Pub Date : 2022-08-31DOI: 10.14731/kjis.2022.08.20.2.243
Minho Lee, Byungwon Woo
{"title":"The Essence of Decisions in International Organizations: Two Cases of World Bank Reforms in 2010 and 2018","authors":"Minho Lee, Byungwon Woo","doi":"10.14731/kjis.2022.08.20.2.243","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2022.08.20.2.243","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41543,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of International Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41792580","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-31DOI: 10.14731/kjis.2021.12.19.3.275
Yang Gyu Kim
{"title":"The Feasibility of Punishment and the Credibility of Threats: Case Studies on the First Moroccan and the Rhineland Crises","authors":"Yang Gyu Kim","doi":"10.14731/kjis.2021.12.19.3.275","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2021.12.19.3.275","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41543,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of International Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48969135","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-31DOI: 10.14731/kjis.2021.12.19.3.377
Yoon-Jeong Oh
This study offers an analysis of cross-country difference in Southeast Asian public opinion on China in the mid-2010s, using data from the Asian Barometer Survey (ABS). I pursue two empirical questions: (1) how China fared in perceived influence and positivity compared to the U.S. at the national level and (2) what perception gaps existed in regional and national assessments of China’s positive impact. The findings indicate that public perceptions by country are not radically different from commonly known government-level orientations toward China. Yet there are interesting patterns of clusters across countries and gaps in perceptions. First, some countries consistently regard China more influential and more beneficial than the U.S. while others face a contradiction between China being more influential but less beneficial than the U.S. Second, in all countries, Southeast Asian respondents think that the extent to which China benefits their own country is greater than the extent to which China benefits the region, implying a potential collective action problem for a coherent regional response. It is also interesting to note that the largest perception gap is reported in the Philippines, the country at the forefront of the South China Sea disputes with China. The findings contribute to the larger literature on Southeast Asia’s alignment choices in the face of the US-China strategic competition.
{"title":"Southeast Asian Public Perceptions of China: Clusters and Gaps","authors":"Yoon-Jeong Oh","doi":"10.14731/kjis.2021.12.19.3.377","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2021.12.19.3.377","url":null,"abstract":"This study offers an analysis of cross-country difference in Southeast Asian public opinion on China in the mid-2010s, using data from the Asian Barometer Survey (ABS). I pursue two empirical questions: (1) how China fared in perceived influence and positivity compared to the U.S. at the national level and (2) what perception gaps existed in regional and national assessments of China’s positive impact. The findings indicate that public perceptions by country are not radically different from commonly known government-level orientations toward China. Yet there are interesting patterns of clusters across countries and gaps in perceptions. First, some countries consistently regard China more influential and more beneficial than the U.S. while others face a contradiction between China being more influential but less beneficial than the U.S. Second, in all countries, Southeast Asian respondents think that the extent to which China benefits their own country is greater than the extent to which China benefits the region, implying a potential collective action problem for a coherent regional response. It is also interesting to note that the largest perception gap is reported in the Philippines, the country at the forefront of the South China Sea disputes with China. The findings contribute to the larger literature on Southeast Asia’s alignment choices in the face of the US-China strategic competition.","PeriodicalId":41543,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of International Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46272359","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-31DOI: 10.14731/kjis.2021.12.19.3.303
Sanghyun Han
{"title":"What is Behind the China Rule in 2007: Motivations for the Bush Administration’s Export Control Policy Against China","authors":"Sanghyun Han","doi":"10.14731/kjis.2021.12.19.3.303","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2021.12.19.3.303","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41543,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of International Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45606725","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-31DOI: 10.14731/kjis.2021.12.19.3.339
Byung-Deuk Woo
Even though previous literature on the impacts of the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) has broadened our understanding of the conducive influences of CEDAW on women’s rights, the impacts of the ratification of CEDAW on the adoption of women’s rights laws, especially violence against women laws, based on a diffusion mechanism have not been empirically examined. Also, the heterogeneous impacts of the ratification of CEDAW on the diffusion of violence against women laws by types of violence which such laws aim to penalize has not been academically unveiled. With unprecedentedly large time-series cross-national data on 129 countries from 1908 to 2016, this article estimating pooled event history models (PEHM) with a directed dyadic setup demonstrates that the ratification of CEDAW increases the probability of adopting violence against women laws of other countries substantially. In addition, the empirical results show that the conducive influence is conspicuous related to the diffusion of laws about sexual harassment, and domestic and intimate partner violence, while the probability of adopting laws not specifying certain forms of violence against women tends to decrease with the ratification of CEDAW. Those empirical results are robust and consistent in different model specifications.
{"title":"The Heterogeneous Impacts of the Ratification of CEDAW on the Adoption of Violence Against Women Laws","authors":"Byung-Deuk Woo","doi":"10.14731/kjis.2021.12.19.3.339","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2021.12.19.3.339","url":null,"abstract":"Even though previous literature on the impacts of the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) has broadened our understanding of the conducive influences of CEDAW on women’s rights, the impacts of the ratification of CEDAW on the adoption of women’s rights laws, especially violence against women laws, based on a diffusion mechanism have not been empirically examined. Also, the heterogeneous impacts of the ratification of CEDAW on the diffusion of violence against women laws by types of violence which such laws aim to penalize has not been academically unveiled. With unprecedentedly large time-series cross-national data on 129 countries from 1908 to 2016, this article estimating pooled event history models (PEHM) with a directed dyadic setup demonstrates that the ratification of CEDAW increases the probability of adopting violence against women laws of other countries substantially. In addition, the empirical results show that the conducive influence is conspicuous related to the diffusion of laws about sexual harassment, and domestic and intimate partner violence, while the probability of adopting laws not specifying certain forms of violence against women tends to decrease with the ratification of CEDAW. Those empirical results are robust and consistent in different model specifications.","PeriodicalId":41543,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of International Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46292387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-31DOI: 10.14731/kjis.2021.08.19.2.221
Taedong Lee, Myungsung Kim, Natalie Chifamba
Green New Deal (GND) proposals are suggested as a solution to cope with climate emergency, economic recession, and social inequality. This study aims to conceptualize GNDs through the political questions of who gets what, why, and how. This research defines the politics of GND as a government’s stimulus policy to tackle climate change, economic downturn, and inequality by building up sustainable infrastructure, industries, and communities through investment, job creation, and innovation. The politics of the GND framework consists of actors, aims, contents, and measures. By applying this framework, empirical analyses examine the similarities and differences in the GND proposals of the EU and the US. This finding suggests that varying comprehensiveness and concreteness are presented in these proposals. The preliminary analysis demonstrates that measures for funding should be identified for implementing effective GND plans. Research applying the political analysis framework into recently announced Korean GND would contribute to enhancing the policy plan and implementation process. A systemic comparison of the us to identify the GND this comparative study provides a tool to identify policy implications, combining
{"title":"Political Framework of Green New Deal: A comparative analysis of the EU and US proposals","authors":"Taedong Lee, Myungsung Kim, Natalie Chifamba","doi":"10.14731/kjis.2021.08.19.2.221","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2021.08.19.2.221","url":null,"abstract":"Green New Deal (GND) proposals are suggested as a solution to cope with climate emergency, economic recession, and social inequality. This study aims to conceptualize GNDs through the political questions of who gets what, why, and how. This research defines the politics of GND as a government’s stimulus policy to tackle climate change, economic downturn, and inequality by building up sustainable infrastructure, industries, and communities through investment, job creation, and innovation. The politics of the GND framework consists of actors, aims, contents, and measures. By applying this framework, empirical analyses examine the similarities and differences in the GND proposals of the EU and the US. This finding suggests that varying comprehensiveness and concreteness are presented in these proposals. The preliminary analysis demonstrates that measures for funding should be identified for implementing effective GND plans. Research applying the political analysis framework into recently announced Korean GND would contribute to enhancing the policy plan and implementation process. A systemic comparison of the us to identify the GND this comparative study provides a tool to identify policy implications, combining","PeriodicalId":41543,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of International Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45637853","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-31DOI: 10.14731/kjis.2021.08.19.2.199
Miyung Yoon, Kyudeug Hwang
Many African countries have been alleged to serve North Korea as sources of hard currency, by purchasing weapons and military equipment and/or bringing military trainers and construction workers from North Korea, in violation of United Nations (UN) sanctions on North Korea. Focusing on high-level bilateral meetings between South Korea and African states during the period of October 14, 2006-December 31, 2019, this study examines the extent to which South Korea has utilized bilateral diplomacy as a tool to seek African cooperation for North Korea’s denuclearization and to dissuade African countries from helping North Korea evade sanctions. We find that North Korea’s denuclearization and UN sanctions, overall, have received only peripheral attention in South Korea’s bilateral diplomatic discourse with African states and there is no significant difference between progressive and conservative administrations in this regard. and UN on Korea. The purpose of this study is to examine South Korea’s bilateral diplomatic engagement with African countries for African support on North Korea’s denuclearization and UN sanctions on North Korea, focusing on high-level face-to-face meetings involving heads of government and ministers of foreign affairs of South Korea and African states. The study covers the period ensuing UN Security Council Resolution 1718, passed on October 14, 2006 in response to North Korea’s first nuclear test, up to December 31, 2019. Specifically, we examine (1) the overall significance of North Korea’s denuclearization and UN Security Council sanctions in high-level bilateral meetings between South Korea and African countries and (2) whether the different approaches of the progressive and conservative South Korean administrations to North Korea have had any effect on addressing those
{"title":"South Korea’s High-Level Bilateral Meetings with African Countries Concerning Nuclear North Korea","authors":"Miyung Yoon, Kyudeug Hwang","doi":"10.14731/kjis.2021.08.19.2.199","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2021.08.19.2.199","url":null,"abstract":"Many African countries have been alleged to serve North Korea as sources of hard currency, by purchasing weapons and military equipment and/or bringing military trainers and construction workers from North Korea, in violation of United Nations (UN) sanctions on North Korea. Focusing on high-level bilateral meetings between South Korea and African states during the period of October 14, 2006-December 31, 2019, this study examines the extent to which South Korea has utilized bilateral diplomacy as a tool to seek African cooperation for North Korea’s denuclearization and to dissuade African countries from helping North Korea evade sanctions. We find that North Korea’s denuclearization and UN sanctions, overall, have received only peripheral attention in South Korea’s bilateral diplomatic discourse with African states and there is no significant difference between progressive and conservative administrations in this regard. and UN on Korea. The purpose of this study is to examine South Korea’s bilateral diplomatic engagement with African countries for African support on North Korea’s denuclearization and UN sanctions on North Korea, focusing on high-level face-to-face meetings involving heads of government and ministers of foreign affairs of South Korea and African states. The study covers the period ensuing UN Security Council Resolution 1718, passed on October 14, 2006 in response to North Korea’s first nuclear test, up to December 31, 2019. Specifically, we examine (1) the overall significance of North Korea’s denuclearization and UN Security Council sanctions in high-level bilateral meetings between South Korea and African countries and (2) whether the different approaches of the progressive and conservative South Korean administrations to North Korea have had any effect on addressing those","PeriodicalId":41543,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of International Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48249335","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-31DOI: 10.14731/kjis.2021.08.19.2.167
K. Ban
Alliances serve as a security guarantor but this is not always the case in the sense that allies struggle with the of abandonment and entrapment. The U.S. abandoned its local ally in northern Syria, the Kurds, by withdrawing its soldiers in October 2019, allowing the Turkish military to bomb them. An asymmetric partner vows to ally with a strong partner even in a situation where the former is aware of the latter’s potential betrayal. This bond can only result in tragedy. Which condition makes abandonment and/or entrapment more likely? Two key variables serve as the mechanism for alliances between actors-power parity and the nature of the bond, both of which lead to four different outcomes. A symmetric and institutionalized alliance is the most stable and thus, least likely to result in abandonment and entrapment. By contrast, an asymmetric and non-institutionalized alliance is likely to be the most tragic. This analysis offers insight into political and policy implications. In particular, the lessons learned from the U.S.’s abandonment of the Kurds might help provide the Republic of Korea (ROK) to avoid this tragic step a scenario they experienced once before in 1950 shortly before the outbreak of the Korean War.
{"title":"Alliance Vulnerability and its Remedies: Tracing the Abandonment of Kurds and South Korea Under the Trump Administration","authors":"K. Ban","doi":"10.14731/kjis.2021.08.19.2.167","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2021.08.19.2.167","url":null,"abstract":"Alliances serve as a security guarantor but this is not always the case in the sense that allies struggle with the of abandonment and entrapment. The U.S. abandoned its local ally in northern Syria, the Kurds, by withdrawing its soldiers in October 2019, allowing the Turkish military to bomb them. An asymmetric partner vows to ally with a strong partner even in a situation where the former is aware of the latter’s potential betrayal. This bond can only result in tragedy. Which condition makes abandonment and/or entrapment more likely? Two key variables serve as the mechanism for alliances between actors-power parity and the nature of the bond, both of which lead to four different outcomes. A symmetric and institutionalized alliance is the most stable and thus, least likely to result in abandonment and entrapment. By contrast, an asymmetric and non-institutionalized alliance is likely to be the most tragic. This analysis offers insight into political and policy implications. In particular, the lessons learned from the U.S.’s abandonment of the Kurds might help provide the Republic of Korea (ROK) to avoid this tragic step a scenario they experienced once before in 1950 shortly before the outbreak of the Korean War.","PeriodicalId":41543,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of International Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47485939","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-31DOI: 10.14731/kjis.2021.08.19.2.247
Youngsoo Kim
A dramatic foreign aid policy development in the US, the proclamation of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), has been ascribed to the perception of a security threat. The securitizing scheme, however, has been debunked as a factoid not supported by empirical evidence. Despite the flaws of securitization as a causal theory, alternative explanations remain unexplored. This research seeks to address an alternative explanation, "moralization." The article begins with a brief history of changes in the US response to the global AIDS crisis since the 1980s, followed by a description of securitization theory as an alleged explanation for the aid increase in the early 2000s. Next, this research problematizes the AIDS-security nexus and proceeds to show how a humanitarian approach to the epidemic invoked a moral obligation to respond urgently to the catastrophic epidemic. The moralizing rationalization entails the explication of perception changes among significant individuals within and outside of policy circles from the theoretical framework of agenda setting, namely the garbage can model. The research closes with the theoretical and empirical implications for the international relations discipline and foreign policy analysis, as well as for the current health crisis caused by COVID-19.
{"title":"Moralizing Pandemic: How Was HIV/AIDS Prioritized in Foreign Aid in the United States?","authors":"Youngsoo Kim","doi":"10.14731/kjis.2021.08.19.2.247","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2021.08.19.2.247","url":null,"abstract":"A dramatic foreign aid policy development in the US, the proclamation of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), has been ascribed to the perception of a security threat. The securitizing scheme, however, has been debunked as a factoid not supported by empirical evidence. Despite the flaws of securitization as a causal theory, alternative explanations remain unexplored. This research seeks to address an alternative explanation, \"moralization.\" The article begins with a brief history of changes in the US response to the global AIDS crisis since the 1980s, followed by a description of securitization theory as an alleged explanation for the aid increase in the early 2000s. Next, this research problematizes the AIDS-security nexus and proceeds to show how a humanitarian approach to the epidemic invoked a moral obligation to respond urgently to the catastrophic epidemic. The moralizing rationalization entails the explication of perception changes among significant individuals within and outside of policy circles from the theoretical framework of agenda setting, namely the garbage can model. The research closes with the theoretical and empirical implications for the international relations discipline and foreign policy analysis, as well as for the current health crisis caused by COVID-19.","PeriodicalId":41543,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of International Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48931602","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-30DOI: 10.14731/KJIS.2021.04.19.1.133
Y. Jeong
In this paper, I examine the diverging responses of neighboring countries in response to the Rohingya Refugee Crisis in order to answer the question of what made Bangladesh more accepting of Rohingya refugees. In light of the existing literature, two tentative explanations are proposed. One concerns the external economic inducement, and the other focuses on the political leeway enjoyed by the incumbent. Drawing on the comparative analysis of Bangladesh and Malaysia, I find support for the political leeway explanation. Bangladesh has accepted the Rohingya refugees as its political leeway allowed the government to turn the crisis to its political advantage. Bangladesh’s domestic political environment, including a robust ruling party and a weak opposition party, has ensured the government to dominate the issue framing of Rohingya refugees that benefits the government’s position. On the other hand, Malaysia’s political environment limited its government’s ability to influence the issue framing; facing domestic political opposition, it hardly accepted the Rohingya refugees.
{"title":"Diverging Response to the Rohingya Refugee Crisis since 2017 Military Crackdown: Comparative Analysis of Bangladesh and Malaysia","authors":"Y. Jeong","doi":"10.14731/KJIS.2021.04.19.1.133","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14731/KJIS.2021.04.19.1.133","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I examine the diverging responses of neighboring countries in response to the Rohingya Refugee Crisis in order to answer the question of what made Bangladesh more accepting of Rohingya refugees. In light of the existing literature, two tentative explanations are proposed. One concerns the external economic inducement, and the other focuses on the political leeway enjoyed by the incumbent. Drawing on the comparative analysis of Bangladesh and Malaysia, I find support for the political leeway explanation. Bangladesh has accepted the Rohingya refugees as its political leeway allowed the government to turn the crisis to its political advantage. Bangladesh’s domestic political environment, including a robust ruling party and a weak opposition party, has ensured the government to dominate the issue framing of Rohingya refugees that benefits the government’s position. On the other hand, Malaysia’s political environment limited its government’s ability to influence the issue framing; facing domestic political opposition, it hardly accepted the Rohingya refugees.","PeriodicalId":41543,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of International Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48523690","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：