{"title":"Combatting Lake Invaders: A Proposal for Ballast Water Standards to Save the Great Lakes from Invasive Species","authors":"K. Sinclair","doi":"10.15779/Z385X25C8H","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z385X25C8H","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":"45 1","pages":"473"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67407728","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Expediting Infastructure Development without Conceding Reasoned Decision Making and Public Comment: Streamlining NEPA Compliance for Facility Upgrades and Expansions","authors":"Maribeth Hunsinger","doi":"10.15779/Z38BC3SX49","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38BC3SX49","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":"45 1","pages":"253"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67441335","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the gray wolf was systematically eradicated from most of the lower forty-eight states. A population of hundreds of thousands was whittled down to a few hundred, concentrated only in the woods of Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. The wolf has rebounded, thanks to robust federal protection. But full recovery remains elusive—in part because of the federal government’s narrow expectations for recovery. In August 2017, the D.C. Circuit struck down a 2011 rule that removed the gray wolf from the endangered species list in the Western Great Lakes area. The court held that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had impermissibly failed to consider how the loss of the gray wolf’s historical range affected the species’ overall survival outlook. This decision highlighted some long-recognized shortcomings of the Service’s interpretation of recovery under the Endangered Species Act, including its concentration on core populations to the detriment of peripheral ones. Focusing on the complex history of the gray wolf, this Note explores traditional justifications for species preservation, as well as justifications for a broader geographic recovery of a species. In doing so, it identifies a repertoire of principles that should inform future decisions about a species’ geographic restoration, and by reflecting on these principles, it argues for a more purposeful consideration of a species’ historical range.
{"title":"\"This Land Was Made for You and Me\"*—And Them: Why and How the Department of the Interior Should Give Greater Consideration to the Gray Wolf's Historical Range","authors":"Amy Collier","doi":"10.15779/Z38V11VK7G","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38V11VK7G","url":null,"abstract":"Throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the gray wolf was systematically eradicated from most of the lower forty-eight states. A population of hundreds of thousands was whittled down to a few hundred, concentrated only in the woods of Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. The wolf has rebounded, thanks to robust federal protection. But full recovery remains elusive—in part because of the federal government’s narrow expectations for recovery. In August 2017, the D.C. Circuit struck down a 2011 rule that removed the gray wolf from the endangered species list in the Western Great Lakes area. The court held that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had impermissibly failed to consider how the loss of the gray wolf’s historical range affected the species’ overall survival outlook. This decision highlighted some long-recognized shortcomings of the Service’s interpretation of recovery under the Endangered Species Act, including its concentration on core populations to the detriment of peripheral ones. Focusing on the complex history of the gray wolf, this Note explores traditional justifications for species preservation, as well as justifications for a broader geographic recovery of a species. In doing so, it identifies a repertoire of principles that should inform future decisions about a species’ geographic restoration, and by reflecting on these principles, it argues for a more purposeful consideration of a species’ historical range.","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":"45 1","pages":"289"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67562928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Within the current state of international jurisprudence, there is a growing recognition of the importance of ocean environmental protection. One of the most significant recent examples is the decision in the South China Sea Arbitration, which recognized the obligation of States to protect and preserve the marine environment in disputed territorial or maritime areas. Despite this overall trend, however, serious gaps in State practice remain. In particular, current research on State practice of national and regional marine pollution contingency planning in the Asia-Pacific reveals that there has been little regard displayed in the region for accommodating a proactive approach to marine environmental protection. The international community, particularly the States that are suffering the consequences of climate change and sea-level rise, is attempting to tackle the problem of climate change and to find ways to mitigate its damages. One suggestion has been to bring a legal claim before an international tribunal to commence climate change litigation. From the perspective of the current regime of international law, including the Law of the Sea and State responsibility, the feasibility and effectiveness of climate change litigation is highly questionable. This is largely due to the challenges of establishing causation and other related issues. An alternative suggestion is to use the legal mechanism of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, not to adjudicate the issue, but to seek the issuance of an advisory opinion on the legal question presented by climate change in light of international agreements related to the purposes of this Convention. The problem with such an advisory opinion, however, would be its potential for ineffectiveness due to its non-binding character. In conclusion, there is no single solution to resolve the issue of climate change. However, a better understanding of the linkages between Parties' obligations under relevant treaties such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, among others, may provide an additional impetus for States to take climate change seriously and increase efforts to negotiate additional agreements and implement them effectively.
{"title":"Part XII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Duty to Mitigate Against Climate Change: Making Out a Claim, Causation, and Related Issues","authors":"Seokwoo Lee, Lowell B. Bautista","doi":"10.15779/Z38M32N965","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38M32N965","url":null,"abstract":"Within the current state of international jurisprudence, there is a growing recognition of the importance of ocean environmental protection. One of the most significant recent examples is the decision in the South China Sea Arbitration, which recognized the obligation of States to protect and preserve the marine environment in disputed territorial or maritime areas. Despite this overall trend, however, serious gaps in State practice remain. In particular, current research on State practice of national and regional marine pollution contingency planning in the Asia-Pacific reveals that there has been little regard displayed in the region for accommodating a proactive approach to marine environmental protection. The international community, particularly the States that are suffering the consequences of climate change and sea-level rise, is attempting to tackle the problem of climate change and to find ways to mitigate its damages. One suggestion has been to bring a legal claim before an international tribunal to commence climate change litigation. From the perspective of the current regime of international law, including the Law of the Sea and State responsibility, the feasibility and effectiveness of climate change litigation is highly questionable. This is largely due to the challenges of establishing causation and other related issues. An alternative suggestion is to use the legal mechanism of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, not to adjudicate the issue, but to seek the issuance of an advisory opinion on the legal question presented by climate change in light of international agreements related to the purposes of this Convention. The problem with such an advisory opinion, however, would be its potential for ineffectiveness due to its non-binding character. In conclusion, there is no single solution to resolve the issue of climate change. However, a better understanding of the linkages between Parties' obligations under relevant treaties such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, among others, may provide an additional impetus for States to take climate change seriously and increase efforts to negotiate additional agreements and implement them effectively.","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":"166 1","pages":"129"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67503426","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The oceans and their biodiversity are coming under increasing threat from climate-change impacts including increasing water temperatures, deoxygenation, and ocean acidification. The adverse effects of climate change are exacerbating the stresses experienced by species, habitats, and ecosystems in all marine areas and diminishing the ecological services they provide. Identifying the nature and extent of climate-change impacts on marine biodiversity through environmental impact assessment and associated mitigation measures is a critical step towards lessening adverse impacts and stemming biodiversity loss. While legal and institutional frameworks for environmental impact assessment are well established for marine areas under national jurisdiction, collaborative structures and mechanisms for environmental impact assessment in areas beyond national jurisdiction are still fragmentary and underdeveloped. This Article reviews the existing international law and policy framework for environmental impact assessment in areas beyond national jurisdiction and discusses options for incorporating consideration of climatechange impacts into environmental impact assessment processes through a new international legally binding instrument for conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction being developed through the United Nations General Assembly.
{"title":"Oceans in Transition: Incorporating Climate-Change Impacts into Environmental Impact Assessment for Marine Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction","authors":"Robin Warner","doi":"10.15779/Z38M61BQ0J","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38M61BQ0J","url":null,"abstract":"The oceans and their biodiversity are coming under increasing threat from climate-change impacts including increasing water temperatures, deoxygenation, and ocean acidification. The adverse effects of climate change are exacerbating the stresses experienced by species, habitats, and ecosystems in all marine areas and diminishing the ecological services they provide. Identifying the nature and extent of climate-change impacts on marine biodiversity through environmental impact assessment and associated mitigation measures is a critical step towards lessening adverse impacts and stemming biodiversity loss. While legal and institutional frameworks for environmental impact assessment are well established for marine areas under national jurisdiction, collaborative structures and mechanisms for environmental impact assessment in areas beyond national jurisdiction are still fragmentary and underdeveloped. This Article reviews the existing international law and policy framework for environmental impact assessment in areas beyond national jurisdiction and discusses options for incorporating consideration of climatechange impacts into environmental impact assessment processes through a new international legally binding instrument for conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction being developed through the United Nations General Assembly.","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":"45 1","pages":"31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67503972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Addressing the threat of climate change will require a large-scale transition from fossil fuel-generated power to renewable energy. However, climate change has been politicized in the United States to such an extent that many states’ lawmakers resist embracing wind and solar power for the simple reason that it is favored by liberals. Fortunately, there are now economic as well as environmental reasons why republican lawmakers should encourage solar and wind sectors in their states. This Note looks at how two traditionally “red” states—Texas and Arizona—have engaged with renewable energy. As this Note shows, Texas embraced wind power because it created jobs, improved reliability and lowered residents’ energy bills. In Arizona, despite the size of the solar industry in the state, solar power remains controversial, in large part because most of the power is exported to California, giving little direct benefit to ordinary Arizonans. The Note concludes by arguing that renewable energy advocates should focus on the economic good that the industry can do in states that are traditionally skeptical of climate change.
{"title":"The Only Green That Matters is the Green in Your Pocket: Advocating for Renewable Energy in Red States","authors":"Noah Guiney","doi":"10.15779/Z38RV0D120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38RV0D120","url":null,"abstract":"Addressing the threat of climate change will require a large-scale transition from fossil fuel-generated power to renewable energy. However, climate change has been politicized in the United States to such an extent that many states’ lawmakers resist embracing wind and solar power for the simple reason that it is favored by liberals. Fortunately, there are now economic as well as environmental reasons why republican lawmakers should encourage solar and wind sectors in their states. This Note looks at how two traditionally “red” states—Texas and Arizona—have engaged with renewable energy. As this Note shows, Texas embraced wind power because it created jobs, improved reliability and lowered residents’ energy bills. In Arizona, despite the size of the solar industry in the state, solar power remains controversial, in large part because most of the power is exported to California, giving little direct benefit to ordinary Arizonans. The Note concludes by arguing that renewable energy advocates should focus on the economic good that the industry can do in states that are traditionally skeptical of climate change.","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":"45 1","pages":"163"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67542781","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Protecting Offshore Areas from Oil and Gas Leasing: Presidential Authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the Antiquities Act","authors":"R. Anderson","doi":"10.15779/Z38XP6V365","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38XP6V365","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":"6 1","pages":"727"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67586614","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the forty-four years since President Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act (ESA), states have become increasingly frustrated by the lack of meaningful opportunities for involvement in the Act’s implementation. This frustration has led to a national discussion on ESA reform, a Republican priority supported by the bipartisan Western Governors’ Association and others. The frustration stems from being relegated to a post-listing back seat, despite state primacy in the management of imperiled species prior to a listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA. This frustration is well placed, as this is not the role Congress intended states to play when it passed the ESA in 1973. Instead, under the long-forgotten section 6(g)(2) of the ESA, Congress provided states with the authority to oversee the implementation of the ESA post-listing. This Article advocates for the utilization of this never-implemented authority to achieve non-legislative ESA reform. In reaching that conclusion, this Article provides a uniquely comprehensive review of the legislative and regulatory history of the ESA, providing a clear demonstration of Congress’s intent to create a cooperative federalism regime under the ESA and the regulatory agencies’ refusal to carry that intent forward.
{"title":"Wildlife Issues are Local - So Why Isn't ESA Implementation?","authors":"Temple Stoellinger","doi":"10.15779/Z38CZ3251H","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38CZ3251H","url":null,"abstract":"In the forty-four years since President Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act (ESA), states have become increasingly frustrated by the lack of meaningful opportunities for involvement in the Act’s implementation. This frustration has led to a national discussion on ESA reform, a Republican priority supported by the bipartisan Western Governors’ Association and others. The frustration stems from being relegated to a post-listing back seat, despite state primacy in the management of imperiled species prior to a listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA. This frustration is well placed, as this is not the role Congress intended states to play when it passed the ESA in 1973. Instead, under the long-forgotten section 6(g)(2) of the ESA, Congress provided states with the authority to oversee the implementation of the ESA post-listing. This Article advocates for the utilization of this never-implemented authority to achieve non-legislative ESA reform. In reaching that conclusion, this Article provides a uniquely comprehensive review of the legislative and regulatory history of the ESA, providing a clear demonstration of Congress’s intent to create a cooperative federalism regime under the ESA and the regulatory agencies’ refusal to carry that intent forward.","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":"44 1","pages":"681"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47493538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As 2016’s national election made clear, striking ideological differences between cities and their surrounding states exist in many parts of the country. One way this divide is manifesting itself is in state governments passing laws with the sole purpose of outlawing particular local conduct. For instance, recent state legislation has prohibited local governments from establishing a minimum wage, from prohibiting the use of plastic bags, and from protecting the rights of transgender individuals to use the bathroom of their identified gender. These state actions do not create substantive law; instead, they merely curtail the grant of authority—known, broadly speaking, as home rule—to municipalities.State override of local action in this way undermines the ability of local governments to address many kinds of harm. Local efforts to combat environmental issues seem particularly vulnerable to obstruction by state legislators. The trouble is, under traditional frameworks of state and local government law, this kind of targeted removal of local authority is likely justifiable. In consequence, legal scholarship on environmental localism has generally conceded failure within the home rule framework and looked only outside it for solutions to this problem. This Article explores whether acceptance of defeat in the face of state prohibitions on particular exercises of local environmental authority is warranted, and whether there is any path forward for local environmental policymaking within the traditional framework. Very generally, I propose that elements of environmental law—namely, state constitutional provisions and the public trust doctrine—may in fact offer a substantive basis for support of local authority in the face of targeted state removals of authority. By making these elements part of the home rule analysis, courts may be able to provide some protection against targeted removals of local authority.
{"title":"Home Rule in an Era of Local Environmental Innovation","authors":"S. Fox","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2916917","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2916917","url":null,"abstract":"As 2016’s national election made clear, striking ideological differences between cities and their surrounding states exist in many parts of the country. One way this divide is manifesting itself is in state governments passing laws with the sole purpose of outlawing particular local conduct. For instance, recent state legislation has prohibited local governments from establishing a minimum wage, from prohibiting the use of plastic bags, and from protecting the rights of transgender individuals to use the bathroom of their identified gender. These state actions do not create substantive law; instead, they merely curtail the grant of authority—known, broadly speaking, as home rule—to municipalities.State override of local action in this way undermines the ability of local governments to address many kinds of harm. Local efforts to combat environmental issues seem particularly vulnerable to obstruction by state legislators. The trouble is, under traditional frameworks of state and local government law, this kind of targeted removal of local authority is likely justifiable. In consequence, legal scholarship on environmental localism has generally conceded failure within the home rule framework and looked only outside it for solutions to this problem. This Article explores whether acceptance of defeat in the face of state prohibitions on particular exercises of local environmental authority is warranted, and whether there is any path forward for local environmental policymaking within the traditional framework. Very generally, I propose that elements of environmental law—namely, state constitutional provisions and the public trust doctrine—may in fact offer a substantive basis for support of local authority in the face of targeted state removals of authority. By making these elements part of the home rule analysis, courts may be able to provide some protection against targeted removals of local authority.","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":"44 1","pages":"575"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46616020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 2016, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a nonprofit group’s environmental citizen suit because it found that a government agency was already diligently prosecuting the defendant. The decision provided an important procedural precedent because it changed the standard by which agency prosecution is reviewed during a motion to dismiss. The case highlights the public health and safety concerns created when government enforcement fails to induce industry to comply with pollution laws. It also highlights the obstacles that citizen suits must overcome when attempting to fill the gaps with private enforcement efforts. This Note examines the Third Circuit’s procedural ruling, and argues that courts should end the practice of presuming the diligence of agency enforcement during a motion to dismiss; instead, courts should make nonbiased, context-specific reviews of the adequacy of agency enforcement. This process will ensure that citizen suits are able to fulfill their role of stepping in when agency enforcement fails to protect public health and safety.
{"title":"Adequate Agency Action? How Procedural Trends in Environmental Citizen Suit Litigation Prompt a Reconsideration of Deference and Presumptions of Diligence","authors":"Rachel Ryan","doi":"10.15779/Z38Z02Z861","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38Z02Z861","url":null,"abstract":"In 2016, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a nonprofit group’s environmental citizen suit because it found that a government agency was already diligently prosecuting the defendant. The decision provided an important procedural precedent because it changed the standard by which agency prosecution is reviewed during a motion to dismiss. The case highlights the public health and safety concerns created when government enforcement fails to induce industry to comply with pollution laws. It also highlights the obstacles that citizen suits must overcome when attempting to fill the gaps with private enforcement efforts. This Note examines the Third Circuit’s procedural ruling, and argues that courts should end the practice of presuming the diligence of agency enforcement during a motion to dismiss; instead, courts should make nonbiased, context-specific reviews of the adequacy of agency enforcement. This process will ensure that citizen suits are able to fulfill their role of stepping in when agency enforcement fails to protect public health and safety.","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":"44 1","pages":"445"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48482542","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"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：