While it is universally accepted that the advisory opinions rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) are not binding as such, scholarly discourse continues to ponder upon whether these opinions can confer any definitive legal effects. The scope of the legal implications stemming from such opinions is considerably broad, encompassing statements of solely evidentiary significance, determinations demanding due consideration, through to authoritative ‘givens’ that are beyond contestation. Examples elucidating these diverse interpretations permeate both academic literature and international practice with the most recent example being the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) Special Chamber’s Mauritius/Maldives Judgment, wherein the findings presented in the Chagos Advisory Opinion were treated as authoritative pronouncements of international law with opposable legal effects. This article posits a departure from the mainstream standpoint, contending that while the ICJ’s advisory determinations are non-binding, they are capable of being authoritatively definitive in declaring what international law is in a specific context. The article also suggests that the authority vested in a judicial pronouncement, determining the content of international law, may go beyond its bindingness contingent upon the stature of the authoring entity.
{"title":"Unveiling the ‘author’ of international law — The ‘legal effect’ of ICJ’s advisory opinions","authors":"Vahid Rezadoost","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idae015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idae015","url":null,"abstract":"While it is universally accepted that the advisory opinions rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) are not binding as such, scholarly discourse continues to ponder upon whether these opinions can confer any definitive legal effects. The scope of the legal implications stemming from such opinions is considerably broad, encompassing statements of solely evidentiary significance, determinations demanding due consideration, through to authoritative ‘givens’ that are beyond contestation. Examples elucidating these diverse interpretations permeate both academic literature and international practice with the most recent example being the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) Special Chamber’s Mauritius/Maldives Judgment, wherein the findings presented in the Chagos Advisory Opinion were treated as authoritative pronouncements of international law with opposable legal effects. This article posits a departure from the mainstream standpoint, contending that while the ICJ’s advisory determinations are non-binding, they are capable of being authoritatively definitive in declaring what international law is in a specific context. The article also suggests that the authority vested in a judicial pronouncement, determining the content of international law, may go beyond its bindingness contingent upon the stature of the authoring entity.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"92 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141742616","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The jurisprudence concerning the continental shelf delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) over the past decade converged on distinguishing delineation from delimitation, which justifies the appropriateness of the judiciary to delimit the continental shelf beyond 200 nm in the absence of the recommendations issued by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Mauritius/Maldives decided by a special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea departs from the established jurisprudence. By applying a ‘significant uncertainty’ standard that puts the relationship between entitlement and delimitation in the centre, Mauritius/Maldives reasons against exercising jurisdiction over the delimitation beyond 200 nm without affirmative recommendations of the CLCS. Mauritius/Maldives reflects judicial restraint in contrast with a more proactive approach prevailing in previous jurisprudence.
{"title":"Continental shelf delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles: Mauritius/Maldives and the forking paths in the jurisprudence","authors":"Xuexia Liao","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idae009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idae009","url":null,"abstract":"The jurisprudence concerning the continental shelf delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) over the past decade converged on distinguishing delineation from delimitation, which justifies the appropriateness of the judiciary to delimit the continental shelf beyond 200 nm in the absence of the recommendations issued by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Mauritius/Maldives decided by a special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea departs from the established jurisprudence. By applying a ‘significant uncertainty’ standard that puts the relationship between entitlement and delimitation in the centre, Mauritius/Maldives reasons against exercising jurisdiction over the delimitation beyond 200 nm without affirmative recommendations of the CLCS. Mauritius/Maldives reflects judicial restraint in contrast with a more proactive approach prevailing in previous jurisprudence.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140198248","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Drawing on insights and methods from International Law, International Relations and Linguistics, the article untangles the discursive legitimation efforts of international adjudicative bodies. Adopting a mixed-methods approach that combines supervised learning methods, corpus methods and Critical Discourse Analysis it analyses the language of legitimation in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and the World Trade Organization’s Appellate Body over a period of 20 years (1996–2016). In so doing, the article cuts across disciplinary divides and offers a novel and empirically informed perspective to ongoing debates on the discursive legitimation of international adjudicative bodies.
{"title":"The legitimation of international adjudication","authors":"Zuzanna Godzimirska","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idad032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idad032","url":null,"abstract":"Drawing on insights and methods from International Law, International Relations and Linguistics, the article untangles the discursive legitimation efforts of international adjudicative bodies. Adopting a mixed-methods approach that combines supervised learning methods, corpus methods and Critical Discourse Analysis it analyses the language of legitimation in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and the World Trade Organization’s Appellate Body over a period of 20 years (1996–2016). In so doing, the article cuts across disciplinary divides and offers a novel and empirically informed perspective to ongoing debates on the discursive legitimation of international adjudicative bodies.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139578234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Contestations have emerged over the nearly three decades of the World Trade Organization (WTO) regarding the narratives on the rule of law (ROL) as a central tenet of the Multilateral Trading System. One of such contestation is whether the idea of ROL was ever internalized in the WTO at its formation or has been exaggerated. This article critically explores this narrative and locates it in the context of the events of the past two decades in the WTO. It challenges the notion of ROL in the world trading system. It argues that although significant progress was made in mainstreaming ROL in the Uruguay Round project, it would be an exaggeration to claim that ROL was embedded in the trading system from its inception. The article concludes that sceptics of the ROL project in the WTO have arguably been vindicated by how things have unfolded in the past two decades.
世界贸易组织（WTO）成立近三十年来，关于法治（ROL）作为多边贸易体系核心原则的论述出现了争议。其中一个争论点是，法治理念在世贸组织成立之初是否就已内化，还是被夸大了。本文批判性地探讨了这一说法，并将其置于世贸组织过去二十年发生的事件的背景中。文章对世界贸易体系中的 ROL 概念提出了质疑。文章认为，尽管在乌拉圭回合项目中将 ROL 纳入主流的工作取得了重大进展，但如果声称 ROL 从一开始就已融入贸易体系，那未免言过其实。文章的结论是，过去二十年的事态发展证明，对世贸组织中的 ROL 项目持怀疑态度的人是正确的。
{"title":"Reflecting on the rule of law contestations narratives in the world trading system","authors":"Ngangjoh Hodu Yenkong","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idad031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idad031","url":null,"abstract":"Contestations have emerged over the nearly three decades of the World Trade Organization (WTO) regarding the narratives on the rule of law (ROL) as a central tenet of the Multilateral Trading System. One of such contestation is whether the idea of ROL was ever internalized in the WTO at its formation or has been exaggerated. This article critically explores this narrative and locates it in the context of the events of the past two decades in the WTO. It challenges the notion of ROL in the world trading system. It argues that although significant progress was made in mainstreaming ROL in the Uruguay Round project, it would be an exaggeration to claim that ROL was embedded in the trading system from its inception. The article concludes that sceptics of the ROL project in the WTO have arguably been vindicated by how things have unfolded in the past two decades.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139516362","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The gradual rise of China as an economic, normative, and lending power has resulted in more protectionist measures in areas of the world that traditionally championed economic liberalization. Currently, 21 out of 27 European Union (EU) Member States have national laws or measures in place for the screening or review of foreign investments. However, such restrictive national measures can result in investment treaty-based arbitration under the existing bilateral investment treaties concluded by 26 EU Member States with China, as evidenced by the recent arbitration initiated by Huawei against Sweden. Therefore, this article assesses whether EU Member States are likely to see a spike in investor–State arbitral claims initiated by Chinese investors as a result of the former’s investment screening measures. To achieve this aim, the article first looks at the bilateral investment treaties (BIT)-level variables that can influence the initiation of arbitration against EU Member States, such as the presence and type of investor–State arbitration (ISA) clauses, the types of investments being made, the coverage of the pre- and/or post-establishment phases, or the inclusion of ‘non-precluded measures’ clauses. This is then followed by a look at other variables, such as the decreasing number of Chinese foreign direct investment into EU countries, the treatment of Chinese investors in recent high-profile cases, and the importance of security alliances. The article concludes that those EU States are at a higher risk of being respondents in arbitrations initiated by Chinese investors whose BITs with China include modern ISA clauses, cover the pre-establishment phase, and lack non-precluded measures clauses. However, EU States should wait for the outcome of the Huawei v Sweden arbitration before deciding whether the amendment or termination of the existing BITs with China is needed.
{"title":"When the Dragon comes Home to Roost: Chinese Investments in the EU, National Security, and Investor–State Arbitration","authors":"Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idad028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idad028","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The gradual rise of China as an economic, normative, and lending power has resulted in more protectionist measures in areas of the world that traditionally championed economic liberalization. Currently, 21 out of 27 European Union (EU) Member States have national laws or measures in place for the screening or review of foreign investments. However, such restrictive national measures can result in investment treaty-based arbitration under the existing bilateral investment treaties concluded by 26 EU Member States with China, as evidenced by the recent arbitration initiated by Huawei against Sweden. Therefore, this article assesses whether EU Member States are likely to see a spike in investor–State arbitral claims initiated by Chinese investors as a result of the former’s investment screening measures. To achieve this aim, the article first looks at the bilateral investment treaties (BIT)-level variables that can influence the initiation of arbitration against EU Member States, such as the presence and type of investor–State arbitration (ISA) clauses, the types of investments being made, the coverage of the pre- and/or post-establishment phases, or the inclusion of ‘non-precluded measures’ clauses. This is then followed by a look at other variables, such as the decreasing number of Chinese foreign direct investment into EU countries, the treatment of Chinese investors in recent high-profile cases, and the importance of security alliances. The article concludes that those EU States are at a higher risk of being respondents in arbitrations initiated by Chinese investors whose BITs with China include modern ISA clauses, cover the pre-establishment phase, and lack non-precluded measures clauses. However, EU States should wait for the outcome of the Huawei v Sweden arbitration before deciding whether the amendment or termination of the existing BITs with China is needed.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"38 24","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139442893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The members of the international courts and tribunals are expected to be independent and impartial. Their constituent instruments normally contain rules which aim at ensuring the independence and impartiality of judges and arbitrators. Such rules typically include provisions addressing activities incompatible with the judicial office, bars to the participation of a judge or an arbitrator in a particular case, when doubts about his/her impartiality arise. They sometimes address but are oftentimes silent on withdrawal, recusal or challenge. This article explores what types of activities can be said to be incompatible with the exercise of judicial functions or to bar the participation of a judge or an arbitrator in a particular case so as to shape the contours of the notions of impartiality and independence. It examines the existing normative arrangements and the practice of inter-State courts and tribunals, including the procedures and practice on withdrawal, recusal, challenge and the standard applied or applicable in assessing whether the requirements for independence and impartiality of international adjudicators have been met.
{"title":"Independence and impartiality through the lens of incompatible activities, disqualification and challenge: the ICJ, ITLOS, and inter-State arbitration","authors":"Elena Ivanova","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idad030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idad030","url":null,"abstract":"The members of the international courts and tribunals are expected to be independent and impartial. Their constituent instruments normally contain rules which aim at ensuring the independence and impartiality of judges and arbitrators. Such rules typically include provisions addressing activities incompatible with the judicial office, bars to the participation of a judge or an arbitrator in a particular case, when doubts about his/her impartiality arise. They sometimes address but are oftentimes silent on withdrawal, recusal or challenge. This article explores what types of activities can be said to be incompatible with the exercise of judicial functions or to bar the participation of a judge or an arbitrator in a particular case so as to shape the contours of the notions of impartiality and independence. It examines the existing normative arrangements and the practice of inter-State courts and tribunals, including the procedures and practice on withdrawal, recusal, challenge and the standard applied or applicable in assessing whether the requirements for independence and impartiality of international adjudicators have been met.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139373246","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although the adjudication of a maritime boundary dispute is usually a bilateral process, it is also often the case that third States have an interest in the delimitation to be carried out. Coupled with the potential for the delimitation decisions of courts and tribunals to impact their maritime claims or entitlements, this raises the concern that third State interests could be prejudiced by such a dispute settlement process, without their participation. While third-party intervention has been suggested as a possible means of recourse for such third States, this article argues that third States may, in practice, be hesitant of resorting to intervention. This is because attempts to intervene, whether successful or unsuccessful, are likely to entail the court or tribunal’s eventual decision having some legally binding effects on the third State. Further, alternative options remain available to third States desirous of a platform to make their interests known.
{"title":"The effects of third-party intervention in the adjudication of maritime delimitation disputes","authors":"Stephany Aw","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idad029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idad029","url":null,"abstract":"Although the adjudication of a maritime boundary dispute is usually a bilateral process, it is also often the case that third States have an interest in the delimitation to be carried out. Coupled with the potential for the delimitation decisions of courts and tribunals to impact their maritime claims or entitlements, this raises the concern that third State interests could be prejudiced by such a dispute settlement process, without their participation. While third-party intervention has been suggested as a possible means of recourse for such third States, this article argues that third States may, in practice, be hesitant of resorting to intervention. This is because attempts to intervene, whether successful or unsuccessful, are likely to entail the court or tribunal’s eventual decision having some legally binding effects on the third State. Further, alternative options remain available to third States desirous of a platform to make their interests known.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138560412","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"New developments in the interpretation and application of the clean hands doctrine by investment tribunals","authors":"P. Dumberry","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idad027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idad027","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"21 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139250550","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Over the last decades, the role of international arbitrators has evolved from dealing with purely private interests to promoting the rule of law worldwide and safeguarding the interests of the international community. Following the armed conflict in Ukraine, a plurality of States has enacted international sanctions against Russia, which are currently impacting the performance of many international contracts. This article analyses the enforcement of international sanctions by international arbitrators as a matter of overriding mandatory public policy rules. This article also draws a new perspective on the subject, by analysing it from two different yet complementary approaches. First, because national courts have supervisory powers at the post-award stage, the reasoning of international arbitrators may depend on whether such international sanctions are regarded as public policy rules within relevant national legal orders. Secondly, because international arbitral tribunals have no forum, their decision regarding the enforcement of international sanctions will depend on the existing legal theories of international arbitration. After comparing the different results under the territorial, multilocal, and transnational approaches, the author advocates for the enforcement of international sanctions against Russia as part of transnational public policy rules.
{"title":"International sanctions enacted against Russia as overriding mandatory rules—on which foot should international arbitrators stand?","authors":"Maxime Chevalier","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idad022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idad022","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Over the last decades, the role of international arbitrators has evolved from dealing with purely private interests to promoting the rule of law worldwide and safeguarding the interests of the international community. Following the armed conflict in Ukraine, a plurality of States has enacted international sanctions against Russia, which are currently impacting the performance of many international contracts. This article analyses the enforcement of international sanctions by international arbitrators as a matter of overriding mandatory public policy rules. This article also draws a new perspective on the subject, by analysing it from two different yet complementary approaches. First, because national courts have supervisory powers at the post-award stage, the reasoning of international arbitrators may depend on whether such international sanctions are regarded as public policy rules within relevant national legal orders. Secondly, because international arbitral tribunals have no forum, their decision regarding the enforcement of international sanctions will depend on the existing legal theories of international arbitration. After comparing the different results under the territorial, multilocal, and transnational approaches, the author advocates for the enforcement of international sanctions against Russia as part of transnational public policy rules.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":" 572","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135185974","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Article 36(2) of the International Law Commission’s Article on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) provides that the responsible state shall compensate for all financially assessable damage. However, ARSIWA provides no guidance as to how such a broad rule should be applied in practice, which creates significant ambiguities for adjudicators in charge of adjudicating compensation claims in international law. In the past decade, the International Court of Justice has adjudicated three important compensation cases wherein it has exhibited a visible turn to equitable considerations in compensation determination. This article conducts an analysis of such an emerging equitable approach to compensation and argues that it is a welcome development, given the flexibility it provides to the Court for balancing different factors, with the aim of achieving an equitable determination of compensation. This article also addresses the justifications and predictability concerns of this approach.
{"title":"Compensation in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice: towards an equitable approach","authors":"Yang Liu","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idad023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idad023","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Article 36(2) of the International Law Commission’s Article on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) provides that the responsible state shall compensate for all financially assessable damage. However, ARSIWA provides no guidance as to how such a broad rule should be applied in practice, which creates significant ambiguities for adjudicators in charge of adjudicating compensation claims in international law. In the past decade, the International Court of Justice has adjudicated three important compensation cases wherein it has exhibited a visible turn to equitable considerations in compensation determination. This article conducts an analysis of such an emerging equitable approach to compensation and argues that it is a welcome development, given the flexibility it provides to the Court for balancing different factors, with the aim of achieving an equitable determination of compensation. This article also addresses the justifications and predictability concerns of this approach.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"279 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136078803","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：