Responding to the wider concern with how to understand the connections between sex and violence in the context of conflict-related sexual violence, this article examines how international criminal law constructs what is sexual about sexual violence. The article adopts a narrative expressivist approach to the knowledge generating effects of international criminal proceedings, using a discourse analysis of judgments and trial transcripts to demonstrate how ‘the sexual’ in sexual violence emerges in the judgments of international criminal courts primarily as a social question, in how sexual violence injures the conjugal order of the community to which victims belong. Drawing on the concept of sexual subjectivity, the article nevertheless reveals how some testimonies during the proceedings of international criminal trials go beyond this dominant narrative, offering instead a perspective that captures the specifically sexualized harm inflicted on individuals by sexual violation. The article ultimately exposes how the dominant narrative of sexual violence that emerges through the judgments of international criminal courts tends to overlook the injury to individual sexual subjectivity inflicted by sexual violence and, in doing so, functions to discount victims’ full subjectivity, including in their sexual lives.
{"title":"What is Sexual about Sexual Violence?","authors":"Ciara Laverty","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad019","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Responding to the wider concern with how to understand the connections between sex and violence in the context of conflict-related sexual violence, this article examines how international criminal law constructs what is sexual about sexual violence. The article adopts a narrative expressivist approach to the knowledge generating effects of international criminal proceedings, using a discourse analysis of judgments and trial transcripts to demonstrate how ‘the sexual’ in sexual violence emerges in the judgments of international criminal courts primarily as a social question, in how sexual violence injures the conjugal order of the community to which victims belong. Drawing on the concept of sexual subjectivity, the article nevertheless reveals how some testimonies during the proceedings of international criminal trials go beyond this dominant narrative, offering instead a perspective that captures the specifically sexualized harm inflicted on individuals by sexual violation. The article ultimately exposes how the dominant narrative of sexual violence that emerges through the judgments of international criminal courts tends to overlook the injury to individual sexual subjectivity inflicted by sexual violence and, in doing so, functions to discount victims’ full subjectivity, including in their sexual lives.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42966179","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The criminalization of the unlawful use of force in international relations is not usually linked to conscription of an army to fight such a war. However, historical precedent in the Nuremberg and Tokyo International Military Tribunals established that conscription was part of the common plan to wage a war of aggression. After a brief history of conscription and its justifications, this article examines that precedent and then analyses how it could be put to use in a prosecution of the crime of aggression under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Finally, it argues that there is a normative case for the inclusion of conscription within the scope of the crime of aggression because of the harm done to both the conscripts and the state and people of the place they invade.
{"title":"Conscription to Fight a War of Aggression under International Criminal Law","authors":"N. Boister","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The criminalization of the unlawful use of force in international relations is not usually linked to conscription of an army to fight such a war. However, historical precedent in the Nuremberg and Tokyo International Military Tribunals established that conscription was part of the common plan to wage a war of aggression. After a brief history of conscription and its justifications, this article examines that precedent and then analyses how it could be put to use in a prosecution of the crime of aggression under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Finally, it argues that there is a normative case for the inclusion of conscription within the scope of the crime of aggression because of the harm done to both the conscripts and the state and people of the place they invade.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41472038","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Apartheid is a crime against humanity, yet no person has ever been prosecuted for this crime. In 2021 two individuals were indicted in South Africa for the crime of apartheid. This is an historic first in the country which gave the policy of apartheid its name and material content. The indictment is, however, also a reminder that the non-prosecution of apartheid is a legal and moral issue to be understood in the context of South Africa’s transition from apartheid to democracy. Furthermore, the indictment, while historic and of international significance, concerns constitutional, procedural and prosecutorial issues that illustrate the complexities of the application of international criminal law in domestic criminal justice systems. This contribution argues that all these factors should be acknowledged and analysed. Ultimately, and despite the many obstacles and complexities, it is submitted that it is right to indict individuals who, through their crimes, made the apartheid system possible even if they were not in positions of leadership.
{"title":"Prosecuting the Crime against Humanity of Apartheid","authors":"Gerhard Kemp, Windell Nortje","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad023","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Apartheid is a crime against humanity, yet no person has ever been prosecuted for this crime. In 2021 two individuals were indicted in South Africa for the crime of apartheid. This is an historic first in the country which gave the policy of apartheid its name and material content. The indictment is, however, also a reminder that the non-prosecution of apartheid is a legal and moral issue to be understood in the context of South Africa’s transition from apartheid to democracy. Furthermore, the indictment, while historic and of international significance, concerns constitutional, procedural and prosecutorial issues that illustrate the complexities of the application of international criminal law in domestic criminal justice systems. This contribution argues that all these factors should be acknowledged and analysed. Ultimately, and despite the many obstacles and complexities, it is submitted that it is right to indict individuals who, through their crimes, made the apartheid system possible even if they were not in positions of leadership.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"88 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135466370","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article explores whether it is appropriate on legal and policy grounds to criminalize as war crimes the acts of governance performed by non-state armed groups controlling territory. Using the administration of justice by armed groups and the Al Hassan case before the International Criminal Court as a reference point, it sheds light on the problems raised by the adoption of an overly broad definition of the war crimes’ nexus to the armed conflict. When the definition of ‘nexus’ is stretched to cover also rebel governance activities, the outcome is at odds with international humanitarian law’s provisions and nature. This approach also has detrimental consequences, including exposing non-state armed groups to unfair and asymmetric criminalization. This article submits that acts of rebel governance should not be criminalized as war crimes — other legal frameworks may be more suitable from a legal and policy standpoint to compel armed groups to comply with international standards and engage with them fruitfully.
{"title":"Criminalizing Acts of Rebel Governance as War Crimes","authors":"Diletta Marchesi","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad026","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article explores whether it is appropriate on legal and policy grounds to criminalize as war crimes the acts of governance performed by non-state armed groups controlling territory. Using the administration of justice by armed groups and the Al Hassan case before the International Criminal Court as a reference point, it sheds light on the problems raised by the adoption of an overly broad definition of the war crimes’ nexus to the armed conflict. When the definition of ‘nexus’ is stretched to cover also rebel governance activities, the outcome is at odds with international humanitarian law’s provisions and nature. This approach also has detrimental consequences, including exposing non-state armed groups to unfair and asymmetric criminalization. This article submits that acts of rebel governance should not be criminalized as war crimes — other legal frameworks may be more suitable from a legal and policy standpoint to compel armed groups to comply with international standards and engage with them fruitfully.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135466145","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Darryl Robinson, Justice in Extreme Cases. Criminal law Theory Meets International Criminal Law","authors":"Niccolò Pons","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad014","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42042093","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The study of the treatment of released and acquitted persons by international courts and tribunals (ICTs) has been one of the most neglected aspects of international criminal justice. The system rests on the cooperation of states with the ICTs. However, this cooperation when it exists, often ceases when the trial has ended. Regarding the objective of delivering justice, states appear to have either forgotten or refused to accept that both acquittals and the eventual release of convicted individuals are part of the process of criminal justice. Even states committed to international justice have denied protection against extradition to unsafe countries for acquitted and released persons, or declined to become host countries, grant asylum requests or take any steps to offer these former defendants and convicted persons a dignified life. This article explores the international legal frameworks applicable to the relocation of persons released or acquitted by ICTs. It specifically looks into the cases of the ad hoc tribunals and the International Criminal Court (ICC), the states parties’ general obligation under the statutes and rules to cooperate with the ICTs, and relevant principles of refugee law. The article explores some of the most recent issues relating to relocation that have shaken international criminal justice. At the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the recent striking failure to obtain the relocation of nine acquitted and released persons is examined as an emblematic and appalling example of the violation of these persons’ fundamental human rights, and the refusal of the international community to pursue justice in all its aspects. At the ICC, important issues of relocation have already arisen for acquitted and released persons, and the Court will urgently need agreements in this area. Importantly, it is necessary to recognize that, to protect the rights of these former defendants, the practical work of defence lawyers continues long after their clients’ release.
{"title":"Relocation Issues of Released and Acquitted at International Criminal Courts and Tribunals","authors":"Cécile Lecolle","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad012","url":null,"abstract":"The study of the treatment of released and acquitted persons by international courts and tribunals (ICTs) has been one of the most neglected aspects of international criminal justice. The system rests on the cooperation of states with the ICTs. However, this cooperation when it exists, often ceases when the trial has ended. Regarding the objective of delivering justice, states appear to have either forgotten or refused to accept that both acquittals and the eventual release of convicted individuals are part of the process of criminal justice. Even states committed to international justice have denied protection against extradition to unsafe countries for acquitted and released persons, or declined to become host countries, grant asylum requests or take any steps to offer these former defendants and convicted persons a dignified life. This article explores the international legal frameworks applicable to the relocation of persons released or acquitted by ICTs. It specifically looks into the cases of the ad hoc tribunals and the International Criminal Court (ICC), the states parties’ general obligation under the statutes and rules to cooperate with the ICTs, and relevant principles of refugee law. The article explores some of the most recent issues relating to relocation that have shaken international criminal justice. At the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the recent striking failure to obtain the relocation of nine acquitted and released persons is examined as an emblematic and appalling example of the violation of these persons’ fundamental human rights, and the refusal of the international community to pursue justice in all its aspects. At the ICC, important issues of relocation have already arisen for acquitted and released persons, and the Court will urgently need agreements in this area. Importantly, it is necessary to recognize that, to protect the rights of these former defendants, the practical work of defence lawyers continues long after their clients’ release.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44318100","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}
International prisoners can apply for early release. However, terminally ill prisoners seeking release in the international criminal justice system face significant legal and practical obstacles. This is particularly the case for prisoners convicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC): there is currently no framework for granting compassionate release prior to serving the statutory required amount of a sentence. To build a foundation for recommendations for the creation of a system of compassionate release at the ICC, this article critically examines the systems used to grant early release to terminally ill persons in international (International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals) and national criminal law, with a particular focus on how these systems operate for prisoners that have served less than the typical eligibility requirement for release. This article sets out a normative basis for creating a novel and distinct form of release at the ICC: a compassionate system based, not on penological justifications, but on the impossibility of continued detention on human rights grounds. It concludes with recommendations for essential substantial and procedural elements for this system and means of incorporating it into the current legal framework.
{"title":"Terminal Illness and Compassionate Release","authors":"Róisín Mulgrew","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad013","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 International prisoners can apply for early release. However, terminally ill prisoners seeking release in the international criminal justice system face significant legal and practical obstacles. This is particularly the case for prisoners convicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC): there is currently no framework for granting compassionate release prior to serving the statutory required amount of a sentence. To build a foundation for recommendations for the creation of a system of compassionate release at the ICC, this article critically examines the systems used to grant early release to terminally ill persons in international (International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals) and national criminal law, with a particular focus on how these systems operate for prisoners that have served less than the typical eligibility requirement for release. This article sets out a normative basis for creating a novel and distinct form of release at the ICC: a compassionate system based, not on penological justifications, but on the impossibility of continued detention on human rights grounds. It concludes with recommendations for essential substantial and procedural elements for this system and means of incorporating it into the current legal framework.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43616831","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}
This article describes the scale and nature of international crimes prosecutions in the Netherlands and maps the different scenarios that (may) unfold when criminal proceedings against a migrant suspect of international crimes conclude after acquittal or completion of a sentence. The article is based on an analysis of academic literature, Dutch legislation and case law, policy documents, and media reports. Since 1997, 20 individuals have been prosecuted for international crimes in the Netherlands, 16 of whom were naturalized or dual Dutch citizens, or non-citizens. The article concludes that while the Dutch ‘No Safe Haven’ policy — which we propose consists of a four-pillar model covering criminal law, extradition law, immigration/refugee law, and nationality law — has the potential to reduce impunity for international crimes, it likely results in undesirable, unremovable, and unaccounted for individuals.
{"title":"The Aftermath of Dutch International Crimes Cases","authors":"M. P. Bolhuis, Joris van Wijk","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad011","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article describes the scale and nature of international crimes prosecutions in the Netherlands and maps the different scenarios that (may) unfold when criminal proceedings against a migrant suspect of international crimes conclude after acquittal or completion of a sentence. The article is based on an analysis of academic literature, Dutch legislation and case law, policy documents, and media reports. Since 1997, 20 individuals have been prosecuted for international crimes in the Netherlands, 16 of whom were naturalized or dual Dutch citizens, or non-citizens. The article concludes that while the Dutch ‘No Safe Haven’ policy — which we propose consists of a four-pillar model covering criminal law, extradition law, immigration/refugee law, and nationality law — has the potential to reduce impunity for international crimes, it likely results in undesirable, unremovable, and unaccounted for individuals.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"34 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41261681","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}
Of the 92 persons convicted at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 60 have already served their sentences and been released. Even though in post-conflict environments, the public behaviour of perpetrators can help counter (atrocity crime) denial, establish an authoritative version of the truth and contribute to sustainable reconciliation, we still know little about what happens once they return to their communities. This article is one of the first attempts to systematically map and understand what pathways the ICTY convicts take after release, and why. It finds that those who promote nationalist interpretations of the past and deny their responsibility and involvement in crimes are often hailed by receptive domestic audiences across the Western Balkans. They successfully use certain support networks, such as dominant political parties or military and war veterans’ organizations, to take back their place in public life. On the other hand, those convicts who have admitted their guilt and responsibility and do not promote a nationalist interpretation of the past often find themselves ostracized, living in poverty and seclusion.
{"title":"Life After Conviction at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia","authors":"Lina Strupinskienė","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad010","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Of the 92 persons convicted at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 60 have already served their sentences and been released. Even though in post-conflict environments, the public behaviour of perpetrators can help counter (atrocity crime) denial, establish an authoritative version of the truth and contribute to sustainable reconciliation, we still know little about what happens once they return to their communities. This article is one of the first attempts to systematically map and understand what pathways the ICTY convicts take after release, and why. It finds that those who promote nationalist interpretations of the past and deny their responsibility and involvement in crimes are often hailed by receptive domestic audiences across the Western Balkans. They successfully use certain support networks, such as dominant political parties or military and war veterans’ organizations, to take back their place in public life. On the other hand, those convicts who have admitted their guilt and responsibility and do not promote a nationalist interpretation of the past often find themselves ostracized, living in poverty and seclusion.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42185200","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}
This article assesses how the rehabilitation of perpetrators of international crimes is being constructed and evaluated at the domestic level, in particular in Croatia, and how it compares to international practice at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) or International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT). The analysis is based on a convenience sample of early release decisions issued by the Croatian judiciary and the most recent early release decisions issued by the IRMCT. Up until very recently, rehabilitation of war criminals has been approached through a rather conventional prism, both at the ICTY/IRMCT and domestically. The most recent IRMCT early release decisions, however, developed a sui generis approach focusing primarily on an offender’s critical reflection on crimes, gravity of the offence and views of the larger community. At the same time, the Croatian approach to assessing rehabilitation remained centred around the perceived risk of reoffending. Due to inconsistencies in incorporating the various factors, however, there seems to be double standards being applied along ethnic lines. In this article, we analyse and contrast rehabilitation assessments and early release practices at the ICTY/IRCMT and Croatia and ask the proverbial question whether there is anything special about rehabilitating war criminals.
{"title":"There is Something Special about War Criminals … ","authors":"Barbora Holá, Maja Munivrana","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article assesses how the rehabilitation of perpetrators of international crimes is being constructed and evaluated at the domestic level, in particular in Croatia, and how it compares to international practice at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) or International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT). The analysis is based on a convenience sample of early release decisions issued by the Croatian judiciary and the most recent early release decisions issued by the IRMCT. Up until very recently, rehabilitation of war criminals has been approached through a rather conventional prism, both at the ICTY/IRMCT and domestically. The most recent IRMCT early release decisions, however, developed a sui generis approach focusing primarily on an offender’s critical reflection on crimes, gravity of the offence and views of the larger community. At the same time, the Croatian approach to assessing rehabilitation remained centred around the perceived risk of reoffending. Due to inconsistencies in incorporating the various factors, however, there seems to be double standards being applied along ethnic lines. In this article, we analyse and contrast rehabilitation assessments and early release practices at the ICTY/IRCMT and Croatia and ask the proverbial question whether there is anything special about rehabilitating war criminals.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47642587","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：