{"title":"Investors’ International Law","authors":"D. Dagbanja","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad044","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139176110","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent empirical studies have confirmed that arbitrator selection affects outcomes in investor–state arbitrations. This article builds on the existing literature, relying on 48 semistructured interviews with investor-state arbitration practitioners. It makes three novel claims: (A) sophisticated counsel nowadays will take factors beyond a candidate’s appointment record into account when selecting an arbitrator. In this, a candidate’s likely ability to influence their peers’ thinking is particularly important. (B) States struggle to keep up with investors in the sophisticated process of arbitrator selection. They are frequently unable to engage counsel and select suitable arbitrators within the mandated timelines for arbitrator selection, and (C), as a consequence of the former two insights, states frequently fall into four different traps when selecting arbitrators. They appoint as their arbitrators famous jurists without significant investor-state arbitration experience, famous proinvestor arbitrators, and famous arbitrators that have publicly assumed entrenched positions and defer appointments to appointing authorities. This hinders states’ ability to effectively further their case during arbitrator selection, thus disadvantaging them in investor–state arbitrations.
{"title":"Pro-Claimant bias in arbitrator selection","authors":"Tobias Traxler","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad039","url":null,"abstract":"Recent empirical studies have confirmed that arbitrator selection affects outcomes in investor–state arbitrations. This article builds on the existing literature, relying on 48 semistructured interviews with investor-state arbitration practitioners. It makes three novel claims: (A) sophisticated counsel nowadays will take factors beyond a candidate’s appointment record into account when selecting an arbitrator. In this, a candidate’s likely ability to influence their peers’ thinking is particularly important. (B) States struggle to keep up with investors in the sophisticated process of arbitrator selection. They are frequently unable to engage counsel and select suitable arbitrators within the mandated timelines for arbitrator selection, and (C), as a consequence of the former two insights, states frequently fall into four different traps when selecting arbitrators. They appoint as their arbitrators famous jurists without significant investor-state arbitration experience, famous proinvestor arbitrators, and famous arbitrators that have publicly assumed entrenched positions and defer appointments to appointing authorities. This hinders states’ ability to effectively further their case during arbitrator selection, thus disadvantaging them in investor–state arbitrations.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138686835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article aims at exploring the universe of energy disciplines included in preferential trade agreements (PTAs) and their evolution through the prisms of energy security and energy sustainability. It offers a comparative perspective by classifying relevant provisions according to their scope and coverage, their level of normativity and enforceability, and their innovative potential for driving a structural reorientation of PTAs from a security-driven approach (ie focused on the use of trade rules to promote energy trade in order to foster availability) to a sustainability-driven approach (ie focused on the use of trade rules to promote environmentally sustainable energy trade in order to facilitate the energy transition). It identifies the main tenets underpinning this ongoing shift and offers some reflections on how and to which extent environmental sustainability can be advanced through PTA disciplines on energy.
{"title":"Energy disciplines in PTAs between security and sustainability concerns: a comparative perspective","authors":"Ilaria Espa","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad040","url":null,"abstract":"This article aims at exploring the universe of energy disciplines included in preferential trade agreements (PTAs) and their evolution through the prisms of energy security and energy sustainability. It offers a comparative perspective by classifying relevant provisions according to their scope and coverage, their level of normativity and enforceability, and their innovative potential for driving a structural reorientation of PTAs from a security-driven approach (ie focused on the use of trade rules to promote energy trade in order to foster availability) to a sustainability-driven approach (ie focused on the use of trade rules to promote environmentally sustainable energy trade in order to facilitate the energy transition). It identifies the main tenets underpinning this ongoing shift and offers some reflections on how and to which extent environmental sustainability can be advanced through PTA disciplines on energy.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"79 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138686908","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered energy and food crises, driven by demand for natural gas as fuel and fertilizer feedstock. By adopting a recent framework for analysing the diverse ways in which international law regulates energy transactions, I extend the category of end-use energy products to include food for human consumption, given the economic importance of dietary energy and the entangled agendas of energy and food security. To highlight the intermediate roles played by international law in securing resources for conversion into dietary energy, I show how rules allocating entitlements over fossil fuels were inherited from an earlier generation of international disputes over fertilizer resources, including the taxation of nitrate exports, alien entitlements to guano discoveries, and the well-known confiscation of a factory at Chorzów. Many of these disputes between States and commercial actors prefigured the reliance of the modern energy industry on investment arbitration and retain currency in case law. Yet, the fertilizer trade also informed the development of offshore resource entitlements, the local regulation of global externalities, and the belated recognition of the rights of peoples over natural resources. Despite this normative evolution, dispute settlement in the energy sector is still driven by States and commercial actors, although the underlying transactions may have profound implications for food security. By reframing food as energy and integrating fertilizer disputes into a long history of international energy law, the anticipated transition from fossil fuels towards green hydrogen as a dual-use fuel and fertilizer feedstock may generate familiar sites of distributive conflict over resources for the production of dietary energy, calling for closer attention to whether food security may be enhanced by the entitlements of collective subjects (food sovereignty), individuals (right to food), corporations (investment protection), and States (economic regulation).
{"title":"From guano to green hydrogen: food security and fertilizer disputes in international energy law","authors":"Oliver Hailes","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad037","url":null,"abstract":"Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered energy and food crises, driven by demand for natural gas as fuel and fertilizer feedstock. By adopting a recent framework for analysing the diverse ways in which international law regulates energy transactions, I extend the category of end-use energy products to include food for human consumption, given the economic importance of dietary energy and the entangled agendas of energy and food security. To highlight the intermediate roles played by international law in securing resources for conversion into dietary energy, I show how rules allocating entitlements over fossil fuels were inherited from an earlier generation of international disputes over fertilizer resources, including the taxation of nitrate exports, alien entitlements to guano discoveries, and the well-known confiscation of a factory at Chorzów. Many of these disputes between States and commercial actors prefigured the reliance of the modern energy industry on investment arbitration and retain currency in case law. Yet, the fertilizer trade also informed the development of offshore resource entitlements, the local regulation of global externalities, and the belated recognition of the rights of peoples over natural resources. Despite this normative evolution, dispute settlement in the energy sector is still driven by States and commercial actors, although the underlying transactions may have profound implications for food security. By reframing food as energy and integrating fertilizer disputes into a long history of international energy law, the anticipated transition from fossil fuels towards green hydrogen as a dual-use fuel and fertilizer feedstock may generate familiar sites of distributive conflict over resources for the production of dietary energy, calling for closer attention to whether food security may be enhanced by the entitlements of collective subjects (food sovereignty), individuals (right to food), corporations (investment protection), and States (economic regulation).","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138686962","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The reform process for ISDS at UNCITRAL is reaching its climax. Within the next few years, a treaty for ‘ISDS 2.0’ should emerge from this process. A key feature of ISDS 2.0 will be a new international court for resolving investor–state disputes. This court should include an appellate tribunal. A core function of this appellate tribunal will be to produce consistent case law, noting a common complaint about ‘ISDS 1.0’ is that it has produced inconsistent case law. There is good reason to believe that the appellate tribunal of ISDS 2.0 can deliver consistent case law, but the promoters behind ISDS 2.0 need to be careful what they wish for. The WTO dispute settlement system produced consistent case law, yet that achievement turned out to be a reason for its subsequent breakdown. Consistent case law apparently sounds good in theory, but it is not welcome in practice. Is there a way out of this conundrum? This article proposes that a formal doctrine of precedent is the solution. This proposal might initially provoke some surprise—a softer system of precedent is apparently the best compromise. But a doctrine of precedent can be crafted to limit adjudicative law-making power, while emphasizing states’ control over their investment–treaty obligations. This article puts forward the broad outline of this conception of a doctrine of precedent, explains why it gives effect to states’ interests, and examines the methods by which a doctrine of precedent could be adopted.
{"title":"ISDS 2.0: time for a doctrine of precedent?","authors":"Martin Jarrett","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad033","url":null,"abstract":"The reform process for ISDS at UNCITRAL is reaching its climax. Within the next few years, a treaty for ‘ISDS 2.0’ should emerge from this process. A key feature of ISDS 2.0 will be a new international court for resolving investor–state disputes. This court should include an appellate tribunal. A core function of this appellate tribunal will be to produce consistent case law, noting a common complaint about ‘ISDS 1.0’ is that it has produced inconsistent case law. There is good reason to believe that the appellate tribunal of ISDS 2.0 can deliver consistent case law, but the promoters behind ISDS 2.0 need to be careful what they wish for. The WTO dispute settlement system produced consistent case law, yet that achievement turned out to be a reason for its subsequent breakdown. Consistent case law apparently sounds good in theory, but it is not welcome in practice. Is there a way out of this conundrum? This article proposes that a formal doctrine of precedent is the solution. This proposal might initially provoke some surprise—a softer system of precedent is apparently the best compromise. But a doctrine of precedent can be crafted to limit adjudicative law-making power, while emphasizing states’ control over their investment–treaty obligations. This article puts forward the broad outline of this conception of a doctrine of precedent, explains why it gives effect to states’ interests, and examines the methods by which a doctrine of precedent could be adopted.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"99 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138581426","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
At this critical juncture in the energy transition dominated by debates over armed conflicts, advisory opinions on climate changes, and investor-State arbitration, it is critical to also consider developments in the peaceful settlement of inter-State energy disputes. One central dispute between the Republic of Iraq and the Republic of Turkey arose out of the Crude Oil Pipeline Agreement for the supply and purchase of crude oil. Iraq filed a request for arbitration in May 2014 under the International Chamber of Commerce Rules of Arbitration. The Tribunal awarded Iraq nearly United States Dollars (USD) 1.5 billion. The Tribunal’s unanimous final award in 2023 discusses fascinating aspects of international energy transactions, including the choice of domestic law in a treaty dispute, defences under the law of treaties, a putative norm of jus cogens to prevent genocide, and possible remedies in an inter-State pipeline arbitration.
{"title":"Peaceful settlement of inter-state energy disputes: applicable law, defence arguments, and remedies in the ICC arbitration between Iraq and Turkey","authors":"B. Demirkol","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad038","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 At this critical juncture in the energy transition dominated by debates over armed conflicts, advisory opinions on climate changes, and investor-State arbitration, it is critical to also consider developments in the peaceful settlement of inter-State energy disputes. One central dispute between the Republic of Iraq and the Republic of Turkey arose out of the Crude Oil Pipeline Agreement for the supply and purchase of crude oil. Iraq filed a request for arbitration in May 2014 under the International Chamber of Commerce Rules of Arbitration. The Tribunal awarded Iraq nearly United States Dollars (USD) 1.5 billion. The Tribunal’s unanimous final award in 2023 discusses fascinating aspects of international energy transactions, including the choice of domestic law in a treaty dispute, defences under the law of treaties, a putative norm of jus cogens to prevent genocide, and possible remedies in an inter-State pipeline arbitration.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":" 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138616741","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The dilemma of sovereign debt enforcement","authors":"L. Buchheit","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad034","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"61 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139212266","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Fossil fuel combustion is undeniably the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. In order to meet the Paris Agreement target of keeping global warming below 2°C, globally, a third of oil and half of gas reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 2050. In 2021, the International Energy Agency estimated that in the net-zero emissions scenario there is no need for fossil fuel exploration, new oil and natural gas fields beyond those already been approved for development, or new coal mines or mine extensions. While greenhouse gas emissions from the actual exploration and production activities (upstream emissions) are increasingly regulated, the emissions from the final combustion of the produces oil and gas are not taken into account when new projects are approved. This paper argues that there is a significant lack of integration between climate and energy regulation which, if not corrected, may result in challenges to achieve the global climate targets. It analyses the mechanisms for better inclusion of climate considerations at the oil and gas development approval stage. It starts with a review of international initiatives examining the lack of engagement with the climate regime and fossil fuel production. It further analyses the oil and gas development approval regime in the UK with a view to highlighting the lack of integration of climate concerns in the licensing and environmental assessment processes.
{"title":"Climate change and oil and gas production regulation: an impossible reconciliation?","authors":"Daria Shapovalova","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad032","url":null,"abstract":"Fossil fuel combustion is undeniably the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. In order to meet the Paris Agreement target of keeping global warming below 2°C, globally, a third of oil and half of gas reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 2050. In 2021, the International Energy Agency estimated that in the net-zero emissions scenario there is no need for fossil fuel exploration, new oil and natural gas fields beyond those already been approved for development, or new coal mines or mine extensions. While greenhouse gas emissions from the actual exploration and production activities (upstream emissions) are increasingly regulated, the emissions from the final combustion of the produces oil and gas are not taken into account when new projects are approved. This paper argues that there is a significant lack of integration between climate and energy regulation which, if not corrected, may result in challenges to achieve the global climate targets. It analyses the mechanisms for better inclusion of climate considerations at the oil and gas development approval stage. It starts with a review of international initiatives examining the lack of engagement with the climate regime and fossil fuel production. It further analyses the oil and gas development approval regime in the UK with a view to highlighting the lack of integration of climate concerns in the licensing and environmental assessment processes.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"238 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138531678","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT In response to the 2022 energy crisis, caused by the disruption of Russian gas supplies to Europe, the European Union (EU) emphasized the importance of accelerating the deployment of renewable energy to ensure supply security and lower energy prices. Paradoxically, renewable energy investments were also one of the main targets of the EU efforts to contain the hardship of the crisis. Based on the reasoning that investors in wind and solar energy received profits that by far exceeded pre-crisis levels, the EU capped their ‘surplus revenues’ and initially proposed to decouple electricity from gas prices. These initiatives were justified based on considerations of distributive energy justice. Yet, by interfering with revenues and the electricity market structure, the EU signalled to renewable energy investors the risk of regulatory intervention with the market basis governing their investments. Building on the arbitral practice on renewable energy and electricity regulation, this article examines the international protection of market-based renewable energy investments and critically reflects on how investment protection affects states’ right to ensure energy justice in times of crisis.
{"title":"Energy justice in times of crisis: protection of consumers and market-based renewable energy investments","authors":"Anatole Boute","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad030","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In response to the 2022 energy crisis, caused by the disruption of Russian gas supplies to Europe, the European Union (EU) emphasized the importance of accelerating the deployment of renewable energy to ensure supply security and lower energy prices. Paradoxically, renewable energy investments were also one of the main targets of the EU efforts to contain the hardship of the crisis. Based on the reasoning that investors in wind and solar energy received profits that by far exceeded pre-crisis levels, the EU capped their ‘surplus revenues’ and initially proposed to decouple electricity from gas prices. These initiatives were justified based on considerations of distributive energy justice. Yet, by interfering with revenues and the electricity market structure, the EU signalled to renewable energy investors the risk of regulatory intervention with the market basis governing their investments. Building on the arbitral practice on renewable energy and electricity regulation, this article examines the international protection of market-based renewable energy investments and critically reflects on how investment protection affects states’ right to ensure energy justice in times of crisis.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":" February","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135186391","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT The question of human rights and energy has been traditionally framed as an analysis of limitations on energy transactions arising from substantive and procedural human rights. Whereas the negative externality framing of human rights sets safeguards against the adverse effects of energy transactions and thereby restrains how such transactions are conducted, it overlooks a more fundamental dimension, the conferral of entitlements. Indeed, human rights define entitlements over energy resources, setting competing claims that limit not only how energy transactions are conducted but also the very power to conduct them in the first place. The entitlement dimension of human rights also unveils a wider question, namely the competing claims of a variety of collective subjects against the entitlement of the territorial or coastal States. In other words, such reframing opposes two logics of international law, each based on a different conception of the source from which entitlements flow. This article investigates the externality-avoidance and entitlement function of human rights in the context of international energy transactions. It reviews the most relevant judicial and quasi-judicial practice at the international level to illustrate the implications of framing the function of human rights from one or the other perspective.
{"title":"Beyond externalities: human rights as a foundation of entitlements over energy resources","authors":"Ginevra Le Moli","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad031","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The question of human rights and energy has been traditionally framed as an analysis of limitations on energy transactions arising from substantive and procedural human rights. Whereas the negative externality framing of human rights sets safeguards against the adverse effects of energy transactions and thereby restrains how such transactions are conducted, it overlooks a more fundamental dimension, the conferral of entitlements. Indeed, human rights define entitlements over energy resources, setting competing claims that limit not only how energy transactions are conducted but also the very power to conduct them in the first place. The entitlement dimension of human rights also unveils a wider question, namely the competing claims of a variety of collective subjects against the entitlement of the territorial or coastal States. In other words, such reframing opposes two logics of international law, each based on a different conception of the source from which entitlements flow. This article investigates the externality-avoidance and entitlement function of human rights in the context of international energy transactions. It reviews the most relevant judicial and quasi-judicial practice at the international level to illustrate the implications of framing the function of human rights from one or the other perspective.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":" 484","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135186504","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"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：