The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is familiar to international human rights lawyers worldwide. Celebrations of its adoption have included commemorative sessions held in the United Nations (UN) General Assembly during milestone anniversary years. Scholarship has not yet considered these sessions together, exploring what may be learned about the UDHR in this UN body as a result. This is the work that the present article undertakes. It finds that, when considered collectively, anniversary days in the General Assembly assist in creating a picture of the UDHR as a legal text in time. This reveals how commemorative activity has engaged with the UDHR in fluid ways and also in ways that stress or demonstrate aspects of continuity. From this analysis, it is possible to deepen understanding of engagements with the UDHR throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and anniversary days emerge as an under-utilized resource for international human rights lawyers.
{"title":"‘If Only for a Day’: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Anniversary Commemoration and International Human Rights Law","authors":"Kathryn McNeilly","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngad003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngad003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is familiar to international human rights lawyers worldwide. Celebrations of its adoption have included commemorative sessions held in the United Nations (UN) General Assembly during milestone anniversary years. Scholarship has not yet considered these sessions together, exploring what may be learned about the UDHR in this UN body as a result. This is the work that the present article undertakes. It finds that, when considered collectively, anniversary days in the General Assembly assist in creating a picture of the UDHR as a legal text in time. This reveals how commemorative activity has engaged with the UDHR in fluid ways and also in ways that stress or demonstrate aspects of continuity. From this analysis, it is possible to deepen understanding of engagements with the UDHR throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and anniversary days emerge as an under-utilized resource for international human rights lawyers.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46039733","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article examines the enjoyment of the right to liberty of residents of aged care homes, with a particular focus on those living with cognitive disability (most notably, dementia), and the tension between upholding a person’s autonomy and protecting them and others from harm. The analysis approaches this potential tension from two perspectives: firstly, by examining and evaluating different legal conceptions of the right to liberty of the person, and secondly, by examining the conditions and related rights, which enable the enjoyment of the right to liberty by aged care residents living with cognitive disability, including the right to autonomy and the right to long-term quality care. It is argued that a relational approach to autonomy is required, which places the enjoyment of the right to liberty within the broader context of an autonomy-enabling environment. Interrogating what we mean by ‘autonomy’ and ‘care’ may facilitate the enjoyment of the right to liberty for those most vulnerable in residential care.
{"title":"Enabling the Right to Liberty of the Person in Aged Care Homes","authors":"Alison Kesby","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngad005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngad005","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the enjoyment of the right to liberty of residents of aged care homes, with a particular focus on those living with cognitive disability (most notably, dementia), and the tension between upholding a person’s autonomy and protecting them and others from harm. The analysis approaches this potential tension from two perspectives: firstly, by examining and evaluating different legal conceptions of the right to liberty of the person, and secondly, by examining the conditions and related rights, which enable the enjoyment of the right to liberty by aged care residents living with cognitive disability, including the right to autonomy and the right to long-term quality care. It is argued that a relational approach to autonomy is required, which places the enjoyment of the right to liberty within the broader context of an autonomy-enabling environment. Interrogating what we mean by ‘autonomy’ and ‘care’ may facilitate the enjoyment of the right to liberty for those most vulnerable in residential care.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":"270 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136156876","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The State duty to prevent preventable prisoner deaths is easy to state and substantiate. Yet prisoner death rates are increasing around the world and are often much higher than those in the community. To understand why this is happening, the findings and recommendations of the country reports of international oversight bodies and thematic reports from international rapporteurs are synthesised with contemporary rights-informed penal standards, multi-disciplinary scholarship, non-governmental organization reports and media extracts. On the basis of this knowledge, this reform-oriented article explores the impact of structural, societal and environmental factors on natural and violent prisoner deaths and how these factors operate cumulatively to create dangerous and life-threatening custodial environments. The paper makes recommendations to reaffirm and enumerate the positive obligation to protect prisoners’ lives, develop specialist standards, adopt a broader approach to prison oversight and create a specific United Nations mandate on prisoner rights.
{"title":"Prisoner Lives Cut Short: The Need to Address Structural, Societal and Environmental Factors to Reduce Preventable Prisoner Deaths","authors":"Róisín Mulgrew","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngad006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngad006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The State duty to prevent preventable prisoner deaths is easy to state and substantiate. Yet prisoner death rates are increasing around the world and are often much higher than those in the community. To understand why this is happening, the findings and recommendations of the country reports of international oversight bodies and thematic reports from international rapporteurs are synthesised with contemporary rights-informed penal standards, multi-disciplinary scholarship, non-governmental organization reports and media extracts. On the basis of this knowledge, this reform-oriented article explores the impact of structural, societal and environmental factors on natural and violent prisoner deaths and how these factors operate cumulatively to create dangerous and life-threatening custodial environments. The paper makes recommendations to reaffirm and enumerate the positive obligation to protect prisoners’ lives, develop specialist standards, adopt a broader approach to prison oversight and create a specific United Nations mandate on prisoner rights.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42341307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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 UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Right to Peace. This article examines whether the implementation of the Declaration can likely lead to the realization of the right to peace in a way that elicits sustainable peace within societies. Thus, diverging from earlier studies, it provides conceptual and practical critiques of the Declaration to evaluate the viability of the right. First, following an in-depth analysis of the Declaration, this article draws on peace and conflict studies to explain what sustainable intra-state peace entails. Second, it establishes that the liberal and positive elements of peace and the frameworks prescribed in the Declaration are inadequate to address horizontal inequalities across all relevant identity groups qua groups, which is required to elicit sustainable peace. Third, it proposes guiding principles to direct implementing institutions, particularly UN bodies and frameworks, towards diagnosing and tackling inequalities across collectivities, thereby complementing the prevailing individualistic human rights approach.
{"title":"The 2016 UN General Assembly Declaration on the Right to Peace: A Step towards Sustainable Positive Peace within Societies?","authors":"T. Turan","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngad007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngad007","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In 2016, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Right to Peace. This article examines whether the implementation of the Declaration can likely lead to the realization of the right to peace in a way that elicits sustainable peace within societies. Thus, diverging from earlier studies, it provides conceptual and practical critiques of the Declaration to evaluate the viability of the right. First, following an in-depth analysis of the Declaration, this article draws on peace and conflict studies to explain what sustainable intra-state peace entails. Second, it establishes that the liberal and positive elements of peace and the frameworks prescribed in the Declaration are inadequate to address horizontal inequalities across all relevant identity groups qua groups, which is required to elicit sustainable peace. Third, it proposes guiding principles to direct implementing institutions, particularly UN bodies and frameworks, towards diagnosing and tackling inequalities across collectivities, thereby complementing the prevailing individualistic human rights approach.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48885783","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The COVID-19 pandemic has drawn public attention to the long-standing issues of social isolation and loneliness of older persons living in residential long-term care (LTC) and has increased awareness of the importance of social participation. This article aims to contribute towards a shift in the understanding of how the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) may be applied in aged-care. It argues that the CRPD, in particular Article 19 (Living independently and being included in the community), has considerable potential to protect the right to social participation. It is also argued that changes in LTC settings and support may assist in protecting this right. Furthermore, the participation of older persons in this process and cultural change within LTC provider organizations and the general community is crucial. However, applying the Convention in the aged-care context raises challenges that require further consideration by human rights mechanisms.
{"title":"Protecting the Right to Social Participation of Older Persons in Long-Term Care under Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities","authors":"Rachel Morrison-Dayan","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngad004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngad004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The COVID-19 pandemic has drawn public attention to the long-standing issues of social isolation and loneliness of older persons living in residential long-term care (LTC) and has increased awareness of the importance of social participation. This article aims to contribute towards a shift in the understanding of how the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) may be applied in aged-care. It argues that the CRPD, in particular Article 19 (Living independently and being included in the community), has considerable potential to protect the right to social participation. It is also argued that changes in LTC settings and support may assist in protecting this right. Furthermore, the participation of older persons in this process and cultural change within LTC provider organizations and the general community is crucial. However, applying the Convention in the aged-care context raises challenges that require further consideration by human rights mechanisms.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49472371","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article deals with three admissibility decisions by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child where it found that it was competent to consider the merits of individual complaints against France submitted by relatives of French children staying in Syrian prison camps. Paving the way for the Committee subsequently to hold that France had violated the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the decisions are noteworthy for the Committee’s expansive notion of extraterritorial jurisdiction, which also has been adopted in other cases on the same subject, but also beyond. The article highlights two methodological features of the decisions that are closely related, notably their departure from generally accepted principles of treaty interpretation and their alignment with arguments submitted by the third-party interveners. It is argued that these features effectively undercut the authority of the Committee’s practice as source material when subjecting the treaty to legal interpretation.
{"title":"The Committee on the Rights of the Child’s Admissibility Decisions in the ‘Syrian Camps Cases’ against France: a Critique from the Viewpoint of Treaty Interpretation","authors":"M. Emberland","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngad008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngad008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The article deals with three admissibility decisions by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child where it found that it was competent to consider the merits of individual complaints against France submitted by relatives of French children staying in Syrian prison camps. Paving the way for the Committee subsequently to hold that France had violated the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the decisions are noteworthy for the Committee’s expansive notion of extraterritorial jurisdiction, which also has been adopted in other cases on the same subject, but also beyond. The article highlights two methodological features of the decisions that are closely related, notably their departure from generally accepted principles of treaty interpretation and their alignment with arguments submitted by the third-party interveners. It is argued that these features effectively undercut the authority of the Committee’s practice as source material when subjecting the treaty to legal interpretation.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44048271","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In September 2022, 10 years had passed since the Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights were adopted by the Human Rights Council. The Guiding Principles, as a soft law human rights instrument, were designed to be a useful tool for states in the formulation and implementation of poverty reduction and eradication policies. In this piece, I examine to what extent this objective has been met. Based on empirical research involving states’ representatives and civil society organizations, and analysis of the documents produced by United Nations bodies that played a key role in developing a human rights-based approach to poverty, I argue that this objective has been met only to a limited extent.
{"title":"All Beginnings Are Difficult: The Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights a Decade After Their Adoption","authors":"Adam Ploszka","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngad001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngad001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In September 2022, 10 years had passed since the Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights were adopted by the Human Rights Council. The Guiding Principles, as a soft law human rights instrument, were designed to be a useful tool for states in the formulation and implementation of poverty reduction and eradication policies. In this piece, I examine to what extent this objective has been met. Based on empirical research involving states’ representatives and civil society organizations, and analysis of the documents produced by United Nations bodies that played a key role in developing a human rights-based approach to poverty, I argue that this objective has been met only to a limited extent.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47652358","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is no formal hierarchy between, or international rule of precedent applicable to, the three regional human rights systems and the eight UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies with active competence to entertain individual complaints. By scrutinising the practice of duplicative proceedings of UN Treaty Bodies (UNTBs), this article makes the argument that the res judicata and lis pendens principles have not prevented the UNTBs from reviewing cases previously examined by a regional human rights court. In doing so, the case is made that while the UNTBs usually defer to regional courts’ factual and legal findings when analyzing cases with the same parties, substantive rights, facts and events, judgments that apply the margin of appreciation doctrine are much more at risk of being revised and contradicted by UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies. Distinct opportunities for horizontal dialogue between UNTBs and regional human rights courts are thus opened.
{"title":"Defer or Revise? Horizontal Dialogue Between UN Treaty Bodies and Regional Human Rights Courts in Duplicative Legal Proceedings","authors":"Alexandre Skander Galand","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngad009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngad009","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 There is no formal hierarchy between, or international rule of precedent applicable to, the three regional human rights systems and the eight UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies with active competence to entertain individual complaints. By scrutinising the practice of duplicative proceedings of UN Treaty Bodies (UNTBs), this article makes the argument that the res judicata and lis pendens principles have not prevented the UNTBs from reviewing cases previously examined by a regional human rights court. In doing so, the case is made that while the UNTBs usually defer to regional courts’ factual and legal findings when analyzing cases with the same parties, substantive rights, facts and events, judgments that apply the margin of appreciation doctrine are much more at risk of being revised and contradicted by UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies. Distinct opportunities for horizontal dialogue between UNTBs and regional human rights courts are thus opened.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43147988","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. Bueno de Mesquita, C. Lougarre, L. Montel, S. Sekalala
While the right to health has gained significant momentum in international law over the past two years, there is little clarity on what it means for States to comply with this right in times of COVID-19. Taking Articles 2(1) and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as a starting point, our article follows an approach guided by the rules of treaty interpretation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to suggest how right to health obligations to prevent, treat and control infectious diseases should be interpreted in relation to COVID-19, and how these obligations interact with general obligations of immediacy, progressive realisation, minimum core and international assistance and cooperation in this context. This article makes a novel contribution to clarifying the right to health during COVID-19, thus enhancing capacity for the oversight of this right; its incorporation in global health law; and the understanding of its corresponding obligations in future global health emergencies.
{"title":"Lodestar in the Time of Coronavirus? Interpreting International Obligations to Realise the Right to Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic","authors":"J. Bueno de Mesquita, C. Lougarre, L. Montel, S. Sekalala","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngac036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngac036","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 While the right to health has gained significant momentum in international law over the past two years, there is little clarity on what it means for States to comply with this right in times of COVID-19. Taking Articles 2(1) and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as a starting point, our article follows an approach guided by the rules of treaty interpretation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to suggest how right to health obligations to prevent, treat and control infectious diseases should be interpreted in relation to COVID-19, and how these obligations interact with general obligations of immediacy, progressive realisation, minimum core and international assistance and cooperation in this context. This article makes a novel contribution to clarifying the right to health during COVID-19, thus enhancing capacity for the oversight of this right; its incorporation in global health law; and the understanding of its corresponding obligations in future global health emergencies.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46895490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article analyses the recent judgments of Buturugă v Romania and Volodina v Russia (No 2), the first judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) to recognise cyberviolence against women as a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR in circumstances where the respondent states failed to discharge their positive obligations to prevent, protect from and punish acts of cyberviolence against women. While the Court’s judgments in both cases have much to commend insofar as they expressly recognise cyberviolence against women as a human rights violation, this article posits that the Court’s framing of its analyses in both judgments under Article 8 rather than Article 3 is problematic for several reasons: first, Article 8 is a qualified right that may be subject to lawful interference by states; secondly, the invocation of Article 8 does not adequately capture the gravity of the human rights violation and, more broadly, undermines the significant progress made in establishing violence against women as a violation of the prohibition of torture, in human or degrading treatment or punishment under international law; and thirdly, the recognition of cyberviolence against women as a violation of Article 8 does little to address the recalibrated public/private distinction under international law in the digital era, which has contributed to the prevalence of cyberviolence against women. This article contends that in the future the Court’s analysis of complaints concerning cyberviolence against women would be considerably improved by examining complaints under Article 3 rather than Article 8.
{"title":"Cyberviolence Against Women Under International Human Rights Law: Buturugă v Romania and Volodina v Russia (No 2)","authors":"Adaena Sinclair-Blakemore","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngac033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngac033","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article analyses the recent judgments of Buturugă v Romania and Volodina v Russia (No 2), the first judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) to recognise cyberviolence against women as a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR in circumstances where the respondent states failed to discharge their positive obligations to prevent, protect from and punish acts of cyberviolence against women. While the Court’s judgments in both cases have much to commend insofar as they expressly recognise cyberviolence against women as a human rights violation, this article posits that the Court’s framing of its analyses in both judgments under Article 8 rather than Article 3 is problematic for several reasons: first, Article 8 is a qualified right that may be subject to lawful interference by states; secondly, the invocation of Article 8 does not adequately capture the gravity of the human rights violation and, more broadly, undermines the significant progress made in establishing violence against women as a violation of the prohibition of torture, in human or degrading treatment or punishment under international law; and thirdly, the recognition of cyberviolence against women as a violation of Article 8 does little to address the recalibrated public/private distinction under international law in the digital era, which has contributed to the prevalence of cyberviolence against women. This article contends that in the future the Court’s analysis of complaints concerning cyberviolence against women would be considerably improved by examining complaints under Article 3 rather than Article 8.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46934705","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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：