Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2023.2190105
Katharina L. Meissner, Chiara Graziani
ABSTRACT Sanctions were the European Union’s (EU) immediate response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. These restrictive measures focus on specific individuals, entities, goods, services, and sectors. Out of a need for nuanced data, we map and analyze the entire set of EU sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014 until today. We show and argue that the sanctions’ design has become increasingly comprehensive over the past months which reflects the EU’s geopolitical considerations in carving out a response to the unparalleled threat imposed by Russia. Our new, author-created dataset covers the complete track record of Council decisions, regulations, and annexes of these restrictive measures, and thereby offers fine-grained information on the transformation and design of EU sanctions against Russia and the Russian-controlled areas in Ukraine.
{"title":"The transformation and design of EU restrictive measures against Russia","authors":"Katharina L. Meissner, Chiara Graziani","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2023.2190105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2023.2190105","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Sanctions were the European Union’s (EU) immediate response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. These restrictive measures focus on specific individuals, entities, goods, services, and sectors. Out of a need for nuanced data, we map and analyze the entire set of EU sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014 until today. We show and argue that the sanctions’ design has become increasingly comprehensive over the past months which reflects the EU’s geopolitical considerations in carving out a response to the unparalleled threat imposed by Russia. Our new, author-created dataset covers the complete track record of Council decisions, regulations, and annexes of these restrictive measures, and thereby offers fine-grained information on the transformation and design of EU sanctions against Russia and the Russian-controlled areas in Ukraine.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46073608","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}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2023.2183394
Oriol Costa, Esther Barbé
ABSTRACT The war in Ukraine sends mixed signals about the capacity of the EU to be a relevant actor. Despite steps forward over defense, strategic autonomy has been seen as a ‘pipe dream’ that has encountered a ‘reality check’. Key member states are in a similar predicament. Despite talk of a Zeitenwende, Germany has been deemed a ‘reluctant giant’. France has allegedly seen discourse on European sovereignty vindicated, but at the same time has managed to alienate a few EU countries. We interpret this ambivalence as an effect of the fragmentation of the liberal international order, accelerated by war in Ukraine, and claim that this process is increasing the requirements for EU actorness. We then identify a range of reactions to such situation. We map them and leverage the mapping to offer a research agenda on the politics of EU foreign policy.
{"title":"A moving target. EU actorness and the Russian invasion of Ukraine","authors":"Oriol Costa, Esther Barbé","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2023.2183394","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2023.2183394","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The war in Ukraine sends mixed signals about the capacity of the EU to be a relevant actor. Despite steps forward over defense, strategic autonomy has been seen as a ‘pipe dream’ that has encountered a ‘reality check’. Key member states are in a similar predicament. Despite talk of a Zeitenwende, Germany has been deemed a ‘reluctant giant’. France has allegedly seen discourse on European sovereignty vindicated, but at the same time has managed to alienate a few EU countries. We interpret this ambivalence as an effect of the fragmentation of the liberal international order, accelerated by war in Ukraine, and claim that this process is increasing the requirements for EU actorness. We then identify a range of reactions to such situation. We map them and leverage the mapping to offer a research agenda on the politics of EU foreign policy.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44430361","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}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2023.2190588
M. Giuli, S. Oberthür
ABSTRACT The Russian aggression against Ukraine brought energy security to the top of the European policy agenda. Existing literature suggests that the prioritization of energy security would come at the expense of climate policy. We argue that the EU’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine may constitute a departure from this pattern. Our assessment shows a higher level of coherence of objectives and instruments between energy security and climate objectives than the EU’s energy policy responses to previous crises with Russia, notably the gas supply crisis of 2009 and the annexation of Crimea in 2014. While some uncertainty about final outcomes remains, we argue that change in several contextual conditions helps explain coherent policy outputs and make coherent outcomes more likely on the occasion of the present crisis.
{"title":"Third time lucky? Reconciling EU climate and external energy policy during energy security crises","authors":"M. Giuli, S. Oberthür","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2023.2190588","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2023.2190588","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Russian aggression against Ukraine brought energy security to the top of the European policy agenda. Existing literature suggests that the prioritization of energy security would come at the expense of climate policy. We argue that the EU’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine may constitute a departure from this pattern. Our assessment shows a higher level of coherence of objectives and instruments between energy security and climate objectives than the EU’s energy policy responses to previous crises with Russia, notably the gas supply crisis of 2009 and the annexation of Crimea in 2014. While some uncertainty about final outcomes remains, we argue that change in several contextual conditions helps explain coherent policy outputs and make coherent outcomes more likely on the occasion of the present crisis.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42781059","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}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2023.2183392
O. Fernández, Marie Vandendriessche, Á. Saz-Carranza, N. Agell, Javier A. Franco
ABSTRACT The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine sent shockwaves through Europe and led to rapid policy changes concomitant with variations in citizen perceptions. This article analyses how EU public opinion on security and defence matters has reacted to the war: what patterns of change and continuity can be detected, what differences are visible between Member States, and how might those be explained? Our analysis draws on big data-based sentiment analysis of news sources, reflecting a widely recognized connection between media coverage and public opinion – especially during crisis times – and complementing more traditional measurements of citizen perceptions such as opinion polls. Broadly speaking, we find that the invasion has heightened rather than fundamentally altered underlying trends. Our article contributes to a growing literature on the acceptability of European integration in security and defence, showing that publics are generally supportive of it, and regard it as complementary to NATO.
{"title":"The impact of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine on public perceptions of EU security and defence integration: a big data analysis","authors":"O. Fernández, Marie Vandendriessche, Á. Saz-Carranza, N. Agell, Javier A. Franco","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2023.2183392","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2023.2183392","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine sent shockwaves through Europe and led to rapid policy changes concomitant with variations in citizen perceptions. This article analyses how EU public opinion on security and defence matters has reacted to the war: what patterns of change and continuity can be detected, what differences are visible between Member States, and how might those be explained? Our analysis draws on big data-based sentiment analysis of news sources, reflecting a widely recognized connection between media coverage and public opinion – especially during crisis times – and complementing more traditional measurements of citizen perceptions such as opinion polls. Broadly speaking, we find that the invasion has heightened rather than fundamentally altered underlying trends. Our article contributes to a growing literature on the acceptability of European integration in security and defence, showing that publics are generally supportive of it, and regard it as complementary to NATO.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42329422","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}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2023.2183395
Daniel Fiott
ABSTRACT Russia’s war on Ukraine has upended the European security order. Ukraine has requested EU membership, unprecedented sanctions have been imposed on Russia, European countries have shipped weapons and munitions to Ukraine and NATO has shored up its military presence. Despite such action, is it possible to speak of a transformative moment or ‘Zeitenwende’ for EU security and defence? This article analyses the state of EU integration in defence since the war on Ukraine. Drawing on hypotheses developed under ‘new intergovernmentalism’, this article analyses how EU Member State preferences in defence and intergovernmental-supranational dynamics are being shaped by the war. In particular, the article probes how supranational and intergovernmental institutions have reacted to the war and how domestic preferences have fed into recent EU defence efforts. In doing so, the article provides a preliminary assessment of the state of EU integration in defence since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
{"title":"In every crisis an opportunity? European Union integration in defence and the War on Ukraine","authors":"Daniel Fiott","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2023.2183395","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2023.2183395","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Russia’s war on Ukraine has upended the European security order. Ukraine has requested EU membership, unprecedented sanctions have been imposed on Russia, European countries have shipped weapons and munitions to Ukraine and NATO has shored up its military presence. Despite such action, is it possible to speak of a transformative moment or ‘Zeitenwende’ for EU security and defence? This article analyses the state of EU integration in defence since the war on Ukraine. Drawing on hypotheses developed under ‘new intergovernmentalism’, this article analyses how EU Member State preferences in defence and intergovernmental-supranational dynamics are being shaped by the war. In particular, the article probes how supranational and intergovernmental institutions have reacted to the war and how domestic preferences have fed into recent EU defence efforts. In doing so, the article provides a preliminary assessment of the state of EU integration in defence since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47064925","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}
Pub Date : 2023-03-28DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2023.2196069
L. Schmeer
ABSTRACT In 2017, member states established the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), an EU body investigating and prosecuting offences against the EU financial interests. This article analyses the relation between the institutional design of the EPPO and sovereignty concerns of member states. Combining the core state powers framework with literature on Council negotiation dynamics, it argues that the Council was divided regarding how far-reaching the authority of this new body vis-à-vis member states should be or to what extent member states should retain control over the body. A qualitative discourse analysis shows that the competition between states sharing a supranational position regarding the EPPO and those sharing an intergovernmental position resulted in the creation of a complex and ambiguous body. These findings contribute to the literature on agencification of Justice and Home Affairs as well as, more broadly, to scholarship on the construction of new types of authority.
{"title":"The establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office: integration with limited supranationalisation?","authors":"L. Schmeer","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2023.2196069","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2023.2196069","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In 2017, member states established the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), an EU body investigating and prosecuting offences against the EU financial interests. This article analyses the relation between the institutional design of the EPPO and sovereignty concerns of member states. Combining the core state powers framework with literature on Council negotiation dynamics, it argues that the Council was divided regarding how far-reaching the authority of this new body vis-à-vis member states should be or to what extent member states should retain control over the body. A qualitative discourse analysis shows that the competition between states sharing a supranational position regarding the EPPO and those sharing an intergovernmental position resulted in the creation of a complex and ambiguous body. These findings contribute to the literature on agencification of Justice and Home Affairs as well as, more broadly, to scholarship on the construction of new types of authority.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44215493","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}
Pub Date : 2023-03-15DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2023.2190104
Julien Bois, Mark Dawson
ABSTRACT This article examines the development of judicialization literature in the EU arguing that – in spite of the obvious advantages of inter-disciplinary collaboration – scholarship on judicialization in law and political science is drafting apart in the 21st Century. While early political science research on the European Courts found theoretical inspiration in legal research, law and political science have increasingly diverging epistemological and methodological starting points. As the article argues, using prominent papers, this results in both disciplines producing partial accounts of judicial change with limited external validity. The article concludes by offering routes to improving the inter-disciplinary foundations of judicialization research.
{"title":"Towards a legally plausible theory of judicialization in the European Union","authors":"Julien Bois, Mark Dawson","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2023.2190104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2023.2190104","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines the development of judicialization literature in the EU arguing that – in spite of the obvious advantages of inter-disciplinary collaboration – scholarship on judicialization in law and political science is drafting apart in the 21st Century. While early political science research on the European Courts found theoretical inspiration in legal research, law and political science have increasingly diverging epistemological and methodological starting points. As the article argues, using prominent papers, this results in both disciplines producing partial accounts of judicial change with limited external validity. The article concludes by offering routes to improving the inter-disciplinary foundations of judicialization research.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44922869","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}
Pub Date : 2023-03-02DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2023.2183198
Mikel Erkoreka, Asier Blas
ABSTRACT Research in differentiated policy implementation in the European Union is in vogue because of its strengths for deploying public policies and assessing policy outcomes. This article sets out a path dependency argument about the dynamics of differentiated customs policy implementation in the EU. We analyse two highly representative cases of customs fraud to develop a quantitative and qualitative approach to the impact of customisation on customs control performance: the first, linked to an exercise of unfair competition; the second, a case of customs common standards ‘misinterpretation’ related to path dependency. We conclude that differentiated policy implementation has proved inefficient for ensuring an equivalent level playing field of customs controls in the EU, resulting in three substantial negative outcomes: economic and budgetary; problem-solving capacity; and output legitimacy. Differentiated policy implementation can lead to a competitive disadvantage, especially when dealing with policies that do not permit any graduation in their fulfilment.
{"title":"Implementation performance in the field of the EU Customs Union: consequences of differentiated policy implementation on customs control efficiency","authors":"Mikel Erkoreka, Asier Blas","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2023.2183198","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2023.2183198","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Research in differentiated policy implementation in the European Union is in vogue because of its strengths for deploying public policies and assessing policy outcomes. This article sets out a path dependency argument about the dynamics of differentiated customs policy implementation in the EU. We analyse two highly representative cases of customs fraud to develop a quantitative and qualitative approach to the impact of customisation on customs control performance: the first, linked to an exercise of unfair competition; the second, a case of customs common standards ‘misinterpretation’ related to path dependency. We conclude that differentiated policy implementation has proved inefficient for ensuring an equivalent level playing field of customs controls in the EU, resulting in three substantial negative outcomes: economic and budgetary; problem-solving capacity; and output legitimacy. Differentiated policy implementation can lead to a competitive disadvantage, especially when dealing with policies that do not permit any graduation in their fulfilment.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44562171","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}
Pub Date : 2023-02-28DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2023.2183197
Andrew Glencross
ABSTRACT This article provides a Weberian ideal-type framework to capture elite strategies for managing hard Euroscepticism and their consequences for EU disintegration. It does so by drawing on policy evolution theory to conceptualise two ideal types representing contrasting strategies: taming Euroscepticism by technocratic adaptation or embracing it. This framework is used to analyse empirical examples that match these two ideal-type approaches respectively: France and the UK between 2004 and 17. The use of this framework is a novel way of explaining the evolution and differences between elite French and UK responses to hard Euroscepticism by showing how and why French EU policy remained intra-paradigmatic as compared to the paradigm shift of Brexit. This approach allows for a better understanding of the process and probability of EU disintegration by linking the latter to strategic policy choices. In a UK context, it also offers a way to anticipate the signals leading to a reversal of disintegration.
{"title":"Riding the Eurosceptic tiger vs taming it by technocracy: the UK and France as two ideal types of how to manage hard Euroscepticism","authors":"Andrew Glencross","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2023.2183197","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2023.2183197","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article provides a Weberian ideal-type framework to capture elite strategies for managing hard Euroscepticism and their consequences for EU disintegration. It does so by drawing on policy evolution theory to conceptualise two ideal types representing contrasting strategies: taming Euroscepticism by technocratic adaptation or embracing it. This framework is used to analyse empirical examples that match these two ideal-type approaches respectively: France and the UK between 2004 and 17. The use of this framework is a novel way of explaining the evolution and differences between elite French and UK responses to hard Euroscepticism by showing how and why French EU policy remained intra-paradigmatic as compared to the paradigm shift of Brexit. This approach allows for a better understanding of the process and probability of EU disintegration by linking the latter to strategic policy choices. In a UK context, it also offers a way to anticipate the signals leading to a reversal of disintegration.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47683178","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}
Pub Date : 2023-02-23DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2023.2183396
Vincent Della Sala
ABSTRACT The paper’s aim is two-fold. First, it wants to explore if and how the war in Ukraine has exposed tension in the EU’s foundational myth as a political community forged in crisis with the aim to bring peace and stability to Europe. Second, it highlights how the war reveals that the EU ultimately fails to be an ontological security provider for member states and Europeans. The paradox of the EU’s myth of crisis is that it, like all foundational myths, is supposed to lead to a more secure sense of self and continuity. However, the war in Ukraine is a crisis that cannot be addressed without putting into discussion the other part of the foundational myth of how integration leads to peace and how this may help to explain limits to how much the EU can do to guarantee peace and stability.
{"title":"Ontological security, crisis and political myth: the Ukraine war and the European Union","authors":"Vincent Della Sala","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2023.2183396","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2023.2183396","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The paper’s aim is two-fold. First, it wants to explore if and how the war in Ukraine has exposed tension in the EU’s foundational myth as a political community forged in crisis with the aim to bring peace and stability to Europe. Second, it highlights how the war reveals that the EU ultimately fails to be an ontological security provider for member states and Europeans. The paradox of the EU’s myth of crisis is that it, like all foundational myths, is supposed to lead to a more secure sense of self and continuity. However, the war in Ukraine is a crisis that cannot be addressed without putting into discussion the other part of the foundational myth of how integration leads to peace and how this may help to explain limits to how much the EU can do to guarantee peace and stability.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43543457","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：