The US-China trade war finally broke out in 2018 after more than a decade of gradual decline in bilateral relations. This article reviews the fierce debates among China’s most prominent international relations (IR) scholars and, respectively, some economists and business elites on various topics related to US-China relations, in particular, the trade war, from 2017 to 2020. Specifically, it addresses four topics: the causes for the decline in US-China relations, Beijing’s policy and strategy for dealing with Trump’s trade war, the impact of the ‘decoupling’ on China and the prospects for future bilateral relations. Intellectual elites try to influence government policies by participating in debates while the government also applies various means to influence scholars’ views and shape public opinion on the Internet. The article finds that Chinese scholars’ discussions on the trade war and Beijing’s policies were actually influenced by factors other than trade. If Washington adopts appropriate policies in the future, Beijing may still make concessions in the interests of the United States on trade and security issues.
{"title":"How Should China Respond to Trump’s New Round of Trade War? An Unprecedented Debate Among Chinese IR Scholars","authors":"Weizhan Meng, Xinkai Zeng","doi":"10.54648/trad2020042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2020042","url":null,"abstract":"The US-China trade war finally broke out in 2018 after more than a decade of gradual decline in bilateral relations. This article reviews the fierce debates among China’s most prominent international relations (IR) scholars and, respectively, some economists and business elites on various topics related to US-China relations, in particular, the trade war, from 2017 to 2020. Specifically, it addresses four topics: the causes for the decline in US-China relations, Beijing’s policy and strategy for dealing with Trump’s trade war, the impact of the ‘decoupling’ on China and the prospects for future bilateral relations. Intellectual elites try to influence government policies by participating in debates while the government also applies various means to influence scholars’ views and shape public opinion on the Internet. The article finds that Chinese scholars’ discussions on the trade war and Beijing’s policies were actually influenced by factors other than trade. If Washington adopts appropriate policies in the future, Beijing may still make concessions in the interests of the United States on trade and security issues.","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46832483","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 WTO members increasingly invoke security exceptions and the first panel report insofar was issued in Russia – Traffic in Transit, the methodical and procedural preliminaries of their adjudication must be reassessed. The preliminaries pertain to justiciability and to the proper interpretive approach for their vague terms that seemingly imply considerable discretion to WTO members, all the more as general exceptions are subject to expansive interpretation. Reading security exceptions expansively appears not viable as they miss the usual safeguard against abuse (i.e. the chapeau of Articles XX GATT/XIV GATS). This lack of safeguards rather suggests caution in conceptualising them expansively, as do the systemic consequences of recent attempts to re-politicize security exceptions which run the risk of nullifying the concept of multilateral trade regulation altogether. Furthermore, the appropriate standards of review and proof must be explored which have to strike a balance between control and deference in national security.
{"title":"Adjudicating Security Exceptions in WTO Law: Methodical and Procedural Preliminaries","authors":"W. Weiss","doi":"10.54648/trad2020036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2020036","url":null,"abstract":"As WTO members increasingly invoke security exceptions and the first panel report insofar was issued in Russia – Traffic in Transit, the methodical and procedural preliminaries of their adjudication must be reassessed. The preliminaries pertain to justiciability and to the proper interpretive approach for their vague terms that seemingly imply considerable discretion to WTO members, all the more as general exceptions are subject to expansive interpretation. Reading security exceptions expansively appears not viable as they miss the usual safeguard against abuse (i.e. the chapeau of Articles XX GATT/XIV GATS). This lack of safeguards rather suggests caution in conceptualising them expansively, as do the systemic consequences of recent attempts to re-politicize security exceptions which run the risk of nullifying the concept of multilateral trade regulation altogether. Furthermore, the appropriate standards of review and proof must be explored which have to strike a balance between control and deference in national security.","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44821343","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}
This article examines China’s specific commitments and rules on trade in services included in its Preferential Trade Agreements. The findings reveal that so far such agreements include only modest improvements compared with General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). At the same time, the article argues that structural changes in China’s economy and a conducive policy environment are likely to stretch China’s preferential treatment on trade in services in years to come. However, the article warns that the dragon will remain particularly cautious to undertake new commitments that could limit its policy space to maintain its socialist market economy system, including disciplines on state owned enterprises, subsidies, competition and monopolies and exclusive service suppliers, data flows and regulatory coherence.
{"title":"China’s Preferential Treatment on Trade in Services: Is the Sleeping Dragon About to Wake Up?","authors":"G. Gari","doi":"10.54648/trad2020038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2020038","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines China’s specific commitments and rules on trade in services included in its Preferential Trade Agreements. The findings reveal that so far such agreements include only modest improvements compared with General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). At the same time, the article argues that structural changes in China’s economy and a conducive policy environment are likely to stretch China’s preferential treatment on trade in services in years to come. However, the article warns that the dragon will remain particularly cautious to undertake new commitments that could limit its policy space to maintain its socialist market economy system, including disciplines on state owned enterprises, subsidies, competition and monopolies and exclusive service suppliers, data flows and regulatory coherence.","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42581552","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}
Interestingly, there occur huge discrepancies in understanding and interpretation of the safeguard system between the World Trade Organization (WTO) panels and the Appellate Body (AB), even in its core concepts ranging from pre-conditions such as unforeseen developments to import increases, causation, types of injury, and permissible extent of the measure. These phenomena, which originate from the different approaches – contextual or literal – have contributed to the current debacles in the WTO dispute settlement system as well as egregious misuse of safeguard measures by WTO members. Future endeavours to reform the WTO system should therefore pay more attention to the safeguard system, especially where it causes unsettling jurisprudence.
{"title":"Judicial Conflicts between Panels and the Appellate Body in the WTO Safeguard Jurisprudence","authors":"Duk-Kyun Ahn, Hyerim Kim","doi":"10.54648/trad2020041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2020041","url":null,"abstract":"Interestingly, there occur huge discrepancies in understanding and interpretation of the safeguard system between the World Trade Organization (WTO) panels and the Appellate Body (AB), even in its core concepts ranging from pre-conditions such as unforeseen developments to import increases, causation, types of injury, and permissible extent of the measure. These phenomena, which originate from the different approaches – contextual or literal – have contributed to the current debacles in the WTO dispute settlement system as well as egregious misuse of safeguard measures by WTO members. Future endeavours to reform the WTO system should therefore pay more attention to the safeguard system, especially where it causes unsettling jurisprudence.","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45758644","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}
This article argues that the trade dispute between United States (US) and China should be an impetus for new rules and norms regarding technology transfer at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Technology transfer is a desirable outcome under WTO rules, including the Trade-Related Intellectual property Rights Agreement. However, Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) have failed to effectively promote and facilitate technology transfer. The problem lies in the nature of the intellectual property rights that TRIPs are intended to protect and enforce. Though necessary, by conferring exclusive rights to its holder, intellectual property rights have the unintended consequences of inhibiting competition and technology transfer. Furthermore, it may impede the transfer of technology from developed countries to developing countries where firms often lack the capacity to further innovate the technology it has acquired. This article proposes new norms at the WTO, in particular the TRIPs and SCM Agreement, to improve its efficacy in promoting and facilitating technology transfer.
{"title":"US–China Trade War An Impetus for New Norms on Technology Transfer","authors":"Ronald Eberhard Tundang","doi":"10.54648/trad2020040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2020040","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that the trade dispute between United States (US) and China should be an impetus for new rules and norms regarding technology transfer at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Technology transfer is a desirable outcome under WTO rules, including the Trade-Related Intellectual property Rights Agreement. However, Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) have failed to effectively promote and facilitate technology transfer. The problem lies in the nature of the intellectual property rights that TRIPs are intended to protect and enforce. Though necessary, by conferring exclusive rights to its holder, intellectual property rights have the unintended consequences of inhibiting competition and technology transfer. Furthermore, it may impede the transfer of technology from developed countries to developing countries where firms often lack the capacity to further innovate the technology it has acquired. This article proposes new norms at the WTO, in particular the TRIPs and SCM Agreement, to improve its efficacy in promoting and facilitating technology transfer.","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45927018","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}
Subsidies are a critical instrument in the toolbox that national governments use to address market failures and achieve a variety of policy goals. However, critics often arise to point out the inefficiencies and economic distortions that subsidies create, which raise the question of whether the existing WTO subsidy rules are adequate, and how to reshape WTO subsidy rules to address new emerging concerns especially in a global value-chain world. This article first reviews WTO Members’ subsidy-related proposals under the Doha Development Agenda and then addresses key concerns on subsidy rules in the current broader discussion of the WTO reform, trying to figure out feasible approaches toward shaping a ‘new generation’ of subsidy rules under the aegis of the WTO.
{"title":"Reforming WTO Subsidy Rules: Past Experiences and Prospects","authors":"Siqiwen Li, Xinquan Tu","doi":"10.54648/trad2020037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2020037","url":null,"abstract":"Subsidies are a critical instrument in the toolbox that national governments use to address market failures and achieve a variety of policy goals. However, critics often arise to point out the inefficiencies and economic distortions that subsidies create, which raise the question of whether the existing WTO subsidy rules are adequate, and how to reshape WTO subsidy rules to address new emerging concerns especially in a global value-chain world. This article first reviews WTO Members’ subsidy-related proposals under the Doha Development Agenda and then addresses key concerns on subsidy rules in the current broader discussion of the WTO reform, trying to figure out feasible approaches toward shaping a ‘new generation’ of subsidy rules under the aegis of the WTO.","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47064329","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}
EU institutions often use trade defence measures to shield EU industries from competition. These measures come at the expense of importers and foreign exporting producers. The most feasible avenue for importers and exporting producers to obtain a practicable remedy is by challenging an adverse trade defence measure before the EU Courts. However, the EU Courts have adopted a strict approach to challenges to trade defence measures, which increasingly requires sophisticated litigation strategies to overcome multiple hurdles. First, the standing requirements to have a case admitted are stringent. Second, the burden to prove substantive or procedural errors in trade defence proceedings is high. Third, even if a case is successful, the EU Courts recognize that the EU institutions almost unbridled discretion in implementing judgments. These hurdles to litigating trade defence measures risk curtailing the role of the EU Courts in limiting the Commission’s powers in a way that maintains proper checks and balances. They also put on applicants the task to develop tools and arguments to address and overcome these hurdles.
{"title":"Hurdles to Litigating Trade Defence Measures Before the EU Courts","authors":"A. Moroni, Bregt Natens, A. Willems","doi":"10.54648/trad2020039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2020039","url":null,"abstract":"EU institutions often use trade defence measures to shield EU industries from competition. These measures come at the expense of importers and foreign exporting producers. The most feasible avenue for importers and exporting producers to obtain a practicable remedy is by challenging an adverse trade defence measure before the EU Courts. However, the EU Courts have adopted a strict approach to challenges to trade defence measures, which increasingly requires sophisticated litigation strategies to overcome multiple hurdles. First, the standing requirements to have a case admitted are stringent. Second, the burden to prove substantive or procedural errors in trade defence proceedings is high. Third, even if a case is successful, the EU Courts recognize that the EU institutions almost unbridled discretion in implementing judgments. These hurdles to litigating trade defence measures risk curtailing the role of the EU Courts in limiting the Commission’s powers in a way that maintains proper checks and balances. They also put on applicants the task to develop tools and arguments to address and overcome these hurdles.","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43116239","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}
Digitalization considerably complicates the application of previous trade remedy norms to the new and expanding digital services trade, and there is a need to reprioritize and restructure the existing framework to reflect this difference. Emergency safeguard is an essential element in the trade regime, but the classic concept of GATT-type safeguard measures that is based on a dichotomy of tariff and nontariff barriers and clear-cut rules between goods and services are not suitable for regulating the expanding digital services transactions where barriers tend to be much more diverse and less obvious. Hence, a new trade remedy framework must incorporate the elements of convergence, interconnectedness and externality, while taking a sectoral approach, as generic rules on trade remedies that cater to all possible scenarios and sectors are no longer suitable in these realms. It must prioritize rules-making on subsidies and domestic tax schemes, while also considering for issues specific to the digital features such as data flow restrictions and their implications. Digital trade, digital services, trade remedy rules, emergency safeguard, GATT
{"title":"Trade Remedy Rules for Digital Services: Inapplicability of GATT-type Safeguard Rules","authors":"Nayu Kim","doi":"10.54648/trad2020035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2020035","url":null,"abstract":"Digitalization considerably complicates the application of previous trade remedy norms to the new and expanding digital services trade, and there is a need to reprioritize and restructure the existing framework to reflect this difference. Emergency safeguard is an essential element in the trade regime, but the classic concept of GATT-type safeguard measures that is based on a dichotomy of tariff and nontariff barriers and clear-cut rules between goods and services are not suitable for regulating the expanding digital services transactions where barriers tend to be much more diverse and less obvious. Hence, a new trade remedy framework must incorporate the elements of convergence, interconnectedness and externality, while taking a sectoral approach, as generic rules on trade remedies that cater to all possible scenarios and sectors are no longer suitable in these realms. It must prioritize rules-making on subsidies and domestic tax schemes, while also considering for issues specific to the digital features such as data flow restrictions and their implications.\u0000Digital trade, digital services, trade remedy rules, emergency safeguard, GATT","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43854736","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}
This article proposes that the function of trade rules with respect to low-carbon technology diffusion should be to address the identified market-related barriers preventing cross-border dispersion of the necessary technologies. By doing so, it seeks to expand the discussion in the WTO regarding trade, technology transfer, and climate change beyond the traditional confines of intellectual property issues. To that effect, it outlines a new framework against the normative background of Common Concern of Humankind, an emerging legal doctrine. This is further followed by highlighting the key areas of action, which includes - market access reform to reduce costs, process and production measures (PPMs) to increase demand for clean technologies, and making rational and appropriate incentives available domestically and also for exports. Trade and Climate, Low-carbon technology diffusion, Transfer of technology, Market failure, Technology market reform, Common concern of humankind
{"title":"A Trade Policy Agenda for the Diffusion of Low-Carbon Technologies","authors":"Zakeri Ahmad","doi":"10.54648/trad2020033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2020033","url":null,"abstract":"This article proposes that the function of trade rules with respect to low-carbon technology diffusion should be to address the identified market-related barriers preventing cross-border dispersion of the necessary technologies. By doing so, it seeks to expand the discussion in the WTO regarding trade, technology transfer, and climate change beyond the traditional confines of intellectual property issues. To that effect, it outlines a new framework against the normative background of Common Concern of Humankind, an emerging legal doctrine. This is further followed by highlighting the key areas of action, which includes - market access reform to reduce costs, process and production measures (PPMs) to increase demand for clean technologies, and making rational and appropriate incentives available domestically and also for exports.\u0000Trade and Climate, Low-carbon technology diffusion, Transfer of technology, Market failure, Technology market reform, Common concern of humankind","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43851563","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 existing policy tools of the European Union (EU) to fight against dumping and foreign subsidies do not cover all potential effects of foreign subsidies or support schemes by third countries on the EU internal market. As part of the ongoing discussions to address these distortive subsidies, this article highlights section 15(b) of China’s Accession Protocol to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The provision remains largely unexplored, both in practice and in case law, but offers advantages in its application compared to the normal trade remedy calculation rules: There is no explicit stipulation of an expiration (no fifteen-year timeframe), the threshold to rely on the section is relatively low (only ‘special difficulties’ need to exist), and the way how to determine the benchmarks for the benefit is open (both adjustments and alternative methodologies are foreseen). Particularly, within the stage of examination of ‘special difficulties’, the Commission has considerable latitude and may introduce a shift of burden of proof, putting the onus on Chinese exporters to prove they do not benefit from state subsidies. WTO Members should start conducting well-coordinated countervailing investigations domestically and initiate cases at the WTO at the same time to find out where the WTO system sets the limits of applying section 15(b) Chinese Accession Protocol (CAP). Countervailing Duties, Anti-Subsidy, China’s Accession Protocol, section 15(b) CAP, Industrial Policy, Foreign Subsidies, State-Owned Enterprises, Burden of Proof, Alternative Benchmarks, Subsidy Benefit
{"title":"Countervailing Measures and China’s Accession Protocol to the WTO","authors":"Pieter Van Vaerenbergh, Marc Bungenberg","doi":"10.54648/trad2020032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2020032","url":null,"abstract":"The existing policy tools of the European Union (EU) to fight against dumping and foreign subsidies do not cover all potential effects of foreign subsidies or support schemes by third countries on the EU internal market. As part of the ongoing discussions to address these distortive subsidies, this article highlights section 15(b) of China’s Accession Protocol to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The provision remains largely unexplored, both in practice and in case law, but offers advantages in its application compared to the normal trade remedy calculation rules: There is no explicit stipulation of an expiration (no fifteen-year timeframe), the threshold to rely on the section is relatively low (only ‘special difficulties’ need to exist), and the way how to determine the benchmarks for the benefit is open (both adjustments and alternative methodologies are foreseen). Particularly, within the stage of examination of ‘special difficulties’, the Commission has considerable latitude and may introduce a shift of burden of proof, putting the onus on Chinese exporters to prove they do not benefit from state subsidies. WTO Members should start conducting well-coordinated countervailing investigations domestically and initiate cases at the WTO at the same time to find out where the WTO system sets the limits of applying section 15(b) Chinese Accession Protocol (CAP).\u0000Countervailing Duties, Anti-Subsidy, China’s Accession Protocol, section 15(b) CAP, Industrial Policy, Foreign Subsidies, State-Owned Enterprises, Burden of Proof, Alternative Benchmarks, Subsidy Benefit","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44192724","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：