Forced labour is a widespread risk for workers in the shipping industry. Traditional approaches to tackling the problem rely on the rules of flag state and port state jurisdiction, leaving a significant margin of political discretion in dealing with violations of labour rights. This article examines whether private enforcement mechanisms in the form of tort actions can play a role in securing the labour rights of workers and providing them with access to remedies. Following recent case law, it examines the possibility of enforcing the duty of care as stated in the company materials, in particular the growing number of corporate annual reports. The article relies on empirical material, consisting of the statements published by shipping companies under the UK Modern Slavery Act [MSA]. In addition to the descriptive observations on compliance, the study carries out a content analysis of the statements, seeking to identify the patterns of reporting and industry best practices. The final part of the article examines whether corporate undertakings as laid down in modern slavery statements can serve as grounds for tort liability. Based on the empirical data, the study concludes that the statements provide insufficient grounds for holding companies liable for labour rights violations. Modern Slavery, Forced Labour, Liner Shipping, Annual Reports, Published Materials, Private Enforcement, Supply Chain Liability
{"title":"Modern Slavery in Liner Shipping: An Empirical Analysis of Corporate Statements","authors":"Maxim Usynin","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2024004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2024004","url":null,"abstract":"Forced labour is a widespread risk for workers in the shipping industry. Traditional approaches to tackling the problem rely on the rules of flag state and port state jurisdiction, leaving a significant margin of political discretion in dealing with violations of labour rights. This article examines whether private enforcement mechanisms in the form of tort actions can play a role in securing the labour rights of workers and providing them with access to remedies. Following recent case law, it examines the possibility of enforcing the duty of care as stated in the company materials, in particular the growing number of corporate annual reports. The article relies on empirical material, consisting of the statements published by shipping companies under the UK Modern Slavery Act [MSA]. In addition to the descriptive observations on compliance, the study carries out a content analysis of the statements, seeking to identify the patterns of reporting and industry best practices. The final part of the article examines whether corporate undertakings as laid down in modern slavery statements can serve as grounds for tort liability. Based on the empirical data, the study concludes that the statements provide insufficient grounds for holding companies liable for labour rights violations.\u0000Modern Slavery, Forced Labour, Liner Shipping, Annual Reports, Published Materials, Private Enforcement, Supply Chain Liability","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140518560","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}
Workers subject to algorithmic management, both in platform work and in conventional employment settings, often face a justice gap in enforcing their rights, due to the opacity characterizing most automated algorithmic decision-making processes. This paper argues that trade unions are in a more favourable position than individual workers to fill this justice gap through litigation, especially when collective redress mechanisms are available. However, this becomes possible only when the legal system is favourable to this type of litigation. This article analyses three legal domains at EU level where justiciable rights are more likely to be violated through algorithmic management devices, in order to assess whether it is legally feasible for trade unions to promote algorithmic litigation under EU law. Even when the legal framework is conducive to this type of litigation, it cannot be automatically expected that trade unions will more frequently resort to it to better enforce the rights of workers subject to algorithmic management devices. Previous research shows that trade unions are traditionally keen on turning to litigation only when they are able to link it to their broader strategies. This paper claims that this may be the case against employers using algorithmic management. For trade unions, resorting to litigation can be strategically instrumental not only to fulfil the legal purpose of alleviating the justice gap faced by workers through a better ex post enforcement of their rights, but also to achieve the meta-legal purpose of mobilizing them and the para-legal purpose of strengthening collective bargaining, especially considering that this would constitute an effective means to induce stronger ex ante compliance. Algorithmic Management, Platform Work, Algorithmic Transparency, Algorithmic Discrimination, Employment Protection, Data Protection, Trade Unions, Algorithmic Litigation, Collective Redress, Legal Mobilization, Collective Bargaining
{"title":"Litigating the Algorithmic Boss in the EU: A (Legally) Feasible and (Strategically) Attractive Option for Trade Unions?","authors":"Giovanni Gaudio","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2024002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2024002","url":null,"abstract":"Workers subject to algorithmic management, both in platform work and in conventional employment settings, often face a justice gap in enforcing their rights, due to the opacity characterizing most automated algorithmic decision-making processes. This paper argues that trade unions are in a more favourable position than individual workers to fill this justice gap through litigation, especially when collective redress mechanisms are available. However, this becomes possible only when the legal system is favourable to this type of litigation. This article analyses three legal domains at EU level where justiciable rights are more likely to be violated through algorithmic management devices, in order to assess whether it is legally feasible for trade unions to promote algorithmic litigation under EU law.\u0000Even when the legal framework is conducive to this type of litigation, it cannot be automatically expected that trade unions will more frequently resort to it to better enforce the rights of workers subject to algorithmic management devices. Previous research shows that trade unions are traditionally keen on turning to litigation only when they are able to link it to their broader strategies. This paper claims that this may be the case against employers using algorithmic management. For trade unions, resorting to litigation can be strategically instrumental not only to fulfil the legal purpose of alleviating the justice gap faced by workers through a better ex post enforcement of their rights, but also to achieve the meta-legal purpose of mobilizing them and the para-legal purpose of strengthening collective bargaining, especially considering that this would constitute an effective means to induce stronger ex ante compliance.\u0000Algorithmic Management, Platform Work, Algorithmic Transparency, Algorithmic Discrimination, Employment Protection, Data Protection, Trade Unions, Algorithmic Litigation, Collective Redress, Legal Mobilization, Collective Bargaining","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140518270","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}
In its decisions of 24 February 2022 and 7 February 2019, the German Federal Labour Court (BAG) ruled that German labour courts should take into account whether a breach of the requirement of fair negotiation had occurred in assessing the validity of termination agreements. The Court thereby aimed to improve the protection of employees who have been improperly pressured by their employer into concluding a termination agreement. Arguably, the principle of undue influence in US contract law fulfils a comparable function. This article analyses the BAG decision then addresses the question of the comparability of the legal concepts. Since the concept and scope of undue influence are not easy to grasp, the definition in US case law and the practical application of the legal concept are analysed. Based on this analysis, the article considers whether a US civil court would have decided the BAG case in the same way. The article concludes that the principles in German and American law lead to similar outcomes. Requirement of Fair Negotiation, Undue Influence, German Labour Court, US Contract Law, US Civil Courts
德国联邦劳工法院（BAG）在 2022 年 2 月 24 日和 2019 年 2 月 7 日的判决中裁定，德国劳工法院在评估解雇协议的有效性时应考虑是否违反了公平协商的要求。因此，法院旨在加强对受到雇主不当施压而签订终止协议的雇员的保护。可以说，美国合同法中的不当影响原则也具有类似的功能。本文分析了 BAG 案的判决，然后探讨了法律概念的可比性问题。由于不正当影响的概念和范围不易掌握，本文分析了美国判例法中的定义以及该法律概念的实际应用。在此基础上，文章考虑了美国民事法庭是否会以同样的方式判决 BAG 案。文章的结论是，德国和美国法律中的原则导致了相似的结果。公平谈判要求、不当影响、德国劳资争议法庭、美国合同法、美国民事法庭
{"title":"The Requirement of Fair Negotiation (Gebot des fairen Verhandelns) and the Principle of Undue Influence in German and US Employment Law","authors":"Hannah Michels","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2024003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2024003","url":null,"abstract":"In its decisions of 24 February 2022 and 7 February 2019, the German Federal Labour Court (BAG) ruled that German labour courts should take into account whether a breach of the requirement of fair negotiation had occurred in assessing the validity of termination agreements. The Court thereby aimed to improve the protection of employees who have been improperly pressured by their employer into concluding a termination agreement. Arguably, the principle of undue influence in US contract law fulfils a comparable function. This article analyses the BAG decision then addresses the question of the comparability of the legal concepts. Since the concept and scope of undue influence are not easy to grasp, the definition in US case law and the practical application of the legal concept are analysed. Based on this analysis, the article considers whether a US civil court would have decided the BAG case in the same way. The article concludes that the principles in German and American law lead to similar outcomes.\u0000Requirement of Fair Negotiation, Undue Influence, German Labour Court, US Contract Law, US Civil Courts","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140520129","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}
In recent years, algorithmic management practices have been widely adopted by employers to monitor remote work, analyse how applicants behave during job interviews, rate worker performance and calculate wage adjustments. As a result, the condition of workers being subjected to the upstream authority of managers has intensified. Employment protection legislation recognizes the importance of curbing the employer’s unilateral discretionary power by deploying several controlling factors. However, the traditional guardrails have now been displaced by the transformative impact of data-driven technologies. As a response to this challenge, several measures implemented by the European Union (EU) could be pragmatically adapted to curtail the expansion of artificial intelligence-based management prerogative. By applying a multidimensional, anticipatory and participatory approach, this paper integrates substantive and procedural rules that contribute to rebalancing informational asymmetries within workplaces and assesses the effectiveness of these rules. Examining case law, administrative decisions and legislative developments, it also discusses the mutually reinforcing relationship between data protection and anti-discrimination measures, which renders automated decisions documentable and contestable. In addition to defensive tactics, this article calls for the involvement of worker representatives in co-designing digital human resource policies. As data are relational, collective bodies are uniquely placed to exchange information, raise awareness and bring claims, with a view to preventing the improper use of algorithms. Employer Powers, Data Protection, Non-Discrimination, Co-Determination, Artificial Intelligence, Management by Algorithm, Right to Explanation, Burden of Proof, EU Law, Digital Transformation
{"title":"Regulating Algorithmic Management at Work in the European Union: Data Protection, Non-discrimination and Collective Rights","authors":"Antonio Aloisi","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2024001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2024001","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, algorithmic management practices have been widely adopted by employers to monitor remote work, analyse how applicants behave during job interviews, rate worker performance and calculate wage adjustments. As a result, the condition of workers being subjected to the upstream authority of managers has intensified. Employment protection legislation recognizes the importance of curbing the employer’s unilateral discretionary power by deploying several controlling factors. However, the traditional guardrails have now been displaced by the transformative impact of data-driven technologies. As a response to this challenge, several measures implemented by the European Union (EU) could be pragmatically adapted to curtail the expansion of artificial intelligence-based management prerogative.\u0000By applying a multidimensional, anticipatory and participatory approach, this paper integrates substantive and procedural rules that contribute to rebalancing informational asymmetries within workplaces and assesses the effectiveness of these rules. Examining case law, administrative decisions and legislative developments, it also discusses the mutually reinforcing relationship between data protection and anti-discrimination measures, which renders automated decisions documentable and contestable. In addition to defensive tactics, this article calls for the involvement of worker representatives in co-designing digital human resource policies. As data are relational, collective bodies are uniquely placed to exchange information, raise awareness and bring claims, with a view to preventing the improper use of algorithms.\u0000Employer Powers, Data Protection, Non-Discrimination, Co-Determination, Artificial Intelligence, Management by Algorithm, Right to Explanation, Burden of Proof, EU Law, Digital Transformation","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140526980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The advent of the platform economy gives rise to an important challenge for existing systems of labour law across the world. Different countries are reacting to this common challenge with various legislative measures, ranging from accommodation to re-regulation. This paper analyses the policy response to the spread of platform work in the UK and Italy, countries with quite different labour law frameworks as well as contrasting political and regulatory institutions. These two countries have responded differently to the advent of the platform economy. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, the paper draws on theories from political science and comparative political economy to explain the different regulatory outcomes observed. Specifically, it is argued that policy and legislative outcomes can be explained by the relative power of political actors and interest groups which are shaped, in turn, by the national system of political parties and the existing industrial relations frameworks. Platform or Gig Economy, Platform Work, Law and Political Economy, Power Resources
{"title":"Regulating Platform Work in the UK and Italy: Politics, Law and Political Economy","authors":"Alessio Bertolini","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2024005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2024005","url":null,"abstract":"The advent of the platform economy gives rise to an important challenge for existing systems of labour law across the world. Different countries are reacting to this common challenge with various legislative measures, ranging from accommodation to re-regulation. This paper analyses the policy response to the spread of platform work in the UK and Italy, countries with quite different labour law frameworks as well as contrasting political and regulatory institutions. These two countries have responded differently to the advent of the platform economy. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, the paper draws on theories from political science and comparative political economy to explain the different regulatory outcomes observed. Specifically, it is argued that policy and legislative outcomes can be explained by the relative power of political actors and interest groups which are shaped, in turn, by the national system of political parties and the existing industrial relations frameworks.\u0000Platform or Gig Economy, Platform Work, Law and Political Economy, Power Resources","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140523604","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper provides a short overview from a labour law perspective of the scope of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (I.) and the Court of Justice of the European Union’s case law regarding the horizontal direct effect of certain Charter provisions (II.). On this basis, it seeks to assess the practical relevance of the Court’s case law (III.). Finally, it explores how the Court determines the horizontal direct effect of Charter provisions and illustrates that operation by offering a specific example regarding employment relationships (IV.). European Charter of Fundamental Rights, Direct Effect, Horizontal Effect, Annual Paid Leave, Work From Home, Remote Work, Safety and Health, Display Screen Equipment
{"title":"Which Labour Rights Are Fundamental Rights? Horizontal Direct Effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU","authors":"Stefan Witschen","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2023015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2023015","url":null,"abstract":"The paper provides a short overview from a labour law perspective of the scope of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (I.) and the Court of Justice of the European Union’s case law regarding the horizontal direct effect of certain Charter provisions (II.). On this basis, it seeks to assess the practical relevance of the Court’s case law (III.). Finally, it explores how the Court determines the horizontal direct effect of Charter provisions and illustrates that operation by offering a specific example regarding employment relationships (IV.).\u0000European Charter of Fundamental Rights, Direct Effect, Horizontal Effect, Annual Paid Leave, Work From Home, Remote Work, Safety and Health, Display Screen Equipment","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45840099","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 transnational company agreements (TCAs) as a new form of social dialogue in multinational companies and examines why a legal framework for TCAs has not yet been introduced at European level. It argues that a reopening of the discussion on the introduction of such a legal framework should be promoted in order to strengthen the social dialogue in multinational companies and raise social standards in Europe Transnational Company Agreements, Social Dialogue, Multinational Companies, Legal Basis, Austrian Collective Bargaining System
{"title":"Transnational Company Agreements and EU Law","authors":"Diana Niksova","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2023018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2023018","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses transnational company agreements (TCAs) as a new form of social dialogue in multinational companies and examines why a legal framework for TCAs has not yet been introduced at European level. It argues that a reopening of the discussion on the introduction of such a legal framework should be promoted in order to strengthen the social dialogue in multinational companies and raise social standards in Europe\u0000Transnational Company Agreements, Social Dialogue, Multinational Companies, Legal Basis, Austrian Collective Bargaining System","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42198838","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The academic debate on the protection of vulnerable persons performing work is often driven by the idea that a person’s status in labour law determines the rights they are entitled to. This approach overlooks the fact that the personal scope of labour rights is heterogeneous across EU Member States, with different groups enjoying the right to equal treatment, protection against unfair dismissal or the right to a minimum wage. The status of employee or worker does not necessarily confer a wide range of rights. This short article provides an overview of the different systems in terms of the consequences of this status. While highlighting this diversity in the personal scope of workers’ rights, it is argued that regulations that focus less on the relationship between the employer and the worker, and more on the impact of a regime on the public, provide more appropriate protection for persons who do not fit into the traditional employment relationship. Platform Worker, Definition of Worker, Personal Scope of Labour Rights, Labour Regulation Models
{"title":"The Different Rights of a ‘Worker’: A Comparative View","authors":"E. Kovács","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2023009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2023009","url":null,"abstract":"The academic debate on the protection of vulnerable persons performing work is often driven by the idea that a person’s status in labour law determines the rights they are entitled to. This approach overlooks the fact that the personal scope of labour rights is heterogeneous across EU Member States, with different groups enjoying the right to equal treatment, protection against unfair dismissal or the right to a minimum wage. The status of employee or worker does not necessarily confer a wide range of rights. This short article provides an overview of the different systems in terms of the consequences of this status. While highlighting this diversity in the personal scope of workers’ rights, it is argued that regulations that focus less on the relationship between the employer and the worker, and more on the impact of a regime on the public, provide more appropriate protection for persons who do not fit into the traditional employment relationship.\u0000Platform Worker, Definition of Worker, Personal Scope of Labour Rights, Labour Regulation Models","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42974784","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The European Pillar of Social Rights set out to reaffirm a European promise of universal welfare and prosperity as a remedy for a perceived crisis of legitimacy of the EU. This paper argues that the Pillar does not actually state legally binding rights and that ist name is therefore misleading. However, case-law of the European Court of Justice indicates that the Pillar could be used as a tool for the interpretation, in particular, of the – legally binding – Charta of Fundamental Rights, potentially widening the scope of application of the latter. This in turn, the article argues, might undermine the very objective the Pillar set out to reach – improving the EU‘s appeal to and acceptance by its citizens – by way of gradually increasing democratic deficits of the European Union while insufficiently targeting social ones. crisis of legitimacy, source of interpretation, democratic deficit, social deficit
{"title":"The European Pillar of Social Rights: A Dangerous Distraction?","authors":"Stephan Seiwerth","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2023016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2023016","url":null,"abstract":"The European Pillar of Social Rights set out to reaffirm a European promise of universal welfare and prosperity as a remedy for a perceived crisis of legitimacy of the EU. This paper argues that the Pillar does not actually state legally binding rights and that ist name is therefore misleading. However, case-law of the European Court of Justice indicates that the Pillar could be used as a tool for the interpretation, in particular, of the – legally binding – Charta of Fundamental Rights, potentially widening the scope of application of the latter. This in turn, the article argues, might undermine the very objective the Pillar set out to reach – improving the EU‘s appeal to and acceptance by its citizens – by way of gradually increasing democratic deficits of the European Union while insufficiently targeting social ones.\u0000crisis of legitimacy, source of interpretation, democratic deficit, social deficit","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42752422","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：