Pub Date : 2023-04-18DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10123
Philipp Kastner
Scholarship on law of the sea has become increasingly critical in recent years, but such a critical perspective is not easily implemented in the teaching of the subject. Given that little to no scholarship has engaged with the teaching practice of law of the sea, it seems timely to consider more carefully the research-teaching nexus in this field of law, which I seek to do through this essay. Drawing on critical pedagogy, I explain how I seek to encourage dialogic learning, to de-emphasise presumably authoritative voices, and to decentre the law in my teaching of law of the sea. I also consider some of the challenges that I have encountered in my efforts to decentre the teacher and the law, which mainly relate to arguably inherent tensions within critical pedagogy and to the contemporary higher education environment.
{"title":"Teaching Law of the Sea from a Critical Perspective","authors":"Philipp Kastner","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10123","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Scholarship on law of the sea has become increasingly critical in recent years, but such a critical perspective is not easily implemented in the teaching of the subject. Given that little to no scholarship has engaged with the teaching practice of law of the sea, it seems timely to consider more carefully the research-teaching nexus in this field of law, which I seek to do through this essay. Drawing on critical pedagogy, I explain how I seek to encourage dialogic learning, to de-emphasise presumably authoritative voices, and to decentre the law in my teaching of law of the sea. I also consider some of the challenges that I have encountered in my efforts to decentre the teacher and the law, which mainly relate to arguably inherent tensions within critical pedagogy and to the contemporary higher education environment.","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46265585","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}
Pub Date : 2023-04-17DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10129
Joanna Mossop
This article explores the question: ‘what would/should Part XV look like if it were to be negotiated today?’ Part XV, on dispute settlement, has played an important role in resolving issues including the interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). Many procedural issues have arisen in these disputes, including those relating to jurisdiction and admissibility. In large part, the system has proven robust, although some tinkering with Part XV processes might be appropriate. Larger scale reforms might include clear instructions on the ability of International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to consider requests for advisory opinions. Finally, the article considers whether dispute settlement processes in the World Trade Organization or human rights institutions may hold lessons for the LOSC.
{"title":"Reimagining the Procedural Aspects of Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea","authors":"Joanna Mossop","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10129","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10129","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article explores the question: ‘what would/should Part XV look like if it were to be negotiated today?’ Part XV, on dispute settlement, has played an important role in resolving issues including the interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). Many procedural issues have arisen in these disputes, including those relating to jurisdiction and admissibility. In large part, the system has proven robust, although some tinkering with Part XV processes might be appropriate. Larger scale reforms might include clear instructions on the ability of International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to consider requests for advisory opinions. Finally, the article considers whether dispute settlement processes in the World Trade Organization or human rights institutions may hold lessons for the LOSC.","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48512612","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}
Pub Date : 2023-04-17DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10128
Alina Miron
The request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law (COSIS) to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) is part of a larger movement of strategic litigation in relation to climate change, essentially led by civil society. However, the seisin and the questions submitted revive debates on the Tribunal’s advisory jurisdiction. In the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission Advisory Opinion, the ITLOS found that its advisory jurisdiction is based on the ITLOS Statute and on an external agreement with provisions for that purpose. However, the conditions for its exercise remain obscure. The COSIS request raises the thorny issue of the compatibility of the external agreement with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in particular in light of Article 311. The authority of the Tribunal’s opinion depends largely on its care in addressing these difficulties head on.
{"title":"COSIS Request for an Advisory Opinion: A Poisoned Apple for the ITLOS?","authors":"Alina Miron","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10128","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10128","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law (COSIS) to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) is part of a larger movement of strategic litigation in relation to climate change, essentially led by civil society. However, the seisin and the questions submitted revive debates on the Tribunal’s advisory jurisdiction. In the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission Advisory Opinion, the ITLOS found that its advisory jurisdiction is based on the ITLOS Statute and on an external agreement with provisions for that purpose. However, the conditions for its exercise remain obscure. The COSIS request raises the thorny issue of the compatibility of the external agreement with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in particular in light of Article 311. The authority of the Tribunal’s opinion depends largely on its care in addressing these difficulties head on.","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46502862","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}
Pub Date : 2023-04-13DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10130
R. Fife
Releasing the full potential of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) also requires concluding agreements – and an understanding of the dynamics behind reaching agreement. Legal reasoning in negotiations is not divorced from judicial reasoning. Justification by drawing upon the latter may be required in the fundamental process of overcoming disagreement. Jurisprudence may provide arguments of acceptability for negotiating States. Moreover, negotiations should not merely be dismissed as ‘bargaining under the shadow of the Convention’. Rather, they may be part of a broader interaction with contributions of the judiciary and indicate future paths for the Convention’s implementation. Furthermore, this may give rise to reflections on the roles of heuristics for negotiators and for policy- and decision-makers. This suggests revisiting the notion of legal policies of States – including how States should define unresolved issues and decide on the best timing and means for their effective resolution.
{"title":"Contributions of LOSC Jurisprudence to Reaching and Justifying a Negotiated Outcome – and Contributions of Negotiated Settlements to the Law of the Sea","authors":"R. Fife","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10130","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10130","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Releasing the full potential of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) also requires concluding agreements – and an understanding of the dynamics behind reaching agreement. Legal reasoning in negotiations is not divorced from judicial reasoning. Justification by drawing upon the latter may be required in the fundamental process of overcoming disagreement. Jurisprudence may provide arguments of acceptability for negotiating States. Moreover, negotiations should not merely be dismissed as ‘bargaining under the shadow of the Convention’. Rather, they may be part of a broader interaction with contributions of the judiciary and indicate future paths for the Convention’s implementation. Furthermore, this may give rise to reflections on the roles of heuristics for negotiators and for policy- and decision-makers. This suggests revisiting the notion of legal policies of States – including how States should define unresolved issues and decide on the best timing and means for their effective resolution.","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46698652","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}
Pub Date : 2023-04-05DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10125
Ke Song
Dispute settlement procedures under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) can be a great laboratory for observing judicial processes of exploring and testing the acceptability of multiple solutions to issues of interpretation through a battle of ideas among LOSC adjudicators. The analysis observes that LOSC tribunals tend towards two jurisprudential patterns when battling their ideas: (1) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) takes an implicit approach of deviating from previous case law of other LOSC tribunals; and (2) Annex VII arbitral tribunals have been quite straightforward when facing a diverging interpretative discourse. This article explains the institutional dynamics underpinning these two jurisprudential patterns. Calibrating judicial reasoning of the ITLOS is proposed, which would hopefully stimulate a vibrant battle of ideas facilitating coherent development of international law.
{"title":"The Battle of Ideas under LOSC Dispute Settlement Procedures","authors":"Ke Song","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10125","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10125","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Dispute settlement procedures under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) can be a great laboratory for observing judicial processes of exploring and testing the acceptability of multiple solutions to issues of interpretation through a battle of ideas among LOSC adjudicators. The analysis observes that LOSC tribunals tend towards two jurisprudential patterns when battling their ideas: (1) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) takes an implicit approach of deviating from previous case law of other LOSC tribunals; and (2) Annex VII arbitral tribunals have been quite straightforward when facing a diverging interpretative discourse. This article explains the institutional dynamics underpinning these two jurisprudential patterns. Calibrating judicial reasoning of the ITLOS is proposed, which would hopefully stimulate a vibrant battle of ideas facilitating coherent development of international law.","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44374128","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}
Pub Date : 2023-03-30DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10127
Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, Andrew P. Owsiak
In a previous article, we theorised that courts cast a shadow that changes the bargaining behaviour of potential litigant States. When two States prefer the same judicial forum under Article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC), they have fewer maritime disputes, more peaceful negotiations, and less need for judicial dispute settlement. This article elaborates on several aspects of our argument including (i) differences in legal and social science perspectives, (ii) generalizability to other courts and regions, (iii) the clarity of judicial decisions, (iv) whether accepting the same judicial forum through Article 287 declarations matters, (v) conflict management as a process, (vi) how domestic legal traditions influence Article 287 declarations, and (vii) the possibility of selection or heterogeneous effects. Our discussion helps to address some of the criticisms raised in the AJIL Unbound (2021) forum on our article and presents avenues for future analyses.
{"title":"Judicialisation of the Sea: An Elaboration of Our Argument and Its Merits","authors":"Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, Andrew P. Owsiak","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10127","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10127","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In a previous article, we theorised that courts cast a shadow that changes the bargaining behaviour of potential litigant States. When two States prefer the same judicial forum under Article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC), they have fewer maritime disputes, more peaceful negotiations, and less need for judicial dispute settlement. This article elaborates on several aspects of our argument including (i) differences in legal and social science perspectives, (ii) generalizability to other courts and regions, (iii) the clarity of judicial decisions, (iv) whether accepting the same judicial forum through Article 287 declarations matters, (v) conflict management as a process, (vi) how domestic legal traditions influence Article 287 declarations, and (vii) the possibility of selection or heterogeneous effects. Our discussion helps to address some of the criticisms raised in the AJIL Unbound (2021) forum on our article and presents avenues for future analyses.","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42148712","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}
Pub Date : 2023-03-29DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10124
R. Wolfrum
The international dispute settlement system is characterised by bi-focalism – the claim of the applicant being directly opposed by the respondent. This renders the international dispute settlement system less suitable to implement international norms serving community interests. International and regional dispute settlement systems have developed mechanisms to overcome the barriers resulting from the traditional bi-focalism. Some national legal systems have advanced in this respect. In general, it may be necessary to develop new mechanisms or to make use of existing ones, such as advisory opinions.
{"title":"Implementation and Enforcement of Community Interest-related Treaties by Judicial Means: Procedural Limitations, Chances and Prospects","authors":"R. Wolfrum","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10124","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10124","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The international dispute settlement system is characterised by bi-focalism – the claim of the applicant being directly opposed by the respondent. This renders the international dispute settlement system less suitable to implement international norms serving community interests. International and regional dispute settlement systems have developed mechanisms to overcome the barriers resulting from the traditional bi-focalism. Some national legal systems have advanced in this respect. In general, it may be necessary to develop new mechanisms or to make use of existing ones, such as advisory opinions.","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44700918","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}
Pub Date : 2023-03-29DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10120
B. Haas, Seoyeon Oh, K. Dalton, Shui-Kai Chang, J. Fitzpatrick, Kengo Minami, Hiroaki Matsui, G. Xue, Ji-Eun An, Kamal Azmi, Ruth Davis, Han-Yu Lin, Myung-Hwa Jung, Quentin Hanich
The transnational nature of seafood supply chains, including different jurisdictions with varying degrees of responsibility and opportunity, creates a high risk for labour abuse. The ratification of the International Labour Organization’s Work in Fishing Convention, C188, has been low, making the enforcement of national labour regulations very important. This article summarises national labour regulations of key flag States that fish in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean and compare these regulations to C188. The findings highlight the gaps between national regulations and international labour standards. Although the primary responsibility for crew labour standards lies with the flag State, tools at the coastal, crew, port and market State levels are introduced that could support better protection of fishing crew. While the legal infrastructure to address labour issues on fishing vessels exists in theory, more work is needed to increase the performance, enforcement, monitoring and accountability of the existing regulations.
{"title":"Untangling Jurisdictional Complexities for Crew Labour Regulations on Fishing Vessels in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean","authors":"B. Haas, Seoyeon Oh, K. Dalton, Shui-Kai Chang, J. Fitzpatrick, Kengo Minami, Hiroaki Matsui, G. Xue, Ji-Eun An, Kamal Azmi, Ruth Davis, Han-Yu Lin, Myung-Hwa Jung, Quentin Hanich","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10120","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The transnational nature of seafood supply chains, including different jurisdictions with varying degrees of responsibility and opportunity, creates a high risk for labour abuse. The ratification of the International Labour Organization’s Work in Fishing Convention, C188, has been low, making the enforcement of national labour regulations very important. This article summarises national labour regulations of key flag States that fish in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean and compare these regulations to C188. The findings highlight the gaps between national regulations and international labour standards. Although the primary responsibility for crew labour standards lies with the flag State, tools at the coastal, crew, port and market State levels are introduced that could support better protection of fishing crew. While the legal infrastructure to address labour issues on fishing vessels exists in theory, more work is needed to increase the performance, enforcement, monitoring and accountability of the existing regulations.","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43921987","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}
Pub Date : 2023-03-24DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10121
Massimo Lando
This article studies perceptions of the authority of arbitral tribunals constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Authority is understood as co-extensive with the notion of legitimacy. The focus here is not on normative legitimacy, the doctrinal study of which can only take one so far in understanding matters of authority. Instead, empirical research methods are used to study the perceived authority of Annex VII arbitral tribunals within the relevant constituency, known as sociological legitimacy. The findings are those of an exploratory study, considering that the data was collected from a small group of individuals. Further research could focus on collecting the same or similar data from a larger group, so as to obtain a more nuanced outlook on the authority of Annex VII arbitral tribunals.
{"title":"An Exploratory Empirical Outlook on the Authority of Annex VII Arbitral Tribunals","authors":"Massimo Lando","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10121","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article studies perceptions of the authority of arbitral tribunals constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Authority is understood as co-extensive with the notion of legitimacy. The focus here is not on normative legitimacy, the doctrinal study of which can only take one so far in understanding matters of authority. Instead, empirical research methods are used to study the perceived authority of Annex VII arbitral tribunals within the relevant constituency, known as sociological legitimacy. The findings are those of an exploratory study, considering that the data was collected from a small group of individuals. Further research could focus on collecting the same or similar data from a larger group, so as to obtain a more nuanced outlook on the authority of Annex VII arbitral tribunals.","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41521857","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}
Pub Date : 2023-03-20DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10122
Rozemarijn J. Roland Holst
This article takes the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as an opportunity to reflect on the role that the compulsory dispute settlement system under Part XV of the Convention plays in maintaining the legal order for the ocean. It posits that, in addition to the more traditional understandings of the dispute settlement function and law-ascertainment function of international adjudication, a clear governance function can be discerned. By developing a three-fold typology of ways in which this governance function manifests itself in the use and exercise of compulsory jurisdiction under Part XV, the aim is to shed light on the multifaceted role of compulsory dispute settlement in maintaining the legal order for the ocean in a way that accounts for the changing expectations of States Parties over time.
{"title":"Reflections on the Governance Function of Compulsory Dispute Settlement in the Legal Order for the Ocean","authors":"Rozemarijn J. Roland Holst","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10122","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10122","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article takes the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as an opportunity to reflect on the role that the compulsory dispute settlement system under Part XV of the Convention plays in maintaining the legal order for the ocean. It posits that, in addition to the more traditional understandings of the dispute settlement function and law-ascertainment function of international adjudication, a clear governance function can be discerned. By developing a three-fold typology of ways in which this governance function manifests itself in the use and exercise of compulsory jurisdiction under Part XV, the aim is to shed light on the multifaceted role of compulsory dispute settlement in maintaining the legal order for the ocean in a way that accounts for the changing expectations of States Parties over time.","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45227139","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：