What explains variations in the proactiveness of Japanese Prime Ministers (PMs) toward national defense? Although the Japanese Constitution renounces the use of force, leaders sometimes speak assertively over national security. Drawing on competing international relations and Japanese foreign policy theories, this study seeks to quantitatively model and analyze predictors of political rhetoric in PMs’ speeches and statements from 2009 to 2019. Each statement is coded into four sets of binary dependent variables through content analysis and tested against five competing hypotheses. The main finding reveals that leaders become more likely to advocate for specifically assertive national security policy when Chinese vessel intrusion increases, but not when North Korea missile tests and aircraft scrambles increase. Instead of a diversionary use of words, an emboldening effect is evident in rhetoric that evokes responsibility in international defense, moderated by ruling government strength. The findings advance academic understandings of Japanese national security policy messaging and highlight the effect of external threat perception on political rhetoric.
{"title":"Why Talk Tough? Explaining Japanese Prime Ministers’ Proactiveness in National Defense Rhetoric","authors":"Christine Liu","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orab035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orab035","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 What explains variations in the proactiveness of Japanese Prime Ministers (PMs) toward national defense? Although the Japanese Constitution renounces the use of force, leaders sometimes speak assertively over national security. Drawing on competing international relations and Japanese foreign policy theories, this study seeks to quantitatively model and analyze predictors of political rhetoric in PMs’ speeches and statements from 2009 to 2019. Each statement is coded into four sets of binary dependent variables through content analysis and tested against five competing hypotheses. The main finding reveals that leaders become more likely to advocate for specifically assertive national security policy when Chinese vessel intrusion increases, but not when North Korea missile tests and aircraft scrambles increase. Instead of a diversionary use of words, an emboldening effect is evident in rhetoric that evokes responsibility in international defense, moderated by ruling government strength. The findings advance academic understandings of Japanese national security policy messaging and highlight the effect of external threat perception on political rhetoric.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42565816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Dmitry G. Zaytsev, Valentina V. Kuskova, A. Kononova
Studies on foreign policy consider government as the key actor in policy formulation and implementation. Research, apparently, has devoted far less attention to impact of knowledge brokers, such as think tanks, on policy-making. How and why do think tanks influence US foreign policy? An analysis of five think tanks that differ in terms of their proximity to elites, origin, and ideology reveals two types of nonstate actors’ impact on foreign policy. Think tanks either advocate for own alternative policy proposals, solutions, and actions (“alternatives’ facilitators”), or clarify, justify, and legitimize those of the governments (“policy legitimizers”). These two roles dictate special mechanisms and think tank impact directions. In the first type, think tanks are less oriented toward mass media, but more oriented toward coalitions with nonstate actors and influence the opinions of elites. The second type is the opposite: higher orientation toward mass media and more pronounced connections with elites, and influence on the public. Different origins and strategy of think tanks may be the reasons for some observed differences.
{"title":"The Power of Knowledge: How Think Tanks Impact US Foreign Policy","authors":"Dmitry G. Zaytsev, Valentina V. Kuskova, A. Kononova","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orab034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orab034","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Studies on foreign policy consider government as the key actor in policy formulation and implementation. Research, apparently, has devoted far less attention to impact of knowledge brokers, such as think tanks, on policy-making. How and why do think tanks influence US foreign policy? An analysis of five think tanks that differ in terms of their proximity to elites, origin, and ideology reveals two types of nonstate actors’ impact on foreign policy. Think tanks either advocate for own alternative policy proposals, solutions, and actions (“alternatives’ facilitators”), or clarify, justify, and legitimize those of the governments (“policy legitimizers”). These two roles dictate special mechanisms and think tank impact directions. In the first type, think tanks are less oriented toward mass media, but more oriented toward coalitions with nonstate actors and influence the opinions of elites. The second type is the opposite: higher orientation toward mass media and more pronounced connections with elites, and influence on the public. Different origins and strategy of think tanks may be the reasons for some observed differences.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45275017","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The study of armed non-state actors (ANSAs) has grown exponentially in the last two decades. This article explores the foreign policy of ANSAs as a new empirical domain for foreign policy analysis (FPA) by drawing on various examples from the Middle East to show the merit of this area for novel empirical and theoretical studies. The article identifies the domain of ANSAs’ foreign policy showing how FPA research has so far remained state-centric and almost completely ignores ANSAs. While the external engagement of ANSAs were examined within the scholarship on civil wars, FPA can be adapted to provide systematic scholarly understanding of this phenomenon. Finally, the article explores how studying ANSAs’ foreign policies can revitalize FPA and drive its agenda into new directions.
{"title":"Foreign Policy Analysis and Armed Non-State Actors in World Politics: Lessons from the Middle East","authors":"May Darwich","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orab030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orab030","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The study of armed non-state actors (ANSAs) has grown exponentially in the last two decades. This article explores the foreign policy of ANSAs as a new empirical domain for foreign policy analysis (FPA) by drawing on various examples from the Middle East to show the merit of this area for novel empirical and theoretical studies. The article identifies the domain of ANSAs’ foreign policy showing how FPA research has so far remained state-centric and almost completely ignores ANSAs. While the external engagement of ANSAs were examined within the scholarship on civil wars, FPA can be adapted to provide systematic scholarly understanding of this phenomenon. Finally, the article explores how studying ANSAs’ foreign policies can revitalize FPA and drive its agenda into new directions.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2021-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47966474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
How important are ambassadors in international politics? While a growing body of research stresses the importance of diplomacy in international politics, it remains unclear if individual ambassadors make a significant difference or what attributes make for an effective ambassador. This paper explores these questions through a systematic analysis of 2,730 US ambassadors between 1946 and 2014. The United States is distinctive in that it sends a sizable number of noncareer political appointees to serve as ambassadors. This provides a unique opportunity to examine how an ambassador's experience shapes where they are placed and how they perform. Using various techniques to address selection effects, including matching, I find that the United States is less likely to experience a militarized dispute with a host nation when it is represented by a political ambassador. Moreover, political ambassadors with professional experience in politics or the military, those who are close to the president, and those who are appointed in permissive congressional environments are less likely to experience militarized disputes during their tenure. Individual ambassadors matter, but diplomatic experience alone is not the only attribute that makes for an effective ambassador.
{"title":"Are You Experienced? US Ambassadors and International Crises, 1946–2014","authors":"Paul K. MacDonald","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orab026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orab026","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 How important are ambassadors in international politics? While a growing body of research stresses the importance of diplomacy in international politics, it remains unclear if individual ambassadors make a significant difference or what attributes make for an effective ambassador. This paper explores these questions through a systematic analysis of 2,730 US ambassadors between 1946 and 2014. The United States is distinctive in that it sends a sizable number of noncareer political appointees to serve as ambassadors. This provides a unique opportunity to examine how an ambassador's experience shapes where they are placed and how they perform. Using various techniques to address selection effects, including matching, I find that the United States is less likely to experience a militarized dispute with a host nation when it is represented by a political ambassador. Moreover, political ambassadors with professional experience in politics or the military, those who are close to the president, and those who are appointed in permissive congressional environments are less likely to experience militarized disputes during their tenure. Individual ambassadors matter, but diplomatic experience alone is not the only attribute that makes for an effective ambassador.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42649707","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study explores how time horizons shape the decision-making process in international conflicts. I posit that leaders assess only a subset of the available policy options. The proposed decision-making model suggests that time horizons serve as a screening mechanism. Only policies that fit the actor's time horizon enter the choice set and can be eventually selected. Thus, variations in actors’ time horizons generate different choice sets in terms of size and composition. These different choice sets affect the identity of the selected policy. Using a two-phase experiment, I demonstrate that short time horizons reduce the choice set size and the type of options that are considered. The selection of the final policy is sensitive to the inherent trade-off in policy implications and to the composition of the choice set. These findings clarify the influence of time horizons on conflict choices within a two-phase decision process. It also explains why, facing international conflicts, political leaders are not likely to place all policy options “on the table.”
{"title":"All Options Are on the Table? Time Horizons and the Decision-Making Process in Conflict","authors":"Rotem Dvir","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orab028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orab028","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This study explores how time horizons shape the decision-making process in international conflicts. I posit that leaders assess only a subset of the available policy options. The proposed decision-making model suggests that time horizons serve as a screening mechanism. Only policies that fit the actor's time horizon enter the choice set and can be eventually selected. Thus, variations in actors’ time horizons generate different choice sets in terms of size and composition. These different choice sets affect the identity of the selected policy. Using a two-phase experiment, I demonstrate that short time horizons reduce the choice set size and the type of options that are considered. The selection of the final policy is sensitive to the inherent trade-off in policy implications and to the composition of the choice set. These findings clarify the influence of time horizons on conflict choices within a two-phase decision process. It also explains why, facing international conflicts, political leaders are not likely to place all policy options “on the table.”","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47071329","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The research identifies geographic proximity as the crucial driving force behind state behavior in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). Looking at both stages of the UPR mechanism, we pose two questions: what best explains states issuing human rights recommendations and what best explains states accepting those recommendations? Our model controls for a variety of alternative explanations—state capacity, international structure, and international institutions. The results show that the closer the states are, the more likely it is that they will issue each other recommendations; however, the closer the states are, the less likely it is that they will accept recommendations from one another. We also find an important caveat: the logic of issuance and acceptance of recommendations is reversed when it comes to neighboring states. The latter speaks against general international relations literature, where sharing a border and geographic proximity are both associated with increasing the likelihood of conflict.
{"title":"(Geo)Politics of Universal Periodic Review: Why States Issue and Accept Human Rights Recommendations?","authors":"Anže Burger, Igor Kovač, Staša Tkalec","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orab029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orab029","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The research identifies geographic proximity as the crucial driving force behind state behavior in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). Looking at both stages of the UPR mechanism, we pose two questions: what best explains states issuing human rights recommendations and what best explains states accepting those recommendations? Our model controls for a variety of alternative explanations—state capacity, international structure, and international institutions. The results show that the closer the states are, the more likely it is that they will issue each other recommendations; however, the closer the states are, the less likely it is that they will accept recommendations from one another. We also find an important caveat: the logic of issuance and acceptance of recommendations is reversed when it comes to neighboring states. The latter speaks against general international relations literature, where sharing a border and geographic proximity are both associated with increasing the likelihood of conflict.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43970651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study examines whether discrimination against religious minorities and diaspora politics influences United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voting on Israel and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict between 1990 and 2014. We test discrimination against Jews, discrimination against Muslims, and general discrimination against all religious minorities in 183 countries. Our results indicate that repressive countries vote against Israel in the UNGA partly as a diversionary tactic seeking to divert attention from their own poor behavior. This is because discriminating against both Jews and Muslims, as well as religious discrimination in general, predict anti-Israel voting. We also find that countries with larger Jewish minorities are more likely to support Israel and countries with larger Muslim minorities are less likely to support Israel, although the latter effect is more conditional and most consistently pronounced in countries where discrimination against Muslims is low. This suggests that diaspora politics and transnational religious ties influence UNGA voting on Israel.
{"title":"Religious Discrimination, Diaspora, and United Nations Voting on Israel","authors":"Tatyana Haykin, J. Fox, Nikola Mirilovic","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orab024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orab024","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This study examines whether discrimination against religious minorities and diaspora politics influences United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voting on Israel and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict between 1990 and 2014. We test discrimination against Jews, discrimination against Muslims, and general discrimination against all religious minorities in 183 countries. Our results indicate that repressive countries vote against Israel in the UNGA partly as a diversionary tactic seeking to divert attention from their own poor behavior. This is because discriminating against both Jews and Muslims, as well as religious discrimination in general, predict anti-Israel voting. We also find that countries with larger Jewish minorities are more likely to support Israel and countries with larger Muslim minorities are less likely to support Israel, although the latter effect is more conditional and most consistently pronounced in countries where discrimination against Muslims is low. This suggests that diaspora politics and transnational religious ties influence UNGA voting on Israel.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45795689","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Foreign Policy Analysis research documents that foreign policy decisions have internal and external influences. In the Global South (GS), interests and identities are transnational in nature. The acceptability heuristic from poliheuristic (PH) theory is the jumping-off point for exploring this idea. Leaders reject policy choices that risk political loss. Key concepts from GS scholarship offer insight into the unrecognized transnational nature of two of PH theory's acceptability considerations, regime survival, and legitimacy. Leaders judge how a policy protects regime survival and legitimacy based on ideas about threats and constituents. Foreign policy paths are understood by investigating the transnational strategies they use to address regime security and legitimacy concerns. The strategy concept developed in previous work is applied to Museveni's Uganda. We see GS leaders evaluate but also create acceptability by engaging in intermestic policy driven by these transnational concerns. They also manipulate more powerful states, increasing their significance beyond expectations.
{"title":"Global South Leaders and Foreign Policy: The Acceptability Constraint and Transnational Considerations in the Decision Context","authors":"Andrea K. Grove","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orab025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orab025","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Foreign Policy Analysis research documents that foreign policy decisions have internal and external influences. In the Global South (GS), interests and identities are transnational in nature. The acceptability heuristic from poliheuristic (PH) theory is the jumping-off point for exploring this idea. Leaders reject policy choices that risk political loss. Key concepts from GS scholarship offer insight into the unrecognized transnational nature of two of PH theory's acceptability considerations, regime survival, and legitimacy. Leaders judge how a policy protects regime survival and legitimacy based on ideas about threats and constituents. Foreign policy paths are understood by investigating the transnational strategies they use to address regime security and legitimacy concerns. The strategy concept developed in previous work is applied to Museveni's Uganda. We see GS leaders evaluate but also create acceptability by engaging in intermestic policy driven by these transnational concerns. They also manipulate more powerful states, increasing their significance beyond expectations.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48158779","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 1964, the UK government imposed an arms embargo on South Africa, which it maintained until the end of the white minority rule. What explains this embargo? Using mainly archival evidence, this paper demonstrates that domestic political dynamics in the United Kingdom mediated the influence of the transnational anti-apartheid and anti-colonial struggles on the British government. The United Kingdom imposed and maintained this embargo due in part to a domestic advocacy network, whose hub was the Anti-Apartheid Movement. The paper provides a comprehensive explanation of an important issue in British foreign policy, the anti-colonial struggle, and Southern Africa's history. There are theoretical implications for foreign policy analysis concerning the role of advocacy networks, interactions between local and global activism, the role of political parties’ ideology and contestation, the effects on foreign policy of changes in a normative environment, the effects of norm contestation, and normative determinants of sanctions.
{"title":"Transnational Activism and Domestic Politics: Arms Exports and the Anti-Apartheid Struggle in the UK–South Africa Relations (1959–1994)","authors":"Rodrigo Fracalossi de Moraes","doi":"10.1093/FPA/ORAB023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/FPA/ORAB023","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In 1964, the UK government imposed an arms embargo on South Africa, which it maintained until the end of the white minority rule. What explains this embargo? Using mainly archival evidence, this paper demonstrates that domestic political dynamics in the United Kingdom mediated the influence of the transnational anti-apartheid and anti-colonial struggles on the British government. The United Kingdom imposed and maintained this embargo due in part to a domestic advocacy network, whose hub was the Anti-Apartheid Movement. The paper provides a comprehensive explanation of an important issue in British foreign policy, the anti-colonial struggle, and Southern Africa's history. There are theoretical implications for foreign policy analysis concerning the role of advocacy networks, interactions between local and global activism, the role of political parties’ ideology and contestation, the effects on foreign policy of changes in a normative environment, the effects of norm contestation, and normative determinants of sanctions.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47502381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As the world moves away from the West-centered international system, IR scholars are increasingly turning their attention to substance and formation of national values. Using the case of Russia, we show how distinct schools of IR theory and foreign policy dominant in the country have come to recognize the importance of national values as a lens through which to assess the country's means and goals of development. Each in its way, these schools—Civilizationists, Statists, and Westernizers—have prioritized “the national” in the country's future. We explain Russia's turn to the national by stressing the country's ontological insecurity, the role of the Russian state, and Western actions that contribute to creating and exacerbating the conditions of ontological insecurity. The case of Russia has important implications for understanding the role of national values in the formation of foreign policy and IR theory.
{"title":"Constructing National Values: The Nationally Distinctive Turn in Russian IR Theory and Foreign Policy","authors":"A. Tsygankov, P. Tsygankov","doi":"10.1093/FPA/ORAB022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/FPA/ORAB022","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 As the world moves away from the West-centered international system, IR scholars are increasingly turning their attention to substance and formation of national values. Using the case of Russia, we show how distinct schools of IR theory and foreign policy dominant in the country have come to recognize the importance of national values as a lens through which to assess the country's means and goals of development. Each in its way, these schools—Civilizationists, Statists, and Westernizers—have prioritized “the national” in the country's future. We explain Russia's turn to the national by stressing the country's ontological insecurity, the role of the Russian state, and Western actions that contribute to creating and exacerbating the conditions of ontological insecurity. The case of Russia has important implications for understanding the role of national values in the formation of foreign policy and IR theory.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44890260","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：