In contrast to international investment tribunals, World Trade Organization (WTO) adjudicators have been reluctant to acknowledge the inherent right to regulate under international law explicitly. Policy-based considerations arising from such a right have not been viewed as a standalone component under interpretive analyses in WTO dispute settlement. Instead, they have been integrated only to the extent they find expression in the treaty. This article explores how, on occasion, WTO adjudicators have departed from this orthodox approach by choosing to proactively interpret the WTO Covered Agreements in a way that presupposes a States’ right to regulate, even where this may seem contrary to, or unsupported by, the treaty text. In these cases, the question has not been whether such a right subsists within substantive WTO disciplines, but rather how such a right can be read into these disciplines in a manner that comports with the ordinary rules of treaty interpretation. While this unorthodox approach has resulted in interpretations that appear unclear and uncertain, these outcomes are ultimately explicable in terms of a general principle of regulatory autonomy that can form the basis for more principled interpretive choices.
{"title":"The right to regulate and the interpretation of the WTO Agreement","authors":"A. Mitchell","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad024","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In contrast to international investment tribunals, World Trade Organization (WTO) adjudicators have been reluctant to acknowledge the inherent right to regulate under international law explicitly. Policy-based considerations arising from such a right have not been viewed as a standalone component under interpretive analyses in WTO dispute settlement. Instead, they have been integrated only to the extent they find expression in the treaty. This article explores how, on occasion, WTO adjudicators have departed from this orthodox approach by choosing to proactively interpret the WTO Covered Agreements in a way that presupposes a States’ right to regulate, even where this may seem contrary to, or unsupported by, the treaty text. In these cases, the question has not been whether such a right subsists within substantive WTO disciplines, but rather how such a right can be read into these disciplines in a manner that comports with the ordinary rules of treaty interpretation. While this unorthodox approach has resulted in interpretations that appear unclear and uncertain, these outcomes are ultimately explicable in terms of a general principle of regulatory autonomy that can form the basis for more principled interpretive choices.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49407460","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}
With more than 3000 international investment agreements (IIAs) worldwide, states negotiate similar agreements multiple times with numerous partners. Accordingly, many states have developed template agreements known as ‘Model bilateral investment treaties (BITs)’. Nevertheless, concluded IIAs commonly deviate from the corresponding Model BITs, albeit to varying degrees. Investigating this variation, we examine the impact of Model Countries and their Partner Countries’ investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) experience. Specifically, we argue that the Model Country adopts changes sought by the Partner Country during the negotiation process in order to accommodate the latter’s preferences, which were shaped by lessons learned from ISDS cases. Empirically, we introduce novel measures of divergence between Model BITs and IIAs, based on the concept and scheme of state regulatory space, with respect to several key aspects of investment rules. Coding a large number of Model BITs and IIAs on these variables and controlling for a host of alternative explanations, we find that the higher number of investment claims filed against the Partner Country, but not the Model Country, is associated with greater divergence between the Model Country’s Model BITs and its IIAs. This effect is especially noticeable with respect to important substantive investment rules.
{"title":"Last year’s model? Investment arbitration, negotiation, and the gap between Model BITs and IIAs","authors":"Yoram Z. Haftel, Morr Link, Tomer Broude","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad021","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 With more than 3000 international investment agreements (IIAs) worldwide, states negotiate similar agreements multiple times with numerous partners. Accordingly, many states have developed template agreements known as ‘Model bilateral investment treaties (BITs)’. Nevertheless, concluded IIAs commonly deviate from the corresponding Model BITs, albeit to varying degrees. Investigating this variation, we examine the impact of Model Countries and their Partner Countries’ investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) experience. Specifically, we argue that the Model Country adopts changes sought by the Partner Country during the negotiation process in order to accommodate the latter’s preferences, which were shaped by lessons learned from ISDS cases. Empirically, we introduce novel measures of divergence between Model BITs and IIAs, based on the concept and scheme of state regulatory space, with respect to several key aspects of investment rules. Coding a large number of Model BITs and IIAs on these variables and controlling for a host of alternative explanations, we find that the higher number of investment claims filed against the Partner Country, but not the Model Country, is associated with greater divergence between the Model Country’s Model BITs and its IIAs. This effect is especially noticeable with respect to important substantive investment rules.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49390325","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":"Correction to: International Economic Law in the ‘Asian Century’","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad022","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48401367","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}
Journal Article Neoliberalism, Ordoliberalism and the Future of Economic Governance Get access The Oxford Handbook of Ordoliberalism. By THOMAS BIEBRICHER, WERNER BONEFELD, and PETER NEDERGAARD, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. 592pp. ISBN 9780198861201 Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of International Economic Law, jgad020, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad020 Published: 30 May 2023 Article history Editorial decision: 15 May 2023 Received: 15 May 2023 Accepted: 15 May 2023 Corrected and typeset: 30 May 2023 Published: 30 May 2023
{"title":"Neoliberalism, Ordoliberalism and the Future of Economic Governance","authors":"Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad020","url":null,"abstract":"Journal Article Neoliberalism, Ordoliberalism and the Future of Economic Governance Get access The Oxford Handbook of Ordoliberalism. By THOMAS BIEBRICHER, WERNER BONEFELD, and PETER NEDERGAARD, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. 592pp. ISBN 9780198861201 Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of International Economic Law, jgad020, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad020 Published: 30 May 2023 Article history Editorial decision: 15 May 2023 Received: 15 May 2023 Accepted: 15 May 2023 Corrected and typeset: 30 May 2023 Published: 30 May 2023","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135643155","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}
Over the past decades, a growing number of Chinese companies have been listed overseas, notably in the USA and Hong Kong. They are subject to the securities regulation of listing places and can be sued thereunder against their securities misconduct. As overseas-listed Chinese companies usually have their main assets located in China, it is important that Chinese courts recognize and enforce foreign securities judgments. However, there are many difficulties in this area, which undermine the efficacy of the regulation of cross-border securities transactions. In quest of solutions, this article assesses the possibility of suing Chinese companies in the offshore financial centres where they are incorporated, finding that there would be similar issues with judgment enforcement in China. It also examines the viability of using arbitration as an alternative, arguing that arbitration may only supplement, rather than substituting, court litigation for resolving securities disputes. China should consider signing a bilateral treaty with the USA, clarifying the principle of reciprocity, and ratifying the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention and even the 2019 Hague Judgment Convention. Hong Kong is also advised to expand its current judgment recognition arrangement with Mainland China to cover securities judgments and join the relevant international conventions.
{"title":"China’s recognition and enforcement of foreign securities judgments against overseas-listed Chinese companies","authors":"R. Huang, W. Gu","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad019","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Over the past decades, a growing number of Chinese companies have been listed overseas, notably in the USA and Hong Kong. They are subject to the securities regulation of listing places and can be sued thereunder against their securities misconduct. As overseas-listed Chinese companies usually have their main assets located in China, it is important that Chinese courts recognize and enforce foreign securities judgments. However, there are many difficulties in this area, which undermine the efficacy of the regulation of cross-border securities transactions. In quest of solutions, this article assesses the possibility of suing Chinese companies in the offshore financial centres where they are incorporated, finding that there would be similar issues with judgment enforcement in China. It also examines the viability of using arbitration as an alternative, arguing that arbitration may only supplement, rather than substituting, court litigation for resolving securities disputes. China should consider signing a bilateral treaty with the USA, clarifying the principle of reciprocity, and ratifying the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention and even the 2019 Hague Judgment Convention. Hong Kong is also advised to expand its current judgment recognition arrangement with Mainland China to cover securities judgments and join the relevant international conventions.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47072567","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":"Narratives of Globalization and the Pitfalls of Neutrality: A Brief Critique of Six Faces of Globalization","authors":"Paolo Vargiu","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad018","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49264106","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}
Journal Article What Role for the WTO in Disciplining China’s State-Dominated Economy? Get access Between Market Economy and State Capitalism: China’s State-Owned Enterprises and the World Trading System. By HENRY GAO and WEIHUAN ZHOU, Cambridge University Press, 2022. ISBN 9781108908795. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108908795 Jennifer Hillman Jennifer Hillman Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of International Economic Law, Volume 26, Issue 3, September 2023, Pages 614–618, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad017 Published: 18 May 2023 Article history Editorial decision: 21 April 2023 Received: 21 April 2023 Accepted: 22 April 2023 Corrected and typeset: 18 May 2023 Published: 18 May 2023
WTO在约束中国国有主导经济中扮演什么角色?市场经济与国家资本主义之间的准入:中国国有企业与世界贸易体系。高享利、周卫焕著，剑桥大学出版社，2022年。ISBN 9781108908795。DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108908795 Jennifer Hillman Jennifer Hillman本文作者的其他作品搜索:牛津学术谷歌学者国际经济法杂志，第26卷，第3期，2023年9月，614-618页，https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad017出版:2023年5月18日文章历史编辑决定:2023年4月21日收到:2023年4月21日接受:2023年4月22日校正和排版:2023年5月18日出版:2023年5月18日
{"title":"What Role for the WTO in Disciplining China’s State-Dominated Economy?","authors":"Jennifer Hillman","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad017","url":null,"abstract":"Journal Article What Role for the WTO in Disciplining China’s State-Dominated Economy? Get access Between Market Economy and State Capitalism: China’s State-Owned Enterprises and the World Trading System. By HENRY GAO and WEIHUAN ZHOU, Cambridge University Press, 2022. ISBN 9781108908795. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108908795 Jennifer Hillman Jennifer Hillman Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of International Economic Law, Volume 26, Issue 3, September 2023, Pages 614–618, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad017 Published: 18 May 2023 Article history Editorial decision: 21 April 2023 Received: 21 April 2023 Accepted: 22 April 2023 Corrected and typeset: 18 May 2023 Published: 18 May 2023","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135813090","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 enquires into the extent to which the elusive Chapeau of Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) may constrain the ability of regulating Members to tackle environmental externalities via unilateral regulatory action. It employs an analysis of recent European Union regulatory measures to assess the rationale of different ‘indicators’ of compliance with the Chapeau and unpack their implications. The article illustrates that a good faith–centred interpretation of the Chapeau criteria helps identify aspects in the practical application of a measure that may afford protection to domestic products or result in country-based discrimination. It also preserves the margins of action of regulating Members and can improve the regulatory design and environmental effectiveness of unilateral measures. An expansive interpretation of ‘situational’ discrimination and ‘coercion’, by contrast, captures significant distortions of competitive opportunities between ‘like’ products, broadening market access and stretching the Chapeau beyond a good faith–centred focus. Furthermore, this interpretative approach can indirectly impact the regulatory design of the measures and undermine their environmental effectiveness. Against this backdrop, the article argues that the dispute settlement organs should carefully delimit the scope of the Chapeau conditions and adhere to a good faith–centred interpretative approach.
{"title":"Anti-deforestation npr-PPMs and Carbon Border Measures: Thinking About the Chapeau of Article XX GATT in Times of Climate Crisis","authors":"Giulia Claudia Leonelli","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article enquires into the extent to which the elusive Chapeau of Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) may constrain the ability of regulating Members to tackle environmental externalities via unilateral regulatory action. It employs an analysis of recent European Union regulatory measures to assess the rationale of different ‘indicators’ of compliance with the Chapeau and unpack their implications. The article illustrates that a good faith–centred interpretation of the Chapeau criteria helps identify aspects in the practical application of a measure that may afford protection to domestic products or result in country-based discrimination. It also preserves the margins of action of regulating Members and can improve the regulatory design and environmental effectiveness of unilateral measures. An expansive interpretation of ‘situational’ discrimination and ‘coercion’, by contrast, captures significant distortions of competitive opportunities between ‘like’ products, broadening market access and stretching the Chapeau beyond a good faith–centred focus. Furthermore, this interpretative approach can indirectly impact the regulatory design of the measures and undermine their environmental effectiveness. Against this backdrop, the article argues that the dispute settlement organs should carefully delimit the scope of the Chapeau conditions and adhere to a good faith–centred interpretative approach.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48789133","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 current non-compliance with United Nations (UN) and World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements protecting transnational public goods, military aggression among WTO members, violent suppression of human and democratic rights, global health pandemics, climate change, ocean pollution, overfishing, and other biodiversity losses reflects ‘governance failures’ (e.g. to limit ‘market failures’) and ‘constitutional failures’ (e.g. to protect human and democratic rights and the sustainable development goals). The geopolitical rivalries among totalitarian governments and democracies render constitutional UN and WTO reforms unlikely. They entail ‘regulatory competition’ (e.g. among neoliberalism, state capitalism, and ordo-liberal constitutionalism) and plurilateral responses aimed at limiting abuses of power (like collective countermeasures against Russia’s illegal wars and war crimes) and at protecting transnational public goods (like plurilateral ‘climate change mitigation clubs’, appeal arbitration among WTO members, regional human rights and security agreements). The power politics disrupting the UN and WTO legal systems is bound to promote regionalization of economic law, re-globalization of supply chains, and geopolitical rivalries resulting from conflicting value priorities and neglect for the human rights underlying the sustainable development goals.
{"title":"International Economic Law in the ‘Asian Century’","authors":"E. Petersmann","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad013","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The current non-compliance with United Nations (UN) and World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements protecting transnational public goods, military aggression among WTO members, violent suppression of human and democratic rights, global health pandemics, climate change, ocean pollution, overfishing, and other biodiversity losses reflects ‘governance failures’ (e.g. to limit ‘market failures’) and ‘constitutional failures’ (e.g. to protect human and democratic rights and the sustainable development goals). The geopolitical rivalries among totalitarian governments and democracies render constitutional UN and WTO reforms unlikely. They entail ‘regulatory competition’ (e.g. among neoliberalism, state capitalism, and ordo-liberal constitutionalism) and plurilateral responses aimed at limiting abuses of power (like collective countermeasures against Russia’s illegal wars and war crimes) and at protecting transnational public goods (like plurilateral ‘climate change mitigation clubs’, appeal arbitration among WTO members, regional human rights and security agreements). The power politics disrupting the UN and WTO legal systems is bound to promote regionalization of economic law, re-globalization of supply chains, and geopolitical rivalries resulting from conflicting value priorities and neglect for the human rights underlying the sustainable development goals.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43252974","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 legality of trade with territories over which sovereignty is disputed has recently come to the forefront of policy and academic discussions due to emerging case law and escalating territorial conflicts. While considerations shaping the debate on economic activities with disputed territories are typically informed by concerns of international law, little is known about international trade and customs rules applicable to these regimes. This article aims to fill this literature gap by inquiring into the rules that apply to trade with disputed territories under the relevant World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements, in particular the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Agreement on Rules of Origin, and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. In a broader sense, it contributes to the understanding of interactions between the WTO and other self-containing regimes of international law, illustrating the challenges that arise from their different approaches to territories.
{"title":"WTO Rules for Trade with Disputed Territories","authors":"Olia Kanevskaia","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad015","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The legality of trade with territories over which sovereignty is disputed has recently come to the forefront of policy and academic discussions due to emerging case law and escalating territorial conflicts. While considerations shaping the debate on economic activities with disputed territories are typically informed by concerns of international law, little is known about international trade and customs rules applicable to these regimes. This article aims to fill this literature gap by inquiring into the rules that apply to trade with disputed territories under the relevant World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements, in particular the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Agreement on Rules of Origin, and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. In a broader sense, it contributes to the understanding of interactions between the WTO and other self-containing regimes of international law, illustrating the challenges that arise from their different approaches to territories.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46264325","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：