China has grown to become one of the largest producers and launchers of rockets and satellites in recent years. Both Chinese private companies and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are in this sector, and there are reports of satellite launch and sale contracts being signed between Chinese and foreign parties. Over the past decade, South Korea, India, the United States, France and other countries have had experience with very large arbitration claims being made arising from satellite contracts. Chinese companies have not yet had such arbitrations, but they may in the future. What likely issues might such arbitrations involve? This article examines. Arbitration, commercial space contracts, satellites, launch services, production services, China, Belt and Road
{"title":"Satellite Launch and Production Services and Arbitration in the Chinese Private Sector","authors":"Charles Tay","doi":"10.54648/joia2022034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2022034","url":null,"abstract":"China has grown to become one of the largest producers and launchers of rockets and satellites in recent years. Both Chinese private companies and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are in this sector, and there are reports of satellite launch and sale contracts being signed between Chinese and foreign parties. Over the past decade, South Korea, India, the United States, France and other countries have had experience with very large arbitration claims being made arising from satellite contracts. Chinese companies have not yet had such arbitrations, but they may in the future. What likely issues might such arbitrations involve? This article examines.\u0000Arbitration, commercial space contracts, satellites, launch services, production services, China, Belt and Road","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48688947","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}
Gary J. Shaw, Michael Evan Jaffe, Lindsey M. Mitchell
On 13 June 2022, the Supreme Court published a highly anticipated decision in two consolidated cases that limited the availability of 28 USC § 1782. The Court ruled (1) that § 1782 was only available to arbitral tribunals exercising governmental (sovereign) authority; and (2) that neither private contract-based arbitral tribunals nor many investor-state arbitral tribunals meet the sovereign authority test. From a broad strokes perspective, the Court’s narrow reading of § 1782 resolved the split among the Courts of Appeals. The decision left open, however, important questions that will no doubt be the focus of future cases. This article will review the § 1782 cases that played out in the Courts of Appeals prior to the Supreme Court’s decision. The article will then examine the June 2022 decision and identify some of the questions left unanswered. international, commercial, arbitration, tribunal, evidence, 1782, comity, statute, circuit split, legislative history, supreme court
{"title":"Exercising Governmental Authority to Claim Section 1782 Assistance: What Does It Mean?","authors":"Gary J. Shaw, Michael Evan Jaffe, Lindsey M. Mitchell","doi":"10.54648/joia2022036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2022036","url":null,"abstract":"On 13 June 2022, the Supreme Court published a highly anticipated decision in two consolidated cases that limited the availability of 28 USC § 1782. The Court ruled (1) that § 1782 was only available to arbitral tribunals exercising governmental (sovereign) authority; and (2) that neither private contract-based arbitral tribunals nor many investor-state arbitral tribunals meet the sovereign authority test. From a broad strokes perspective, the Court’s narrow reading of § 1782 resolved the split among the Courts of Appeals. The decision left open, however, important questions that will no doubt be the focus of future cases. This article will review the § 1782 cases that played out in the Courts of Appeals prior to the Supreme Court’s decision. The article will then examine the June 2022 decision and identify some of the questions left unanswered.\u0000international, commercial, arbitration, tribunal, evidence, 1782, comity, statute, circuit split, legislative history, supreme court","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48340409","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}
Blockchain technology is considered one of the most disruptive technologies of our times. At the same time, by means of smart contracts stored on a blockchain, all or parts of an agreement can be executed automatically upon certain triggering events. Some consider that with smart contracts becoming more and more complete and self-executing, we will enter into an era of dispute resolution without the involvement of a neutral third party (conciliator, mediator, arbitrator) or even an entirely dispute-free environment. By contrast, it is submitted that disputes are inevitable. The question is not whether disputes arise, but which means of dispute resolution are best suited to resolve disputes arising in the context of blockchains and smart contracts. While not the only mechanism, it is submitted that arbitration is particularly well-suited for many types of disputes and, if adapted to the specific expectations and needs of (enterprise) users of blockchains and smart contracts, may play a central role in a blockchain and smart contract environment. blockchain technology, smart contracts, distributed ledger technology, decentralization, disintermediation, oracles, automation, artificial intelligence, cryptocurrencies, NFTs, Kleros, digital dispute resolution
{"title":"Blockchain and Smart Contracts and the Role of Arbitration","authors":"Dick Wiegandt","doi":"10.54648/joia2022029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2022029","url":null,"abstract":"Blockchain technology is considered one of the most disruptive technologies of our times. At the same time, by means of smart contracts stored on a blockchain, all or parts of an agreement can be executed automatically upon certain triggering events. Some consider that with smart contracts becoming more and more complete and self-executing, we will enter into an era of dispute resolution without the involvement of a neutral third party (conciliator, mediator, arbitrator) or even an entirely dispute-free environment. By contrast, it is submitted that disputes are inevitable. The question is not whether disputes arise, but which means of dispute resolution are best suited to resolve disputes arising in the context of blockchains and smart contracts. While not the only mechanism, it is submitted that arbitration is particularly well-suited for many types of disputes and, if adapted to the specific expectations and needs of (enterprise) users of blockchains and smart contracts, may play a central role in a blockchain and smart contract environment.\u0000blockchain technology, smart contracts, distributed ledger technology, decentralization, disintermediation, oracles, automation, artificial intelligence, cryptocurrencies, NFTs, Kleros, digital dispute resolution","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48783134","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 explains how French arbitration law enables a party to turn to the French courts for arbitrations seated outside of France, when faced with the risk of denial of justice. It describes the jurisdiction and role of the French ‘juge d’appui’ (or ‘supporting judge’), in preventing a denial of justice in arbitrations that bear no connection to France. An analysis of French arbitration law and jurisprudence demonstrates that the French supporting judge is an effective solution to prevent a denial of justice when the arbitration agreement does not provide for a supporting judge. juge d’appui, judge acting in support of arbitration, supporting judge, denial of justice, defaulting party, appointment of an arbitrator, constitution of the arbitral tribunal, jurisdictional immunity, Agreement on Promotion, Protection and Guarantee of Investments among Member States of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, OIC Treaty, Secretary General of the OIC, most favoured nation clause
{"title":"‘Forum of Necessity’: Using French Law’s ‘Juge d’appui’ in Foreign-Seated Arbitrations as a Cure for Denial of Justice","authors":"Marie-Laure Bizeau, A. Fedosova","doi":"10.54648/joia2022032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2022032","url":null,"abstract":"This article explains how French arbitration law enables a party to turn to the French courts for arbitrations seated outside of France, when faced with the risk of denial of justice. It describes the jurisdiction and role of the French ‘juge d’appui’ (or ‘supporting judge’), in preventing a denial of justice in arbitrations that bear no connection to France. An analysis of French arbitration law and jurisprudence demonstrates that the French supporting judge is an effective solution to prevent a denial of justice when the arbitration agreement does not provide for a supporting judge.\u0000juge d’appui, judge acting in support of arbitration, supporting judge, denial of justice, defaulting party, appointment of an arbitrator, constitution of the arbitral tribunal, jurisdictional immunity, Agreement on Promotion, Protection and Guarantee of Investments among Member States of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, OIC Treaty, Secretary General of the OIC, most favoured nation clause","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41988120","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 analyses the impact of the Singapore High Court decision CJD v. CJE and another [2021] SGHC 61 on the highly topical issue of third party joinder in international commercial arbitration. In its 2021 decision, the court applied a strict yardstick in view of party autonomy when interpreting consent requirements for joinder under the London Court of International Arbitration Rules 2014. A closer comparative analysis of the procedural rules of leading international arbitration institutions identifies the judgment’s guidance to similarly constructed joinder rules, such as the International Chamber of Commerce Rules 2021. The comparative analysis recognizes a larger growth of caseloads in Asia and results suggest an incrementally developing preference for joinder rules which are constructed in a wide manner. This includes the arbitral tribunal’s power to allow third parties to join already commenced arbitration proceedings based on a prima facie test, alongside express unanimous parties’ consent. International commercial arbitration, multi-party contracts, third party joinder, international arbitration institutions, institutional arbitration rules, dispute resolution, Singapore, private international law, comparative law
{"title":"Recent Developments of Third Party Joinder in International Arbitration","authors":"L. Ross, Kathrin Asschenfeldt","doi":"10.54648/joia2022030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2022030","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the impact of the Singapore High Court decision CJD v. CJE and another [2021] SGHC 61 on the highly topical issue of third party joinder in international commercial arbitration. In its 2021 decision, the court applied a strict yardstick in view of party autonomy when interpreting consent requirements for joinder under the London Court of International Arbitration Rules 2014. A closer comparative analysis of the procedural rules of leading international arbitration institutions identifies the judgment’s guidance to similarly constructed joinder rules, such as the International Chamber of Commerce Rules 2021. The comparative analysis recognizes a larger growth of caseloads in Asia and results suggest an incrementally developing preference for joinder rules which are constructed in a wide manner. This includes the arbitral tribunal’s power to allow third parties to join already commenced arbitration proceedings based on a prima facie test, alongside express unanimous parties’ consent.\u0000International commercial arbitration, multi-party contracts, third party joinder, international arbitration institutions, institutional arbitration rules, dispute resolution, Singapore, private international law, comparative law","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49522096","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}
India and Pakistan initiated their journeys from distinct starting points, yet have since adopted similar approaches to structuring their investment policies. These two large, developing nations differ politically, but both seek to attract foreign investment and have faced many complicated investment disputes. Because of the significant role that each of these countries play in the developing world within their respective spheres of influence, it is worth examining their experience. Indeed, India has recently terminated numerous Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) after restructuring its investment policy while Pakistan is contemplating amendments to its existing investment regime and may adopt a similar approach. Related developments on the international plane could also further support the countries’ stances on renegotiating and adopting a balanced approach to their investment policies. In the future, it would be interesting to observe whether other countries adopt similar approaches. Pakistan, India, investor-state dispute settlement, investment, investor, reform, expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, most-favoured-nation, developing world
{"title":"It Is Not a BIT Race, It Is a BIT Marathon: Comparing Pakistan’s and India’s Evolving Approach to Investment Policy","authors":"R. Rangachari, K. Duggal, Fatima Aslam, A. Wahid","doi":"10.54648/joia2022028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2022028","url":null,"abstract":"India and Pakistan initiated their journeys from distinct starting points, yet have since adopted similar approaches to structuring their investment policies. These two large, developing nations differ politically, but both seek to attract foreign investment and have faced many complicated investment disputes. Because of the significant role that each of these countries play in the developing world within their respective spheres of influence, it is worth examining their experience. Indeed, India has recently terminated numerous Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) after restructuring its investment policy while Pakistan is contemplating amendments to its existing investment regime and may adopt a similar approach. Related developments on the international plane could also further support the countries’ stances on renegotiating and adopting a balanced approach to their investment policies. In the future, it would be interesting to observe whether other countries adopt similar approaches.\u0000Pakistan, India, investor-state dispute settlement, investment, investor, reform, expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, most-favoured-nation, developing world","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47000209","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}
{"title":"The Pursuit of Net Zero Arbitration With the Aid of Carbon Emissions Scorecards","authors":"Mark Mangan, Lukas Lim","doi":"10.54648/joia2022031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2022031","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44923984","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}
A great deal has been written over the years about the evidence of corruption in international arbitration. In that context, this article offers a timely analysis of some of the most contentious rules and principles applicable in relation to the evidence of corruption allegations in investment arbitration. On the basis of an assessment of forty investment awards dealing with corruption, it is demonstrated that it matters relatively little which standard of evidence is applied by arbitral tribunals. The arbitral practice also reveals that, in recent years, arbitrators have come to rely more heavily on their discretion over evidentiary matters in order to contribute to the fight against corruption. This trend has materialized not only in relation to the arbitrators’ growing reliance on their investigative powers, but also their acceptance of more flexible means of evidence for the purpose of demonstrating the reality of corrupt practices. Investment arbitration, Evidence of corruption, Standard of evidence, Means of evidence, Power to raise corruption matters sua sponte
{"title":"The Evidence of Corruption in Investment Arbitration","authors":"Olivier Caprasse, Maxime Tecqmenne","doi":"10.54648/joia2022023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2022023","url":null,"abstract":"A great deal has been written over the years about the evidence of corruption in international arbitration. In that context, this article offers a timely analysis of some of the most contentious rules and principles applicable in relation to the evidence of corruption allegations in investment arbitration. On the basis of an assessment of forty investment awards dealing with corruption, it is demonstrated that it matters relatively little which standard of evidence is applied by arbitral tribunals. The arbitral practice also reveals that, in recent years, arbitrators have come to rely more heavily on their discretion over evidentiary matters in order to contribute to the fight against corruption. This trend has materialized not only in relation to the arbitrators’ growing reliance on their investigative powers, but also their acceptance of more flexible means of evidence for the purpose of demonstrating the reality of corrupt practices.\u0000Investment arbitration, Evidence of corruption, Standard of evidence, Means of evidence, Power to raise corruption matters sua sponte","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46499392","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 examines the question of what happens to contracts signed by foreign investors with rebels in the context of a civil war. The fate of contracts depends on the outcome of the fighting. When the insurgents are successful and establish a new government (or create a new state), the contracts are binding on the state. To the contrary, contracts signed by rebels that are ultimately unsuccessful in their attempt to overthrow the government will not, in general, be binding on the state. I believe, however, that there are some specific circumstances where that should not be the case. A state should be bound by a contract that has been signed by the rebels whenever its performance was not directly aimed at helping the rebels and their revolutionary struggle. The same outcome should also prevail whenever a contract was ultimately beneficial to the state and its population once the insurrection ended. Civil war, rebellion, insurgents, contract, state responsibility, state succession, beneficial to the state, Article 10 of the ILC Articles, object of contract
{"title":"Risky Business: What Happens to Contracts Signed by Foreign Investors with Rebels During a Civil War once the Conflict Ends?","authors":"P. Dumberry","doi":"10.54648/joia2022024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2022024","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the question of what happens to contracts signed by foreign investors with rebels in the context of a civil war. The fate of contracts depends on the outcome of the fighting. When the insurgents are successful and establish a new government (or create a new state), the contracts are binding on the state. To the contrary, contracts signed by rebels that are ultimately unsuccessful in their attempt to overthrow the government will not, in general, be binding on the state. I believe, however, that there are some specific circumstances where that should not be the case. A state should be bound by a contract that has been signed by the rebels whenever its performance was not directly aimed at helping the rebels and their revolutionary struggle. The same outcome should also prevail whenever a contract was ultimately beneficial to the state and its population once the insurrection ended.\u0000Civil war, rebellion, insurgents, contract, state responsibility, state succession, beneficial to the state, Article 10 of the ILC Articles, object of contract","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41837875","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}
Determination of the law governing the arbitration agreement is a long-standing subject of controversy. The highest courts in the United Kingdom and Singapore have now provided definitive guidance in their respective jurisdictions using a largely identical test, which we call a common choice of law framework. No such common framework for determining the law of the arbitration agreement exists in India. Despite the Indian Supreme Court’s early observations on this issue in NTPC v. Singer (1992), subsequent Supreme Court and High Court decisions have adopted varying approaches, which has resulted in jurisprudential uncertainty. We argue that consistent with India’s increasing friendliness to arbitration and the Indian Supreme Court’s prior decisions, Indian courts should adopt the common choice of law framework as articulated in the United Kingdom and Singapore. We further argue that the Indian courts should recognize the validation principle as articulated by the UK Supreme Court. Law governing the arbitration agreement, choice of law, validation principle, closest and most real connection, reasonable commercial parties, business efficacy, pro-arbitration approach
仲裁协议适用法律的确定是一个长期存在争议的问题。联合王国和新加坡的最高法院现在已经在各自的管辖范围内使用基本相同的标准提供了明确的指导，我们称之为共同选择法律框架。在印度，不存在这种确定仲裁协议法律的共同框架。尽管印度最高法院在1992年NTPC诉辛格案(NTPC v. Singer)中对这一问题进行了早期观察，但随后最高法院和高等法院的判决采用了不同的方法，这导致了法理学上的不确定性。我们认为，与印度对仲裁日益友好的态度和印度最高法院之前的裁决相一致，印度法院应该采用英国和新加坡所阐述的共同法律选择框架。我们进一步认为，印度法院应该承认英国最高法院所阐述的有效性原则。仲裁协议适用法律、法律选择、生效原则、联系最紧密、最真实、商事当事人合理、商务效力、亲仲裁方式
{"title":"What’s the Law? How Indian Courts Should Determine the Law Governing the Arbitration Agreement","authors":"Shouvik Bhattacharya, Saurav Rajurkar","doi":"10.54648/joia2022026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2022026","url":null,"abstract":"Determination of the law governing the arbitration agreement is a long-standing subject of controversy. The highest courts in the United Kingdom and Singapore have now provided definitive guidance in their respective jurisdictions using a largely identical test, which we call a common choice of law framework. No such common framework for determining the law of the arbitration agreement exists in India. Despite the Indian Supreme Court’s early observations on this issue in NTPC v. Singer (1992), subsequent Supreme Court and High Court decisions have adopted varying approaches, which has resulted in jurisprudential uncertainty. We argue that consistent with India’s increasing friendliness to arbitration and the Indian Supreme Court’s prior decisions, Indian courts should adopt the common choice of law framework as articulated in the United Kingdom and Singapore. We further argue that the Indian courts should recognize the validation principle as articulated by the UK Supreme Court.\u0000Law governing the arbitration agreement, choice of law, validation principle, closest and most real connection, reasonable commercial parties, business efficacy, pro-arbitration approach","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44589625","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：