Pub Date : 2017-04-21DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01401002
L. Squintani
Last year the twenty years from the starting of the negotiations for the Aarhus Convention were accompanied with quite some attention from the academic community to the manner in which the Aarhus rights of access to information, public participation and effective judicial protection are implemented in the eu and its member states. Judicial protection and Article x of the Rio Convention were indeed the core topics of the iucn ael Colloquium, the eelf Conference, and the eelf Workshop with the European Commission about which we wrote in the previous jeepl number. Seminal judgments from the European Union (eu) courts confirm that the Aarhus Convention is not a paper tiger (Van Wolferen 2013). What, due to the absence of both the United States of America and Canada at the negotiation table, could have been considered a treaty confirming the status quo existing in the eu does have an impact on the legal orders of the eu and its member states (Jendroska, Aarhus Convention and Community Law: the Interplay, jeepl 2005). The Trianel, Altrip, Commission v Germany trilogy, discussed by Eliantonio & Grashof in the previous jeepl issue, is exemplary of the profound impact that the Aarhus Convention is having on the daily life of those living and operating in the eu and beyond. Not only judicial protection, but also access to information and public participation procedures at eu and national level have been amended to meet the Aarhus commitments. An overview of the compliance reports of the Aarhus
去年，在《奥胡斯公约》谈判开始后的二十年里，学术界对奥胡斯获得信息、公众参与和有效司法保护的权利在欧盟及其成员国的实施方式给予了相当多的关注。司法保护和《里约公约》第十条确实是iucn ael学术讨论会、eelf会议和与欧盟委员会的eelf研讨会的核心议题，我们在之前的jepel编号中对此进行了讨论。欧洲联盟（eu）法院的讨论判决证实，《奥胡斯公约》不是纸老虎（Van Wolferen，2013年）。由于美利坚合众国和加拿大都没有参加谈判，本可以被视为一项确认欧盟现状的条约，但它确实对欧盟及其成员国的法律秩序产生了影响（Jendroska，《奥胡斯公约和共同体法：国际法》，2005年）。Eliantonio和Grashof在上一期jeep中讨论的Trianel、Altrip、Commission v Germany三部曲，是《奥胡斯公约》对欧盟内外生活和运作人员日常生活产生深远影响的典范。为了履行奥胡斯的承诺，不仅对司法保护，而且对欧盟和国家层面的信息获取和公众参与程序进行了修订。奥胡斯公司合规报告概述
{"title":"The Aarhus Paradox: Time to Speak about Equal Opportunities in Environmental Governance","authors":"L. Squintani","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01401002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01401002","url":null,"abstract":"Last year the twenty years from the starting of the negotiations for the Aarhus Convention were accompanied with quite some attention from the academic community to the manner in which the Aarhus rights of access to information, public participation and effective judicial protection are implemented in the eu and its member states. Judicial protection and Article x of the Rio Convention were indeed the core topics of the iucn ael Colloquium, the eelf Conference, and the eelf Workshop with the European Commission about which we wrote in the previous jeepl number. Seminal judgments from the European Union (eu) courts confirm that the Aarhus Convention is not a paper tiger (Van Wolferen 2013). What, due to the absence of both the United States of America and Canada at the negotiation table, could have been considered a treaty confirming the status quo existing in the eu does have an impact on the legal orders of the eu and its member states (Jendroska, Aarhus Convention and Community Law: the Interplay, jeepl 2005). The Trianel, Altrip, Commission v Germany trilogy, discussed by Eliantonio & Grashof in the previous jeepl issue, is exemplary of the profound impact that the Aarhus Convention is having on the daily life of those living and operating in the eu and beyond. Not only judicial protection, but also access to information and public participation procedures at eu and national level have been amended to meet the Aarhus commitments. An overview of the compliance reports of the Aarhus","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":"14 1","pages":"3-5"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2017-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01401002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42225348","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 : 2017-04-21DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01401006
L. Krämer
Mining of indigenous Spanish coal has been heavily subsidized ever since 1986, and recently, the European Commission authorized a further amount of State aid of 2.3 billion in order to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines in Spain by 2018. These subsidies are paid regardless of the facts that: the indigenous coal is of minor quality and not needed to ensure safe energy supply in Spain; the combustion of coal is causing excessive greenhouse gas emissions and most coal-fired Spanish power plants are widely exceeding regular EU emission limit values; considerable investments will have to be made, in order to eventually comply with the requirements of EU law. However, supposed that these investments are made, there is no reason for the plant owners to participate in a coal phase-out. The present article provides a detailed analysis of these critical aspects of Spanish and European coal policy.
{"title":"Spain and Coal, the Environment and EU Law","authors":"L. Krämer","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01401006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01401006","url":null,"abstract":"Mining of indigenous Spanish coal has been heavily subsidized ever since 1986, and recently, the European Commission authorized a further amount of State aid of 2.3 billion in order to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines in Spain by 2018. These subsidies are paid regardless of the facts that: the indigenous coal is of minor quality and not needed to ensure safe energy supply in Spain; the combustion of coal is causing excessive greenhouse gas emissions and most coal-fired Spanish power plants are widely exceeding regular EU emission limit values; considerable investments will have to be made, in order to eventually comply with the requirements of EU law. However, supposed that these investments are made, there is no reason for the plant owners to participate in a coal phase-out. The present article provides a detailed analysis of these critical aspects of Spanish and European coal policy.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":"14 1","pages":"98-112"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2017-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01401006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49407705","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 : 2017-04-21DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01401008
Matthijs van Wolferen
Discussion on the relevance of Case C-243/15 Lesoochranarske zoskupenie VLK v Obvodný urad Trencin, the 'second Slovak bear' case. Where the Habitats Directive is again linked to access to justice as prescribed by the Aarhus Convention, this time in conjunction with Article 47 Charter on a right to a remedy. This is a proof-version, for citation and research purposes, please refer to the final version at the JEEPL site.
{"title":"Case C-243/15 Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Obvodný úrad Trenčín","authors":"Matthijs van Wolferen","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01401008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01401008","url":null,"abstract":"Discussion on the relevance of Case C-243/15 Lesoochranarske zoskupenie VLK v Obvodný urad Trencin, the 'second Slovak bear' case. Where the Habitats Directive is again linked to access to justice as prescribed by the Aarhus Convention, this time in conjunction with Article 47 Charter on a right to a remedy. This is a proof-version, for citation and research purposes, please refer to the final version at the JEEPL site.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":"14 1","pages":"136-151"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2017-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01401008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47243867","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 : 2017-04-21DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01401004
Janja Hojnik
This article deals with legal aspects of sustainable reporting in the EU. It explores the state of affairs in sustainability reporting regulation and points out recent increased support for integrated reporting by the EU institutions, which lead to the newly adopted Directive 2014/95/EU that obliged the Member States to adopt implementing regulation by 6 December 2016. Consequently large companies within its scope need to adjust their reporting as of their 2017 financial year. The article assesses its achievements as well as points out some missed opportunities of the Directive by deliberating legal alternatives for more effective regulation of non-financial reporting in the future.
{"title":"Environmental Corporate Reporting under eu Law: Historic Achievement or Just a Moderate Step Forward?","authors":"Janja Hojnik","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01401004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01401004","url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with legal aspects of sustainable reporting in the EU. It explores the state of affairs in sustainability reporting regulation and points out recent increased support for integrated reporting by the EU institutions, which lead to the newly adopted Directive 2014/95/EU that obliged the Member States to adopt implementing regulation by 6 December 2016. Consequently large companies within its scope need to adjust their reporting as of their 2017 financial year. The article assesses its achievements as well as points out some missed opportunities of the Directive by deliberating legal alternatives for more effective regulation of non-financial reporting in the future.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":"14 1","pages":"41-75"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2017-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01401004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42669314","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 : 2017-04-21DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01303009
L. Squintani
Pesticede decision - Env NGO - COM decision T-192/12 – Pesticide Action Network Europe / European Commission Subject GC - dismissed as Implementing Act - is not AA
{"title":"Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court","authors":"L. Squintani","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01303009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01303009","url":null,"abstract":"Pesticede decision - Env NGO - COM decision T-192/12 – Pesticide Action Network Europe / European Commission Subject GC - dismissed as Implementing Act - is not AA","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2017-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01303009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65021035","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 : 2016-12-07DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01303006
M. Eliantonio, Franziska Grashof
The preliminary ruling procedure and the infringement proceedings are generally considered to constitute complementary means for the enforcement of European Union law. This paper critically assesses the actual complementarity of the two procedures from the perspective of the communication of and approach to a problem before the Court of Justice. Furthermore, it considers to which extent this complementarity has improved or created new complications with respect to compliance with EU environmental standards. These two questions will be answered on the basis of a case study concerning three different rulings rendered by the Court of Justice in which one particular problem of (in-) compatibility of national rules with environmental Union law was at stake, namely the German Schutznormtheorie.
{"title":"Wir mussen reden! - We need to have a serious talk! The interaction between the infringement proceedings and the preliminary reference procedure in ensuring compliance with EU environmental standards: A case study of trianel, Altrip and Commission v Germany","authors":"M. Eliantonio, Franziska Grashof","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01303006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01303006","url":null,"abstract":"The preliminary ruling procedure and the infringement proceedings are generally considered to constitute complementary means for the enforcement of European Union law. This paper critically assesses the actual complementarity of the two procedures from the perspective of the communication of and approach to a problem before the Court of Justice. Furthermore, it considers to which extent this complementarity has improved or created new complications with respect to compliance with EU environmental standards. These two questions will be answered on the basis of a case study concerning three different rulings rendered by the Court of Justice in which one particular problem of (in-) compatibility of national rules with environmental Union law was at stake, namely the German Schutznormtheorie.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":"8 1","pages":"325-349"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2016-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01303006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65021285","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 : 2016-12-07DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01303005
L. Squintani, E. Plambeck
Despite the importance of access to justice in the context of plans and programmes affecting the environment, no single EU secondary law measure requires Member States to ensure effective judicial protection against such acts, and thus access to the preliminary reference procedure. At national level, this could lead to the absence of procedures to ensure effective judicial protection against plans and programmes. The Netherlands is used in this contribution as an example of the presence of such a lacuna. We argue that the lack of effective judicial protection against plans and programmes affecting the environment is in breach of both the Aarhus Convention and EU law. The duty to reconsider definitive acts, as established under the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, can serve as a short-term solution to offer effective judicial protection by the backdoor.
{"title":"Judicial Protection against Plans and Programmes Affecting the Environment: A Backdoor Solution to Get an Answer from Luxembourg","authors":"L. Squintani, E. Plambeck","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01303005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01303005","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the importance of access to justice in the context of plans and programmes affecting the environment, no single EU secondary law measure requires Member States to ensure effective judicial protection against such acts, and thus access to the preliminary reference procedure. At national level, this could lead to the absence of procedures to ensure effective judicial protection against plans and programmes. The Netherlands is used in this contribution as an example of the presence of such a lacuna. We argue that the lack of effective judicial protection against plans and programmes affecting the environment is in breach of both the Aarhus Convention and EU law. The duty to reconsider definitive acts, as established under the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, can serve as a short-term solution to offer effective judicial protection by the backdoor.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":"13 1","pages":"294-324"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2016-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01303005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65021230","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 : 2016-12-07DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01303008
Tina Sever, Vedran Đulabić, P. Kovač
Construction permitting and spatial regulations are important for the functioning of modern society as regards enabling basic social needs, the right to a healthy living environment and the possibility to promote business and economic growth. However, what is typical of these real life situations is a collision of several private interests and the public interest. In order to protect the latter, the state needs to set certain limitations also by means of regulations and to ensure the appropriate administrative capacity to implement them. Moreover, the right and possibility to build is important for sustainable regional development. The article addresses the profiles of Slovenia and Croatia, in particular their procedural aspects and administrative systems’ efficiency in the field of construction. The results show that both countries regulate their construction procedures similarly, with a special focus on the simplification of administrative procedures. As such, they continually try to enhance administrative capacity.
{"title":"Regional Analysis of Construction Permitting Procedures in Slovenia and Croatia","authors":"Tina Sever, Vedran Đulabić, P. Kovač","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01303008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01303008","url":null,"abstract":"Construction permitting and spatial regulations are important for the functioning of modern society as regards enabling basic social needs, the right to a healthy living environment and the possibility to promote business and economic growth. However, what is typical of these real life situations is a collision of several private interests and the public interest. In order to protect the latter, the state needs to set certain limitations also by means of regulations and to ensure the appropriate administrative capacity to implement them. Moreover, the right and possibility to build is important for sustainable regional development. The article addresses the profiles of Slovenia and Croatia, in particular their procedural aspects and administrative systems’ efficiency in the field of construction. The results show that both countries regulate their construction procedures similarly, with a special focus on the simplification of administrative procedures. As such, they continually try to enhance administrative capacity.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":"43 1","pages":"375-393"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2016-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01303008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65021459","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 : 2016-12-07DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01303003
L. Krämer
The present contributions examines if and to what extent preliminary judgments by the Court of Justice were used as an enforcement tool and helped the full legal and practical application of EU environmental legislation. Looking at available data about the use of this procedure and at the enforcement practice of Member States and the EU commission it is concluded that neither the means of preliminary reference according to Article 267 nor the infringement procedure under Article 258 TFEU are systematically exploited for effective enforcement of EU environmental law. In particular, it becomes evident, that Commission does not assume its role as environmental law enforcement authority. It rather acts as an opportunist political body which sometimes takes into consideration the rule of law, but sometimes not.
{"title":"The Commission’s Omission to Use Article 267 tfeu as a Tool to Enforce eu Environmental Law","authors":"L. Krämer","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01303003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01303003","url":null,"abstract":"The present contributions examines if and to what extent preliminary judgments by the Court of Justice were used as an enforcement tool and helped the full legal and practical application of EU environmental legislation. Looking at available data about the use of this procedure and at the enforcement practice of Member States and the EU commission it is concluded that neither the means of preliminary reference according to Article 267 nor the infringement procedure under Article 258 TFEU are systematically exploited for effective enforcement of EU environmental law. In particular, it becomes evident, that Commission does not assume its role as environmental law enforcement authority. It rather acts as an opportunist political body which sometimes takes into consideration the rule of law, but sometimes not.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":"13 1","pages":"255-269"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2016-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01303003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65021122","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 : 2016-12-07DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01303004
Jan Darpö
This article centres on the effectiveness of Article 258 TFEU proceedings for the enforcement of EU environmental law. Employing as an example the case between the Commission and Sweden on the licensed hunting of wolves – a species enjoying strict protection in accordance with the Habitats Directive – the pros and cons will be discussed of infringement proceedings for the enforcement of the common responsibilities in the environmental area. While these proceedings can be effective in situations where they are used, they suffer unpredictability and a lack of consistency owing to political balancing within the Commission. Furthermore, lack of transparency in communication between the Commission and the governments of the Member States prevent public scrutiny of the system, which contributes to alienation of the EU from the public. Finally, on areas of environmental law – which are highly dependent upon scientific expert knowledge and thus dominated by ‘soft guidelines’ – infringement proceedings are an important complement to references from national courts to CJEU for preliminary rulings on controversial issues in order to avoid ‘circular decision-making’. Thus, the Swedish wolf issue can serve as a background for a more general discussion on infringement proceedings as an effective means for the enforcement of environmental law within the Union.
{"title":"The Commission: a sheep in wolf’s clothing? On infringement proceedings as a legal device for the enforcement of EU law on the environment, using Swedish wolf management as an example.","authors":"Jan Darpö","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01303004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01303004","url":null,"abstract":"This article centres on the effectiveness of Article 258 TFEU proceedings for the enforcement of EU environmental law. Employing as an example the case between the Commission and Sweden on the licensed hunting of wolves – a species enjoying strict protection in accordance with the Habitats Directive – the pros and cons will be discussed of infringement proceedings for the enforcement of the common responsibilities in the environmental area. While these proceedings can be effective in situations where they are used, they suffer unpredictability and a lack of consistency owing to political balancing within the Commission. Furthermore, lack of transparency in communication between the Commission and the governments of the Member States prevent public scrutiny of the system, which contributes to alienation of the EU from the public. Finally, on areas of environmental law – which are highly dependent upon scientific expert knowledge and thus dominated by ‘soft guidelines’ – infringement proceedings are an important complement to references from national courts to CJEU for preliminary rulings on controversial issues in order to avoid ‘circular decision-making’. Thus, the Swedish wolf issue can serve as a background for a more general discussion on infringement proceedings as an effective means for the enforcement of environmental law within the Union.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":"13 1","pages":"270-293"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2016-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01303004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65021173","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：