This paper looks at the role of the European Parliament (EP) in three phases of Brexit: the attempt by the David Cameron Government to renegotiate the UK’s membership of the European Union prior to the 2016 referendum, the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) and the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). The paper argues that the EP was both a strategic actor and a normative player. As a strategic actor the EP used its veto powers to align closely with the Commission in exchange for influence over the EU’s negotiating position and in an attempt to reinforce the EU’s overall bargaining power. As a normative player the EP attempted to shape standards that would need to be observed in any Brexit. That was important on questions of citizens’ rights, Northern Ireland and the governance of the TCA. However, Brexit also had implications for the EP as well as the other way round. Important questions were raised by the re-allocation of the UK’s seats in the EP, whilst the negotiation of the WA and TCA has lessons for how the EP operates as a ‘working parliament’, often sharing in the work of the Commission and European Council more than opposing them.
{"title":"The European Parliament and Brexit","authors":"Christopher J. Lord","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3886444","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3886444","url":null,"abstract":"This paper looks at the role of the European Parliament (EP) in three phases of Brexit: the attempt by the David Cameron Government to renegotiate the UK’s membership of the European Union prior to the 2016 referendum, the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) and the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). The paper argues that the EP was both a strategic actor and a normative player. As a strategic actor the EP used its veto powers to align closely with the Commission in exchange for influence over the EU’s negotiating position and in an attempt to reinforce the EU’s overall bargaining power. As a normative player the EP attempted to shape standards that would need to be observed in any Brexit. That was important on questions of citizens’ rights, Northern Ireland and the governance of the TCA. However, Brexit also had implications for the EP as well as the other way round. Important questions were raised by the re-allocation of the UK’s seats in the EP, whilst the negotiation of the WA and TCA has lessons for how the EP operates as a ‘working parliament’, often sharing in the work of the Commission and European Council more than opposing them.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126885925","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 provides a brief analysis of the Court of Justice of the EU decision of 16 March 2021, C 562/19 P European Commission v Republic of Poland, addressing issues of state aid and progressive turnover taxation.
{"title":"Commission v Poland C-562/19 P: Turnover Taxation and State Aid Law","authors":"L. Parada","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3869049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3869049","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides a brief analysis of the Court of Justice of the EU decision of 16 March 2021, C 562/19 P European Commission v Republic of Poland, addressing issues of state aid and progressive turnover taxation.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"131 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127034483","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 Agreement on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU of January 2020 should focus on dissolution, while the future relationship is governed by the yet to ratify Trade and Cooperation Agreement of December 2020. Yet, continuing bonds impact on the future, most prevalent in the situation of EU citizens who moved to the UK and UK citizens who moved to the EU, relying on the continuity of the UK’s EU membership, and the necessity of managing the hybrid position of Northern Ireland and its people, which is protected by the Belfast Good Friday Agreement. Part Two of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol on Ireland / Northern Ireland retain some EU citizenship rights and Northern Ireland’s access to the EU Internal Market for goods. Implementing those remnants of EU membership constitutes a permanent struggle. This chapter elaborates the ensuing difficulties and concludes with practical proposals how to alleviate negative repercussion.
{"title":"Brexit and the Implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement","authors":"D. Schiek","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3801909","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3801909","url":null,"abstract":"The Agreement on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU of January 2020 should focus on dissolution, while the future relationship is governed by the yet to ratify Trade and Cooperation Agreement of December 2020. Yet, continuing bonds impact on the future, most prevalent in the situation of EU citizens who moved to the UK and UK citizens who moved to the EU, relying on the continuity of the UK’s EU membership, and the necessity of managing the hybrid position of Northern Ireland and its people, which is protected by the Belfast Good Friday Agreement. Part Two of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol on Ireland / Northern Ireland retain some EU citizenship rights and Northern Ireland’s access to the EU Internal Market for goods. Implementing those remnants of EU membership constitutes a permanent struggle. This chapter elaborates the ensuing difficulties and concludes with practical proposals how to alleviate negative repercussion.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121433012","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}
Exchange of information is interwoven with the worldwide income taxation principle. Residence-countries taxing their residents on income produced both domestically and abroad need the cooperation of source-countries to obtain information about income produced by their residents in those countries. By neutralising the more advantageous effect of no or low taxation in the foreign jurisdiction, a residence-country actually is in a position to claim to subject foreign income to control through exchange of information and administrative cooperation.
{"title":"The EU Protection of Tax Data Transferred to Third Countries","authors":"C. Garbarino","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3730009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3730009","url":null,"abstract":"Exchange of information is interwoven with the worldwide income taxation principle. Residence-countries taxing their residents on income produced both domestically and abroad need the cooperation of source-countries to obtain information about income produced by their residents in those countries. By neutralising the more advantageous effect of no or low taxation in the foreign jurisdiction, a residence-country actually is in a position to claim to subject foreign income to control through exchange of information and administrative cooperation.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"134 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123266173","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}
Are the trade philosophies behind the EU internal market and the WTO international market converging or diverging; and are we, or are we not, moving towards a ‘common law of international trade’? Twenty years ago, an interesting—and swiftly famous—answer to this question was given by Joseph H.H. Weiler. Studying the ‘constitution of the common market’, the historical evolution of free movement law is here divided into five periods or generations. The underlying Weiler thesis is thereby as simple as it is beautiful: starting with an early radical philosophy in Dassonville, the European Union has gradually and consistently moved away from its original hyper-liberal approach towards an ever more deferential approach; and the transformation of Article 34 TFEU into a discrimination format ultimately leads to a convergence with international law. What are the empirical and normative credentials of this stylised construction of the internal market? This article argues that there are fundamental shortcomings in this standard interpretation of the evolution of the internal market, and that a historical reconstruction arrives at a very different empirical and normative picture. What can this ‘revisionist’ result mean for EU law scholarship in general? If EU constitutionalism wishes to ‘re-constitute’ its object of study properly, it needs to abandon the abstract ways of philosophizing that have become commonplace in the last 25 years. Part and parcel of this methodological renaissance must be a renewed commitment to test (constitutional) theory against (judicial) practice.
{"title":"'Re-Constituting' the Internal Market: Towards a Common Law of International Trade?","authors":"Robert Schutze","doi":"10.1093/yel/yeaa005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/yeaa005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Are the trade philosophies behind the EU internal market and the WTO international market converging or diverging; and are we, or are we not, moving towards a ‘common law of international trade’? Twenty years ago, an interesting—and swiftly famous—answer to this question was given by Joseph H.H. Weiler. Studying the ‘constitution of the common market’, the historical evolution of free movement law is here divided into five periods or generations. The underlying Weiler thesis is thereby as simple as it is beautiful: starting with an early radical philosophy in Dassonville, the European Union has gradually and consistently moved away from its original hyper-liberal approach towards an ever more deferential approach; and the transformation of Article 34 TFEU into a discrimination format ultimately leads to a convergence with international law. What are the empirical and normative credentials of this stylised construction of the internal market? This article argues that there are fundamental shortcomings in this standard interpretation of the evolution of the internal market, and that a historical reconstruction arrives at a very different empirical and normative picture. What can this ‘revisionist’ result mean for EU law scholarship in general? If EU constitutionalism wishes to ‘re-constitute’ its object of study properly, it needs to abandon the abstract ways of philosophizing that have become commonplace in the last 25 years. Part and parcel of this methodological renaissance must be a renewed commitment to test (constitutional) theory against (judicial) practice.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130747906","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 : 2020-10-28DOI: 10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2020-03-02
Tarjei Bekkedal
The Norwegian ‘social security’ scandal concerns the right to export sickness benefits pursuant to EU Regulation 883/2004. Norway is party to the EEA Agreement and the Regulation is binding in Norway. Norway’s Social Security Act requires continued presence in Norway to retain payable benefits. Thousands of claims have been rejected by disregarding Regulation 883/2004 or reading it down. Some hundred citizens have been sentenced to prison for welfare fraud because they stayed in another EU/EEA State and exported cash benefits in the absence of prior authorization.
Legal uncertainty seems to remain, and the exact scope of the scandal is still not clear. The paper discusses the reach and depth of the rights afforded by Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems. It argues that the main rules on equal treatment (Articles 4 and 5) and the main rule on free movement (Article 7) provide an unconditional right to export sickness benefits in cash. It provides an account of the internal, systemic, and constitutional integrity of the Regulation, and the equilibrium between coordination and harmonization.
{"title":"The Internal, Systemic and Constitutional Integrity of EU Regulation 883/2004 on the Coordination of Social Security Systems: Lessons from a Scandal","authors":"Tarjei Bekkedal","doi":"10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2020-03-02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2020-03-02","url":null,"abstract":"The Norwegian ‘social security’ scandal concerns the right to export sickness benefits pursuant to EU Regulation 883/2004. Norway is party to the EEA Agreement and the Regulation is binding in Norway. Norway’s Social Security Act requires continued presence in Norway to retain payable benefits. Thousands of claims have been rejected by disregarding Regulation 883/2004 or reading it down. Some hundred citizens have been sentenced to prison for welfare fraud because they stayed in another EU/EEA State and exported cash benefits in the absence of prior authorization. <br><br>Legal uncertainty seems to remain, and the exact scope of the scandal is still not clear. The paper discusses the reach and depth of the rights afforded by Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems. It argues that the main rules on equal treatment (Articles 4 and 5) and the main rule on free movement (Article 7) provide an unconditional right to export sickness benefits in cash. It provides an account of the internal, systemic, and constitutional integrity of the Regulation, and the equilibrium between coordination and harmonization. <br>","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"125 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114995205","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 COVID-19 crisis have once again elevated one of the most contentious themes in competition law and economics, namely how to deal with excessive pricing and price gouging, to the global stage. Dramatic, sudden price hikes on essential medicines and medical supplies (a practice known as price gouging, or excessive pricing) are reported in many countries affected by the crisis. The Competition Authorities have received many complaints in regards to excessive pricing / price gouging and some have already started investigations, others are closely monitoring the developments. Like a mythical giant, dormant but defiant, excessive pricing time and again captures the attention of policymakers, competition law practitioners and scholars, despite its demise being proclaimed as frequently by a certain strand of law and economics. Excessive Pricing and Price Gouging belong to the most written about, and least understood, issues in competition law and economics, with significantly conflicting views depending on the normative departing points regarding theories of harm, scope and object of competition law and legal-philosophical perspectives. Where one side of the axis elevates presumptions of supposed virtues of excessive prices, self-correcting markets and possible chilling effects on costly and risky innovation in face of vigilant enforcement, the other side of the axis point to wealth transfers as being the prima facie competition law concern, the errors in presumptions by the antagonists of enforcement and ultimately forwards the need to pursue competition law alongside fairness and social policy paradigm beyond a "purist" economic efficiency doctrine. The paper is structured as follows. Following the introductory section depicting excessive pricing theme in general, Section two revisits some examples of excessive pricing and price gouging during the COVID-19 pandemic. Section three offers a critical overview of law and economics theory informing much of the scholarly debate on excessive pricing as an anti-competitive practice. Section four presents an updated overview of the origins of the prohibition as well as recent enforcement actions in European Competition Law, demonstrating a shifting ground. Section five critically approaches the various arguments pro and con excessive pricing enforcement in the literature, finding the bulk of the normative and empirical arguments against enforcement not particularly persuasive. Section six concludes with a view on and beyond COVID-19 crisis with some law and policy recommendations.
{"title":"The Giant Awakens - Law and Economics of Excessive Pricing & COVID-19 Crisis","authors":"B. Kianzad","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3706793","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3706793","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 crisis have once again elevated one of the most contentious themes in competition law and economics, namely how to deal with excessive pricing and price gouging, to the global stage. Dramatic, sudden price hikes on essential medicines and medical supplies (a practice known as price gouging, or excessive pricing) are reported in many countries affected by the crisis. The Competition Authorities have received many complaints in regards to excessive pricing / price gouging and some have already started investigations, others are closely monitoring the developments. Like a mythical giant, dormant but defiant, excessive pricing time and again captures the attention of policymakers, competition law practitioners and scholars, despite its demise being proclaimed as frequently by a certain strand of law and economics. Excessive Pricing and Price Gouging belong to the most written about, and least understood, issues in competition law and economics, with significantly conflicting views depending on the normative departing points regarding theories of harm, scope and object of competition law and legal-philosophical perspectives. Where one side of the axis elevates presumptions of supposed virtues of excessive prices, self-correcting markets and possible chilling effects on costly and risky innovation in face of vigilant enforcement, the other side of the axis point to wealth transfers as being the prima facie competition law concern, the errors in presumptions by the antagonists of enforcement and ultimately forwards the need to pursue competition law alongside fairness and social policy paradigm beyond a \"purist\" economic efficiency doctrine. The paper is structured as follows. Following the introductory section depicting excessive pricing theme in general, Section two revisits some examples of excessive pricing and price gouging during the COVID-19 pandemic. Section three offers a critical overview of law and economics theory informing much of the scholarly debate on excessive pricing as an anti-competitive practice. Section four presents an updated overview of the origins of the prohibition as well as recent enforcement actions in European Competition Law, demonstrating a shifting ground. Section five critically approaches the various arguments pro and con excessive pricing enforcement in the literature, finding the bulk of the normative and empirical arguments against enforcement not particularly persuasive. Section six concludes with a view on and beyond COVID-19 crisis with some law and policy recommendations.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"54 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123343218","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 article presents the current economic crisis from an historical perspective, analyzing the building of the monetary integration and the common currency. The process is explained pointing out its effects on the European integration and outlining the positive and negative consequences of the introduction of a common currency in the European Union. The investigation continues with a general outlook of the current situation of the countries more affected by the current crisis, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy. All of them have in common the necessity of extra funding in a context of austerity, plus some national particularities. The author proposes an expansion in the public spending as the only reliable way to stimulate the European economies in crisis. As the Euro meant the end of the monetary independence of the member states it is suggested an innovate solution, the creation of an Economic government in the Union in order to transfer funds from the wealthier states to the countries in troubles. It is presented as a necessity for the states in crisis, a necessity for the wealthier states and a must for the European Union. Introduction.
{"title":"Asymmetrical Crisis in the European Union: The Example of Greece","authors":"Kristīne Krūmiņš","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3695831","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3695831","url":null,"abstract":"The article presents the current economic crisis from an historical perspective, analyzing the building of the monetary integration and the common currency. The process is explained pointing out its effects on the European integration and outlining the positive and negative consequences of the introduction of a common currency in the European Union. The investigation continues with a general outlook of the current situation of the countries more affected by the current crisis, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy. All of them have in common the necessity of extra funding in a context of austerity, plus some national particularities. The author proposes an expansion in the public spending as the only reliable way to stimulate the European economies in crisis. As the Euro meant the end of the monetary independence of the member states it is suggested an innovate solution, the creation of an Economic government in the Union in order to transfer funds from the wealthier states to the countries in troubles. It is presented as a necessity for the states in crisis, a necessity for the wealthier states and a must for the European Union.<br>Introduction.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"141 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115904642","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 aim of this working paper is to provide a preliminary assessment of whether the European Green Deal constitutes a suitable policy framework to combine environmental and economic objectives with the pursuit of social fairness, thus ensuring a just transition towards more sustainable economies and societies. Such an assessment appears particularly relevant in a period in which the EU and its Member States are figuring out how to redesign their economies and societies in order to cope with the unprecedented social and economic crisis triggered by the Covid–19 pandemic.
{"title":"A socially just transition through the European Green Deal?","authors":"S. Sabato, Boris Fronteddu","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3699367","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3699367","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this working paper is to provide a preliminary assessment of whether the European Green Deal constitutes a suitable policy framework to combine environmental and economic objectives with the pursuit of social fairness, thus ensuring a just transition towards more sustainable economies and societies. Such an assessment appears particularly relevant in a period in which the EU and its Member States are figuring out how to redesign their economies and societies in order to cope with the unprecedented social and economic crisis triggered by the Covid–19 pandemic.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"102 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117337035","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 paper assesses the extent to which economic arguments may or must influence law-making and adjudication related to the internal market of the EU. Therefore, the normative foundations of the internal market as an instrument of EU law are investigated. Consequences in regard to the internal market competence (Article 114 TFEU) and the choice of regulatory level, ie the EU legislature's choice to harmonise or not to harmonise, are discussed. Using various examples related to the EU fundamental freedoms and EU secondary law, it will be shown that there is indeed scope for economically sound arguments and that there is added value to be gained by including them.
{"title":"Law-Making and Adjudication for the Internal Market: The Role of Economic Reasoning","authors":"J. Franck","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3694273","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3694273","url":null,"abstract":"This paper assesses the extent to which economic arguments may or must influence law-making and adjudication related to the internal market of the EU. Therefore, the normative foundations of the internal market as an instrument of EU law are investigated. Consequences in regard to the internal market competence (Article 114 TFEU) and the choice of regulatory level, ie the EU legislature's choice to harmonise or not to harmonise, are discussed. Using various examples related to the EU fundamental freedoms and EU secondary law, it will be shown that there is indeed scope for economically sound arguments and that there is added value to be gained by including them.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129194487","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：