Pub Date : 2022-10-27DOI: 10.1163/18719732-bja10094
Malgosia Fitzmaurice
{"title":"La Denonciation des Traites Techniques et Politique, edited by Florian Couveinhes Matsumoto and Raphaelle Nollez-Goldbach","authors":"Malgosia Fitzmaurice","doi":"10.1163/18719732-bja10094","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-bja10094","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90231946","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 : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1163/18719732-bja10087
Andrew Pitt
This article considers UK government’s proposal to re-introduce an accelerated appeals system for detained asylum seekers through resort to legislation. Previously, a similar system, the ‘Detained Fast Track’, was ruled unlawful largely on the basis that it lacked procedural fairness, a core tenet of the rule of law. This article examines the interplay between the rule of law and international human rights law. It adopts a formal notion of the rule of law to assess its effectiveness in protecting asylum seeker’s rights, as a sub-group of ‘unwanted migrants’. This is applied to a case study of the previous system and legal challenges to it to explore the deficiency of legality of the system and the effectiveness of judicial review. Three stages of the previous system are examined, its inception, its survival of early legal challenges and its eventual demise to expose the marginalisation of international human rights safeguards.
本文考虑了英国政府通过诉诸立法重新引入被拘留的寻求庇护者加速上诉制度的建议。此前，类似的“拘留快速通道”(detention Fast Track)被裁定为非法，主要原因是它缺乏程序公正，而程序公正是法治的核心原则。本文探讨了法治与国际人权法之间的相互作用。它采用了一种正式的法治概念，以评估其在保护寻求庇护者权利方面的有效性，寻求庇护者是“不受欢迎的移民”的一个子群体。本文通过对以往制度的案例分析和对其的法律挑战，探讨该制度合法性的不足和司法审查的有效性。本文审查了前一制度的三个阶段，即它的开始，它在早期法律挑战中幸存下来，以及它的最终消亡，以揭露国际人权保障的边缘化。
{"title":"Bordering Asylum in Post-Brexit Britain","authors":"Andrew Pitt","doi":"10.1163/18719732-bja10087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-bja10087","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article considers UK government’s proposal to re-introduce an accelerated appeals system for detained asylum seekers through resort to legislation. Previously, a similar system, the ‘Detained Fast Track’, was ruled unlawful largely on the basis that it lacked procedural fairness, a core tenet of the rule of law. This article examines the interplay between the rule of law and international human rights law. It adopts a formal notion of the rule of law to assess its effectiveness in protecting asylum seeker’s rights, as a sub-group of ‘unwanted migrants’. This is applied to a case study of the previous system and legal challenges to it to explore the deficiency of legality of the system and the effectiveness of judicial review. Three stages of the previous system are examined, its inception, its survival of early legal challenges and its eventual demise to expose the marginalisation of international human rights safeguards.","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86310141","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 : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1163/18719732-bja10088
S. York
The instrumentalisation of law for the purposes of creating a ‘hostile environment’ and deterring ‘unwanted migration’ is particularly visible in the UK. The new Nationality and Borders Act 2022 contains proposals on asylum which show a rejection of international law norms and conventions, without having had the political courage to put that rejection squarely to the public. That is not new. Right from the emergence of asylum as a political issue in the 1980’s, the lukewarm official ‘welcome’ never quite hid the stance of disbelief which underlay the UK’s legal and procedural responses. A parallel process, beginning even earlier but accelerating from 2010 onwards, has taken place in UK domestic immigration law. New legislation, Immigration Rules, policies, application procedures and litigation practices show diminishing respect for rule of law principles. This article uses simple and hopefully uncontroversial definitions of international law norms and accepted common law rule of law principles against which to analyse and critique key aspects of UK immigration control. It concludes that UK policies and practice have over time displayed an increasing hostility to those norms and principles, resorting to ignorant and even brazen indifference to facts, evidence, and analysis, and widening the gap between domestic and international law in important respects.
{"title":"Does the UK Home Office Care about the Rule of Law?","authors":"S. York","doi":"10.1163/18719732-bja10088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-bja10088","url":null,"abstract":"The instrumentalisation of law for the purposes of creating a ‘hostile environment’ and deterring ‘unwanted migration’ is particularly visible in the UK. The new Nationality and Borders Act 2022 contains proposals on asylum which show a rejection of international law norms and conventions, without having had the political courage to put that rejection squarely to the public. That is not new. Right from the emergence of asylum as a political issue in the 1980’s, the lukewarm official ‘welcome’ never quite hid the stance of disbelief which underlay the UK’s legal and procedural responses. A parallel process, beginning even earlier but accelerating from 2010 onwards, has taken place in UK domestic immigration law. New legislation, Immigration Rules, policies, application procedures and litigation practices show diminishing respect for rule of law principles. This article uses simple and hopefully uncontroversial definitions of international law norms and accepted common law rule of law principles against which to analyse and critique key aspects of UK immigration control. It concludes that UK policies and practice have over time displayed an increasing hostility to those norms and principles, resorting to ignorant and even brazen indifference to facts, evidence, and analysis, and widening the gap between domestic and international law in important respects.","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86843713","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 : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1163/18719732-bja10089
Sara Palacios-Arapiles
Drawing on data from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland, this article shows that during the process of interpreting the refugee definition and applying it to the context of the Military/National Service Programme (MNSP), the definition is subject to various interpretations and applications. As a result, the treatment of similarly situated Eritrean asylum applications differs from one country to another. The article illustrates that asylum courts from the selected jurisdictions sideline relevant factors that classify the MNSP as slavery by failing to engage normatively with the international law definition of slavery. The findings suggest that a defective incorporation of international legal instruments in the assessment of protection claims based on slavery contributes to conflicting interpretations and applications of the refugee definition and can unduly de-legitimise Eritrean applications for refugee status as ‘unwanted migrants’.
{"title":"European Divergent Approaches to Protection Claims Based on the Eritrean Military/National Service Programme","authors":"Sara Palacios-Arapiles","doi":"10.1163/18719732-bja10089","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-bja10089","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Drawing on data from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland, this article shows that during the process of interpreting the refugee definition and applying it to the context of the Military/National Service Programme (MNSP), the definition is subject to various interpretations and applications. As a result, the treatment of similarly situated Eritrean asylum applications differs from one country to another. The article illustrates that asylum courts from the selected jurisdictions sideline relevant factors that classify the MNSP as slavery by failing to engage normatively with the international law definition of slavery. The findings suggest that a defective incorporation of international legal instruments in the assessment of protection claims based on slavery contributes to conflicting interpretations and applications of the refugee definition and can unduly de-legitimise Eritrean applications for refugee status as ‘unwanted migrants’.","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75474294","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 : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1163/18719732-bja10090
Maria-Louiza Deftou
The dual European judicial protection of fundamental rights with the two Courts, namely the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), represents a multi-layered, yet dialectic, model of protection with no formal hierarchy between its components. In the aftermath of Opinion 2/13 and faced with uncontrolled ‘unwanted migration’ flows, the EU judicature defended the principle of mutual trust at any cost and appeared to prioritise the protection of the Dublin regime (the EU responsibility allocation mechanism for examining asylum applications) instead of addressing the novel human rights challenges facing the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Yet, their interplay has entered a new era since the renegotiation of the EU’s accession to the ECHR launched. By analysing the case law of the two Courts, this article thinks anew their relationship to ascertain whether the evolution of the accession project, throughout the latest decade, has affected the protection offered to ‘unwanted migrants’ in Europe.
{"title":"The Road to the EU’s Accession to the ECHR","authors":"Maria-Louiza Deftou","doi":"10.1163/18719732-bja10090","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-bja10090","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The dual European judicial protection of fundamental rights with the two Courts, namely the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), represents a multi-layered, yet dialectic, model of protection with no formal hierarchy between its components. In the aftermath of Opinion 2/13 and faced with uncontrolled ‘unwanted migration’ flows, the EU judicature defended the principle of mutual trust at any cost and appeared to prioritise the protection of the Dublin regime (the EU responsibility allocation mechanism for examining asylum applications) instead of addressing the novel human rights challenges facing the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Yet, their interplay has entered a new era since the renegotiation of the EU’s accession to the ECHR launched. By analysing the case law of the two Courts, this article thinks anew their relationship to ascertain whether the evolution of the accession project, throughout the latest decade, has affected the protection offered to ‘unwanted migrants’ in Europe.","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79477683","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 : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1163/18719732-bja10091
Nicole Busuttil
This article examines the role to be played by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in the protection of migrants with disabilities within the EU, in view of the apparent invisibility of this population within existing frameworks. It argues that the CRPD’s dual role as a core UN human rights treaty and an international agreement concluded by the EU, which occupies an “integral part” of the EU legal order, interacts with pre-existing (homegrown) sources of fundamental rights obligations within EU law to produce a ‘disability fundamental rights framework’. Accordingly, the CRPD’s substantive protection should act to determine the minimum standard of protection afforded to migrants with disabilities within the EU, without prejudicing the possibility of EU law offering more extensive protection. In so doing, this article demonstrates the emancipatory potential of a ‘disability fundamental rights framework’ vis-à-vis a specific category of (unwanted) migrants and which follows from a principled interpretation of the CRPD’s interaction with EU fundamental rights.
{"title":"The UN Disability Rights Convention and EU Fundamental Rights","authors":"Nicole Busuttil","doi":"10.1163/18719732-bja10091","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-bja10091","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article examines the role to be played by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in the protection of migrants with disabilities within the EU, in view of the apparent invisibility of this population within existing frameworks. It argues that the CRPD’s dual role as a core UN human rights treaty and an international agreement concluded by the EU, which occupies an “integral part” of the EU legal order, interacts with pre-existing (homegrown) sources of fundamental rights obligations within EU law to produce a ‘disability fundamental rights framework’. Accordingly, the CRPD’s substantive protection should act to determine the minimum standard of protection afforded to migrants with disabilities within the EU, without prejudicing the possibility of EU law offering more extensive protection. In so doing, this article demonstrates the emancipatory potential of a ‘disability fundamental rights framework’ vis-à-vis a specific category of (unwanted) migrants and which follows from a principled interpretation of the CRPD’s interaction with EU fundamental rights.","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85060715","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 : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1163/18719732-bja10092
Marta Minetti
The criminalisation of migration is one of the most explicit ways in which law generates, sustains, and even legitimizes hostility towards “unwanted migrants”. This article will take into examination the criminalisation of “unwanted migration” by the Italian authorities and its relation to internationally established legal principles in the area of human mobility, arguing that the expansion of penal populism constitutes a danger for the balance among them. The article starts with an analysis of human mobility in international law and the “protection through prosecution” paradigm to highlight an inherent harmony of the aims of the legal systems dealing with human mobility from the humanitarian and criminal law perspective. Section two scrutinises the Italian case and the populistic distortion of the provisions and principles entailed in the field of transnational criminal law to counter human mobility. Section three reconnects the national criminalisation of migration with the international legal dimension and argues that the misuse of the transnational organised crime framework ultimately legitimises the violation of human and refugee rights and contravenes key international law principles.
{"title":"International Legal Principles, Penal Populism and Criminalisation of ‘Unwanted Migration’","authors":"Marta Minetti","doi":"10.1163/18719732-bja10092","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-bja10092","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The criminalisation of migration is one of the most explicit ways in which law generates, sustains, and even legitimizes hostility towards “unwanted migrants”. This article will take into examination the criminalisation of “unwanted migration” by the Italian authorities and its relation to internationally established legal principles in the area of human mobility, arguing that the expansion of penal populism constitutes a danger for the balance among them. The article starts with an analysis of human mobility in international law and the “protection through prosecution” paradigm to highlight an inherent harmony of the aims of the legal systems dealing with human mobility from the humanitarian and criminal law perspective. Section two scrutinises the Italian case and the populistic distortion of the provisions and principles entailed in the field of transnational criminal law to counter human mobility. Section three reconnects the national criminalisation of migration with the international legal dimension and argues that the misuse of the transnational organised crime framework ultimately legitimises the violation of human and refugee rights and contravenes key international law principles.","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90222360","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 : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1163/18719732-12341490
Violeta Moreno-Lax, N. Vavoula
{"title":"The (Many) Rules and Roles of Law in the Regulation of “Unwanted Migration”","authors":"Violeta Moreno-Lax, N. Vavoula","doi":"10.1163/18719732-12341490","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-12341490","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87998724","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 : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1163/18719732-bja10086
M. Adigun
Some critics contend that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is selective in its approach to international criminal justice. Thus, they called for withdrawal from the Rome Statute. This call is reflective of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) to the extent that it constitutes a protest against unequal treatment of the Third World. But what is somewhat overlooked is that the ICC is a court of last resort and that state parties to the Rome Statute are required to prosecute unless they are unwilling or unable. This is called the principle of complementarity. This study therefore examines TWAIL and the Rome Statute complementarity principle within the context of international criminal justice. It finds that the ICC is too eager to intervene and that in the process the Third World is being used as a guinea pig even though selectivity cannot be unequivocally established. It argues that this is hegemonic. To obviate this situation, it is argued that Third World states can prosecute for one another through direct transfer of criminal jurisdiction or through an international organization to prosecute on their behalf. Whenever the ICC wants to intervene in respect of any crime that the state party concerned is required to prosecute, the state party will indicate that another state or an international organization to which it has transferred its jurisdiction is acting as its agent and that it is the one doing the prosecution as the principal. With this, the internal situation of Third World states would have changed as envisaged in the third objective of TWAIL and they will be able to operate within international criminal justice system without being at its receiving end.
{"title":"International Criminal Justice","authors":"M. Adigun","doi":"10.1163/18719732-bja10086","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-bja10086","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Some critics contend that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is selective in its approach to international criminal justice. Thus, they called for withdrawal from the Rome Statute. This call is reflective of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) to the extent that it constitutes a protest against unequal treatment of the Third World. But what is somewhat overlooked is that the ICC is a court of last resort and that state parties to the Rome Statute are required to prosecute unless they are unwilling or unable. This is called the principle of complementarity. This study therefore examines TWAIL and the Rome Statute complementarity principle within the context of international criminal justice. It finds that the ICC is too eager to intervene and that in the process the Third World is being used as a guinea pig even though selectivity cannot be unequivocally established. It argues that this is hegemonic. To obviate this situation, it is argued that Third World states can prosecute for one another through direct transfer of criminal jurisdiction or through an international organization to prosecute on their behalf. Whenever the ICC wants to intervene in respect of any crime that the state party concerned is required to prosecute, the state party will indicate that another state or an international organization to which it has transferred its jurisdiction is acting as its agent and that it is the one doing the prosecution as the principal. With this, the internal situation of Third World states would have changed as envisaged in the third objective of TWAIL and they will be able to operate within international criminal justice system without being at its receiving end.","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76812358","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 : 2022-07-15DOI: 10.1163/18719732-bja10085
Alexandre Skander Galand
On account of the immunities which foreign State officials enjoy under international law, universal jurisdiction trials fail to offer justice to victims of crimes orchestrated by State authorities. The ICC Appeals Chamber has affirmed that immunities are inapplicable before international courts as no customary rule providing immunities before international courts has taken shape. While plausible, a critical assessment should still be made of which features an international court should have to be genuinely distinguishable from domestic courts, and thereby not be concerned with immunities. In this paper, it is argued that, unlike domestic courts, certain international criminal courts may be expressly endorsed by the international community as organs which may restore peaceful relations between and among states – the very rationale underlying personal immunity – and, as such, provide victims with access to justice.
{"title":"Victims’ Right to Justice, Immunities and New Avenues for International Criminal Justice","authors":"Alexandre Skander Galand","doi":"10.1163/18719732-bja10085","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-bja10085","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000On account of the immunities which foreign State officials enjoy under international law, universal jurisdiction trials fail to offer justice to victims of crimes orchestrated by State authorities. The ICC Appeals Chamber has affirmed that immunities are inapplicable before international courts as no customary rule providing immunities before international courts has taken shape. While plausible, a critical assessment should still be made of which features an international court should have to be genuinely distinguishable from domestic courts, and thereby not be concerned with immunities. In this paper, it is argued that, unlike domestic courts, certain international criminal courts may be expressly endorsed by the international community as organs which may restore peaceful relations between and among states – the very rationale underlying personal immunity – and, as such, provide victims with access to justice.","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79273574","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：