Pub Date : 2024-05-09DOI: 10.1177/14789299241252387
Judith Koch
{"title":"Commissioned Book Review: Nick Whittaker, Geopolitics and Identity in British Foreign Policy Discourse. The Island Race","authors":"Judith Koch","doi":"10.1177/14789299241252387","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299241252387","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46813,"journal":{"name":"Political Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140996531","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-25DOI: 10.1177/14789299241242343
P. Debusscher, Eva Luna Maes
In recent years, the concept of intersectionality has gained significant prominence in the policy discourse of the European Union (EU). However, several scholars have noted a lack of engagement with intersectionality’s core social justice principles and stressed the need to carefully examine how intersectionality is taken up in EU policy. To contribute to this effort, the authors propose a new ‘EU-Intersectionality’ framework to analyse intersectionality in EU policy, combining elements of Critical Frame Analysis and identifying eight core criteria to operationalize intersectionality in EU policy texts and leverage its politically emancipatory potential. The resulting framework sheds light on how intersectionality has fared within EU policy contexts. Specifically, it asks which dimensions of intersectionality are captured, and which elements are left behind. We illustrate the framework by analysing the EU’s ‘Union of Equality’ strategies on anti-racism; gender equality; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer equality; Roma equality and the rights of persons with disabilities. We conclude that the EU-Intersectionality framework allows to dissect the varied and conflicting ways in which intersectionality is operationalized within EU policies – while some aspects of the ‘Union of Equality’ agenda resonate with the social justice aims behind the concept, the use of intersectionality remains superficial and largely maintains the status quo. Our findings caution against the co-optation of intersectionality in EU policymaking, while recognising the progressive advancements made within the EU equality policy area.
{"title":"The European Union-Intersectionality Framework: Unpacking Intersectionality in the ‘Union of Equality’ Agenda","authors":"P. Debusscher, Eva Luna Maes","doi":"10.1177/14789299241242343","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299241242343","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, the concept of intersectionality has gained significant prominence in the policy discourse of the European Union (EU). However, several scholars have noted a lack of engagement with intersectionality’s core social justice principles and stressed the need to carefully examine how intersectionality is taken up in EU policy. To contribute to this effort, the authors propose a new ‘EU-Intersectionality’ framework to analyse intersectionality in EU policy, combining elements of Critical Frame Analysis and identifying eight core criteria to operationalize intersectionality in EU policy texts and leverage its politically emancipatory potential. The resulting framework sheds light on how intersectionality has fared within EU policy contexts. Specifically, it asks which dimensions of intersectionality are captured, and which elements are left behind. We illustrate the framework by analysing the EU’s ‘Union of Equality’ strategies on anti-racism; gender equality; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer equality; Roma equality and the rights of persons with disabilities. We conclude that the EU-Intersectionality framework allows to dissect the varied and conflicting ways in which intersectionality is operationalized within EU policies – while some aspects of the ‘Union of Equality’ agenda resonate with the social justice aims behind the concept, the use of intersectionality remains superficial and largely maintains the status quo. Our findings caution against the co-optation of intersectionality in EU policymaking, while recognising the progressive advancements made within the EU equality policy area.","PeriodicalId":46813,"journal":{"name":"Political Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140656718","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-17DOI: 10.1177/14789299241239002
Joseph Ganderson, Anna Kyriazi
The UK’s in-out referendum on European Union membership is often attributed to an incompatibility inherent in the UK–EU relationship, or else a rising tide of Euroscepticism forcing a reckoning. We argue that the referendum should be understood as the culmination of parliamentary ‘referendum games’ in the preceding years, whereby backbenchers periodically applied pressure to office-seeking leaders who strategically defused this by promising public votes. These games were episodic and escalatory, coinciding with integrative European treaties which activated transient Eurosceptic backlashes. While referendum avoidance was personally rational, leaders’ repeated parlays created a standalone referendum politics, ratcheting up the intensity of backbench demands based on past promises and democratic renewal. After the Lisbon Treaty, a tipping point was reached, transforming calls for a ‘brake’ on integration to demand for binary ‘exit’ vote at the next treaty moment. This accompanied the Euro-area crisis in 2011, effectively ending David Cameron’s discretion to continue the game. To show this, we plot all mentions of EU-related referendums and adjacent terms in the House of Commons between 2000 and 2015. We descriptively identify five peak salience flares around EU treaty moments and then analyse 263 interventions by Members of Parliament to show how referendum pressure ratcheted up over time.
{"title":"Braking and Exiting: Referendum Games, European Integration and the Road to the UK’s Brexit Vote","authors":"Joseph Ganderson, Anna Kyriazi","doi":"10.1177/14789299241239002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299241239002","url":null,"abstract":"The UK’s in-out referendum on European Union membership is often attributed to an incompatibility inherent in the UK–EU relationship, or else a rising tide of Euroscepticism forcing a reckoning. We argue that the referendum should be understood as the culmination of parliamentary ‘referendum games’ in the preceding years, whereby backbenchers periodically applied pressure to office-seeking leaders who strategically defused this by promising public votes. These games were episodic and escalatory, coinciding with integrative European treaties which activated transient Eurosceptic backlashes. While referendum avoidance was personally rational, leaders’ repeated parlays created a standalone referendum politics, ratcheting up the intensity of backbench demands based on past promises and democratic renewal. After the Lisbon Treaty, a tipping point was reached, transforming calls for a ‘brake’ on integration to demand for binary ‘exit’ vote at the next treaty moment. This accompanied the Euro-area crisis in 2011, effectively ending David Cameron’s discretion to continue the game. To show this, we plot all mentions of EU-related referendums and adjacent terms in the House of Commons between 2000 and 2015. We descriptively identify five peak salience flares around EU treaty moments and then analyse 263 interventions by Members of Parliament to show how referendum pressure ratcheted up over time.","PeriodicalId":46813,"journal":{"name":"Political Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140692628","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-15DOI: 10.1177/14789299241245609
Ramon van der Does, Honorata Mazepus
Deliberation among the public appears wanting, even in many of the world’s established democracies. This apparent lack of mutually respectful conversation among citizens about politics involving a give-and-take of reasons is often ascribed to growing affective polarisation. The more the citizens come to think of each other as belonging to opposing groups, the less likely it allegedly becomes that they will show respect towards each other or exchange arguments while talking politics. However, the empirical support for this common supposition remains tentative, as prior research suffers from potential endogeneity problems and selection bias. To address these limitations, we introduce a novel experimental design involving an imagined conversation on refugee policy in Poland. Our experimental test shows that, on average, participants’ inclination to deliberate did not significantly differ based on whether they imagined talking to someone from an ingroup or to someone from an outgroup instead. Our findings thereby suggest that the relationship between group identification and public deliberation might not be as straightforward as is often assumed. At least in some contexts, a lack of mutual group identification does not spell disaster for deliberation.
{"title":"Does Party Identification Matter for Deliberation? Evidence from the Poland Speaks Experiment","authors":"Ramon van der Does, Honorata Mazepus","doi":"10.1177/14789299241245609","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299241245609","url":null,"abstract":"Deliberation among the public appears wanting, even in many of the world’s established democracies. This apparent lack of mutually respectful conversation among citizens about politics involving a give-and-take of reasons is often ascribed to growing affective polarisation. The more the citizens come to think of each other as belonging to opposing groups, the less likely it allegedly becomes that they will show respect towards each other or exchange arguments while talking politics. However, the empirical support for this common supposition remains tentative, as prior research suffers from potential endogeneity problems and selection bias. To address these limitations, we introduce a novel experimental design involving an imagined conversation on refugee policy in Poland. Our experimental test shows that, on average, participants’ inclination to deliberate did not significantly differ based on whether they imagined talking to someone from an ingroup or to someone from an outgroup instead. Our findings thereby suggest that the relationship between group identification and public deliberation might not be as straightforward as is often assumed. At least in some contexts, a lack of mutual group identification does not spell disaster for deliberation.","PeriodicalId":46813,"journal":{"name":"Political Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140702790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-06DOI: 10.1177/14789299231203657
R. Dacombe, Marta Wojciechowska
Recent years have seen a rapid growth of interest in the inclusion of citizen participation in the work of public institutions, advancing a well-established literature in public administration, which aims to reconcile the goals of public bureaucracies with those of democracy. Consequently, a rich body of literature and empirical work has emerged, which explores the extent to which the aspirations of the literature are reflected in practical experiences of participatory initiatives. In this article, we argue that this literature would benefit from a deeper connection with democratic theory. In particular, we suggest that our ability to make assessments over the functioning of citizen participation initiatives would be strengthened by a closer engagement with the contributions made by social choice theorists. We aim to promote a constructive dialogue, suggesting that considering social choice perspectives in analyses of participation might allow the claims made by proponents of citizen involvement in public administration to be strengthened considerably.
{"title":"Social Choice and Citizen Participation: Bringing Democratic Theory to Public Administration","authors":"R. Dacombe, Marta Wojciechowska","doi":"10.1177/14789299231203657","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299231203657","url":null,"abstract":"Recent years have seen a rapid growth of interest in the inclusion of citizen participation in the work of public institutions, advancing a well-established literature in public administration, which aims to reconcile the goals of public bureaucracies with those of democracy. Consequently, a rich body of literature and empirical work has emerged, which explores the extent to which the aspirations of the literature are reflected in practical experiences of participatory initiatives. In this article, we argue that this literature would benefit from a deeper connection with democratic theory. In particular, we suggest that our ability to make assessments over the functioning of citizen participation initiatives would be strengthened by a closer engagement with the contributions made by social choice theorists. We aim to promote a constructive dialogue, suggesting that considering social choice perspectives in analyses of participation might allow the claims made by proponents of citizen involvement in public administration to be strengthened considerably.","PeriodicalId":46813,"journal":{"name":"Political Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2024-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140734106","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-04DOI: 10.1177/14789299241242259
Uri Kidron, Piki Ish-Shalom
For populist leaders, naming is an important political tool, helping them to consolidate their leadership while harming the legitimacy of their opponents. The article offers a theoretical framework explaining populist tactical uses of naming; how they name and misname their opponents. The explanation locates the naming tactics within the overall populist framework as a thin-centered ideology. The following three naming tactics are described and analyzed: (1) coining ridiculing nicknames, (2) appropriating existing nicknames, and (3) avoiding the opponent’s name. To substantiate the theoretical arguments, we discursively analyze these three tactics, as were employed by the former US president, Donald Trump, the prime minister of Israel, Binyamin Netanyahu, and the president of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin.
{"title":"The Populist Name Game: About Populism and Naming","authors":"Uri Kidron, Piki Ish-Shalom","doi":"10.1177/14789299241242259","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299241242259","url":null,"abstract":"For populist leaders, naming is an important political tool, helping them to consolidate their leadership while harming the legitimacy of their opponents. The article offers a theoretical framework explaining populist tactical uses of naming; how they name and misname their opponents. The explanation locates the naming tactics within the overall populist framework as a thin-centered ideology. The following three naming tactics are described and analyzed: (1) coining ridiculing nicknames, (2) appropriating existing nicknames, and (3) avoiding the opponent’s name. To substantiate the theoretical arguments, we discursively analyze these three tactics, as were employed by the former US president, Donald Trump, the prime minister of Israel, Binyamin Netanyahu, and the president of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin.","PeriodicalId":46813,"journal":{"name":"Political Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140743241","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-22DOI: 10.1177/14789299241239909
Francesco Veri
Political engagement is vital to the functioning of democratic systems, yet a significant portion of the population remains disengaged from conventional political activities as voting. These individuals often lack the opportunities and motivation to cultivate their reasoning abilities for understanding politics. This study explores the potential of deliberative minipublics to foster the development of reasoning skills among those excluded from the political discourse. By focusing on individuals with low levels of political engagement, the study investigates three minipublics on the topic of climate change in Switzerland. Utilizing the Deliberative Reason Index, the analysis uncovers how dialogue-driven engagement can enhance political understanding and involvement. The results demonstrate the potential of deliberative practices to bridge the gap between the politically disengaged and the complex world of political participation, offering fresh insights into citizens’ capabilities to deliberate on intricate issues.
{"title":"Fostering Reasoning in the Politically Disengaged: The Role of Deliberative Minipublics","authors":"Francesco Veri","doi":"10.1177/14789299241239909","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299241239909","url":null,"abstract":"Political engagement is vital to the functioning of democratic systems, yet a significant portion of the population remains disengaged from conventional political activities as voting. These individuals often lack the opportunities and motivation to cultivate their reasoning abilities for understanding politics. This study explores the potential of deliberative minipublics to foster the development of reasoning skills among those excluded from the political discourse. By focusing on individuals with low levels of political engagement, the study investigates three minipublics on the topic of climate change in Switzerland. Utilizing the Deliberative Reason Index, the analysis uncovers how dialogue-driven engagement can enhance political understanding and involvement. The results demonstrate the potential of deliberative practices to bridge the gap between the politically disengaged and the complex world of political participation, offering fresh insights into citizens’ capabilities to deliberate on intricate issues.","PeriodicalId":46813,"journal":{"name":"Political Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140214063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-21DOI: 10.1177/14789299241231776
I. Budge, M. McDonald
This article complements Wlezien’s review of ‘conceptualisation, measurement and interpretation in representational research’ by considering how these operate within five predictive theories validated against comparative evidence, as recommended for cumulative research by Taagepera: and related to their wider institutional and methodological context by Budge. Methodologically, the article illustrates how predictive theories can be set up to explain political processes and validated against statistical evidence. Substantively, the theories both highlight and resolve the ‘Paradox of democracy’ – how can ideologically based political parties effectively match public policy to popular preferences with only weak guidance from citizens?
{"title":"Specifying and Contextualising Predictive Theories of Democratic Policy Representation","authors":"I. Budge, M. McDonald","doi":"10.1177/14789299241231776","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299241231776","url":null,"abstract":"This article complements Wlezien’s review of ‘conceptualisation, measurement and interpretation in representational research’ by considering how these operate within five predictive theories validated against comparative evidence, as recommended for cumulative research by Taagepera: and related to their wider institutional and methodological context by Budge. Methodologically, the article illustrates how predictive theories can be set up to explain political processes and validated against statistical evidence. Substantively, the theories both highlight and resolve the ‘Paradox of democracy’ – how can ideologically based political parties effectively match public policy to popular preferences with only weak guidance from citizens?","PeriodicalId":46813,"journal":{"name":"Political Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140223477","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-08DOI: 10.1177/14789299241234611
Itzhak Mashiah
The use of innovation rhetoric by non-tech individuals reinforces their personal branding. Studying four non-tech political personalities, this study provides evidence of how and why non-tech politicians are trying to present themselves as tech-savvy. As the article describes, innovation buzzwords, stories, narratives, and metaphors add value to any non-tech brand, enhancing promotional presence and marketing effectiveness. It is apparent from the findings that innovation rhetoric has the aim of creating a positive public image, which contributes to the public perception of an individual.
{"title":"The Rhetoric of Innovation in Non-Tech Personal Branding: Utilizing Tech Buzzwords as a Strategy for Political Messaging","authors":"Itzhak Mashiah","doi":"10.1177/14789299241234611","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299241234611","url":null,"abstract":"The use of innovation rhetoric by non-tech individuals reinforces their personal branding. Studying four non-tech political personalities, this study provides evidence of how and why non-tech politicians are trying to present themselves as tech-savvy. As the article describes, innovation buzzwords, stories, narratives, and metaphors add value to any non-tech brand, enhancing promotional presence and marketing effectiveness. It is apparent from the findings that innovation rhetoric has the aim of creating a positive public image, which contributes to the public perception of an individual.","PeriodicalId":46813,"journal":{"name":"Political Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140257209","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-05DOI: 10.1177/14789299241235577
Matteo Bonotti, Zim Nwokora
This Introduction outlines the rationale for the symposium by providing an overview of the main information pathologies that are increasingly affecting liberal democratic polities, including misinformation, disinformation, fake news, rumours, and conspiracism. It then zooms in on Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum’s (2019) book A Lot of People Are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy, from which this symposium takes inspiration and outlines its key argument. Finally, the Introduction provides a brief summary of the articles in the symposium, explaining their contribution to debates on conspiracism and on other key areas of research in contemporary political theory and political science.
本导言概述了本次研讨会的基本原理，概述了日益影响自由民主政体的主要信息病态，包括错误信息、虚假信息、假新闻、谣言和阴谋论。然后，它放大了 Russell Muirhead 和 Nancy L. Rosenblum（2019 年）的著作《很多人在说：新阴谋论与对民主的攻击》一书，本研讨会从中汲取灵感，并概述了其主要论点。最后，"导言 "简要概述了本次研讨会的文章，解释了这些文章对有关阴谋论以及当代政治理论和政治科学其他关键研究领域的辩论所做的贡献。
{"title":"Introduction to the Symposium Conspiracism and Democracy: New Perspectives and Challenges","authors":"Matteo Bonotti, Zim Nwokora","doi":"10.1177/14789299241235577","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299241235577","url":null,"abstract":"This Introduction outlines the rationale for the symposium by providing an overview of the main information pathologies that are increasingly affecting liberal democratic polities, including misinformation, disinformation, fake news, rumours, and conspiracism. It then zooms in on Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum’s (2019) book A Lot of People Are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy, from which this symposium takes inspiration and outlines its key argument. Finally, the Introduction provides a brief summary of the articles in the symposium, explaining their contribution to debates on conspiracism and on other key areas of research in contemporary political theory and political science.","PeriodicalId":46813,"journal":{"name":"Political Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140265154","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：