law and how the law can contribute to reversing our changing climate. In the Netherlands, but not only there, the latter aspect has drawn quite some attention because of the recent decision by the Netherlands Supreme Court in the “Urgenda case”, demanding the government to reduce the level of greenhouse gases with 25% before the end of 2020.1 The decision seems quite severe, especially in a country where the Constitution forbids the judiciary to decide on the constitutionality of statutes, but at the same time allows that same judiciary to rule on the compatibility of these very statutes with international treaties. The decision brings to the surface the growing tensions within the country’s political system (legislature and executive) and its judiciary. However, except when it comes to privacy protection, no such far-reaching and principled cases seem to have thus far reached Supreme Courts in Europe in the area of IT and law, for example regarding the legal nature of smart contracts (i.e. self-executing computer programmes), replacing more traditional standardised or boilerplate contracts. Although legislation in this area seems to be growing, particularly when looking at the micro-jurisdictions within Europe (Malta, Liechtenstein), still many questions are unanswered and even in states with a beginning of a legislative framework no case law has developed yet.2","PeriodicalId":37233,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2020-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/22134514-00701004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41757206","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 : 2020-03-02DOI: 10.1163/22134514-00701002
Herbjørn Andresen
Archival laws exist in most countries, with some similarities due to a common professional basis. Over several decades, regional and global laws have evolved in different fields imposing requirements, or expectations, for reliable and accessible archives. Merely a few attempts have been made to harmonise archival law in the sense of pursuing a goal of rule similarity. Still, there seems to be an increase of areas where international law or regional harmonisation of laws presupposes archival law with a capacity to safeguard creation and preservation of reliable archives, documenting government activities. Even without manifest goals of harmonising archival law into uniform rules, the broad range of emerging requirements on reliable archives may lead to some form of approximation of archival law. Following a broad account of developments in this field, Sections 2 through 4, there is a discussion of advantages and disadvantages of stronger or weaker modes of harmonisation. Strong harmonisation could perhaps more convincingly safeguard the reliability of archives, at the cost of a possible lock-in of the scope of archival law. Weaker forms of harmonisation yield more differentiated archival laws. On the other hand, weak harmonisation may be more adaptive to developments in adjacent fields.
{"title":"On the Internationalisation and Harmonisation of Archival Law","authors":"Herbjørn Andresen","doi":"10.1163/22134514-00701002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-00701002","url":null,"abstract":"Archival laws exist in most countries, with some similarities due to a common professional basis. Over several decades, regional and global laws have evolved in different fields imposing requirements, or expectations, for reliable and accessible archives. Merely a few attempts have been made to harmonise archival law in the sense of pursuing a goal of rule similarity. Still, there seems to be an increase of areas where international law or regional harmonisation of laws presupposes archival law with a capacity to safeguard creation and preservation of reliable archives, documenting government activities. Even without manifest goals of harmonising archival law into uniform rules, the broad range of emerging requirements on reliable archives may lead to some form of approximation of archival law. Following a broad account of developments in this field, Sections 2 through 4, there is a discussion of advantages and disadvantages of stronger or weaker modes of harmonisation. Strong harmonisation could perhaps more convincingly safeguard the reliability of archives, at the cost of a possible lock-in of the scope of archival law. Weaker forms of harmonisation yield more differentiated archival laws. On the other hand, weak harmonisation may be more adaptive to developments in adjacent fields.","PeriodicalId":37233,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2020-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/22134514-00701002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48790563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article discusses the growing trend to employ private parties as informants, private detectives and providers of digital technology (e.g., automated risk assessments) to predict and investigate welfare fraud. In this article, we argue that this type of outsourcing is problematic for multiple reasons. First, private actors and governments often have an ill-defined contractual relationship which creates legal uncertainty and promotes the use of unconventional evidence-gathering instruments. This issue also raises concerns regarding the accountability of public bodies and the transparency and fairness of administrative procedure. Second, the private enforcement of anti-fraud regulations is susceptible of endangering the adequate pursuit of the public interest due to the misalignment of public and private interests. Third, the outsourcing of enforcement tasks to private technology companies and their opaque automated systems can be detrimental to the right to due process, the right to non-discrimination, and the privacy of welfare recipients. This article contributes to the literature with a novel critical account of how private actors are reshaping the welfare state.
{"title":"Outsourcing the Welfare State: The Role of Private Actors in Welfare Fraud Investigations","authors":"S. Ranchordás, Y. Schuurmans","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3512114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3512114","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the growing trend to employ private parties as informants, private detectives and providers of digital technology (e.g., automated risk assessments) to predict and investigate welfare fraud. In this article, we argue that this type of outsourcing is problematic for multiple reasons. First, private actors and governments often have an ill-defined contractual relationship which creates legal uncertainty and promotes the use of unconventional evidence-gathering instruments. This issue also raises concerns regarding the accountability of public bodies and the transparency and fairness of administrative procedure. Second, the private enforcement of anti-fraud regulations is susceptible of endangering the adequate pursuit of the public interest due to the misalignment of public and private interests. Third, the outsourcing of enforcement tasks to private technology companies and their opaque automated systems can be detrimental to the right to due process, the right to non-discrimination, and the privacy of welfare recipients. This article contributes to the literature with a novel critical account of how private actors are reshaping the welfare state.","PeriodicalId":37233,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance","volume":"4 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2020-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41316112","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 : 2020-01-06DOI: 10.1163/22134514-00701001
V. Zeno-Zencovich
The article presents the argument that contemporary societies are facing an ever-growing over-production of norms which are chocking its efficient functioning. The argument however is subsequently de-constructed, in particular through a comparative (European vs. US) analysis, pointing out that what is of great concern on this side of the Atlantic apparently is not at all on the other side. The article concludes with some possible remedies – admitting that we are facing an illness – to the current over-production.
{"title":"A Normative Metastasis?","authors":"V. Zeno-Zencovich","doi":"10.1163/22134514-00701001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-00701001","url":null,"abstract":"The article presents the argument that contemporary societies are facing an ever-growing over-production of norms which are chocking its efficient functioning. The argument however is subsequently de-constructed, in particular through a comparative (European vs. US) analysis, pointing out that what is of great concern on this side of the Atlantic apparently is not at all on the other side. The article concludes with some possible remedies – admitting that we are facing an illness – to the current over-production.","PeriodicalId":37233,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2020-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/22134514-00701001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49304486","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 : 2019-12-02DOI: 10.1163/22134514-00604002
Kenneth Burns, Katrin Kriẑ, J. Krutzinna, Katre Luhamaa, T. Meysen, Tarja Pösö, Sagrario Segado, Marit Skivenes, J. Thoburn
How accountable are decisions about terminating parental rights to ensure an adoption from care? In this paper we examine if the proceedings in eight European jurisdictions are accountable to: a) the private parties, i.e. individuals that are concerned – such as parents, child; b) the general public that authorized the politicians and the government to make legislation; and c) the elected government, i.e. the legislators and the system that have granted the court, court-like or administrative body the authority to make these decisions. Our data material consists of national legislation, organizational guidelines (courts, child protection, or supervisory agencies), statistics and expert knowledge. The conclusions of our analysis are discouraging. There is only limited accountability for one of the most intrusive interventions by a state into the private lives of individuals. There is a lack of information about the proceedings as well as a lack of transparency. We identify systems that, with few exceptions, operate in isolation, with only a few outsiders having access or knowledge about what is going on. We cannot in this study say anything about the decision-making quality in these proceedings, they may be excellent, but the problem is that very few external actors are in a position to examine the quality of the decisions. This missing connection between the wider democratic society and this part of the legal systems in the eight democracies we studied is of huge concern, and we have indications that the situation is equally concerning in other European states.
{"title":"The Hidden Proceedings – An Analysis of Accountability of Child Protection Adoption Proceedings in Eight European Jurisdictions","authors":"Kenneth Burns, Katrin Kriẑ, J. Krutzinna, Katre Luhamaa, T. Meysen, Tarja Pösö, Sagrario Segado, Marit Skivenes, J. Thoburn","doi":"10.1163/22134514-00604002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-00604002","url":null,"abstract":"How accountable are decisions about terminating parental rights to ensure an adoption from care? In this paper we examine if the proceedings in eight European jurisdictions are accountable to: a) the private parties, i.e. individuals that are concerned – such as parents, child; b) the general public that authorized the politicians and the government to make legislation; and c) the elected government, i.e. the legislators and the system that have granted the court, court-like or administrative body the authority to make these decisions. Our data material consists of national legislation, organizational guidelines (courts, child protection, or supervisory agencies), statistics and expert knowledge. The conclusions of our analysis are discouraging. There is only limited accountability for one of the most intrusive interventions by a state into the private lives of individuals. There is a lack of information about the proceedings as well as a lack of transparency. We identify systems that, with few exceptions, operate in isolation, with only a few outsiders having access or knowledge about what is going on. We cannot in this study say anything about the decision-making quality in these proceedings, they may be excellent, but the problem is that very few external actors are in a position to examine the quality of the decisions. This missing connection between the wider democratic society and this part of the legal systems in the eight democracies we studied is of huge concern, and we have indications that the situation is equally concerning in other European states.","PeriodicalId":37233,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46809023","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 : 2019-12-02DOI: 10.1163/22134514-00604001
Serkan Yolcu
{"title":"‘Judicial Dissent in European Constitutional Courts: A Comparative and Legal Perspective’, written by Katalin Kelemen","authors":"Serkan Yolcu","doi":"10.1163/22134514-00604001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-00604001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37233,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42966296","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：