Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.31558/2519-2949.2023.3.11
Ю. Ж. Шайгородський
The article is devoted to the analysis of current socio-political changes caused by the full-scale Russian military invasion of Ukraine. The author emphasises the axiological nature of these changes. It is shown that the criminal, unprovoked Russian military invasion of Ukraine in 2022 not only dramatically changed people's lives, but also affected the structure of value orientations of Ukrainian citizens. A real threat to the state, its sovereignty and territorial integrity has united and mobilised Ukrainian society, and changes in the value priorities of the Ukrainian population have become the basis of its value and orientation unity.It is argued that value-oriented unity is a key characteristic of the system of social relations, based on the closeness of assessments, attitudes, consensus of values, positions on the most socially significant events, motivates behaviour and influences the choice of behavioural models of citizens. The author substantiates the thesis that the ability of Ukrainian citizens to mobilise and unite in countering Russian aggression is the result of the formation and development of civil society in Ukraine, its development on the basis of self-organisation and mutual assistance.Some indicators of the emotional state of Ukrainian citizens are analysed. It is emphasised that the prevalence of negative emotions is objective, and the change in dominant feelings is a certain psychological reaction to the lack of expected quick and unconditional positive results. It is shown that despite the high level of psychological tension, society remains consolidated, and national unity remains the basis for countering Russian aggression and one of the conditions for victory in this war. The author proposes some directions for strengthening social unity and mutual assistance, shaping public opinion and increasing the level of trust in the authorities.
{"title":"Суспільна мобілізація як зміна ціннісних пріоритетів","authors":"Ю. Ж. Шайгородський","doi":"10.31558/2519-2949.2023.3.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31558/2519-2949.2023.3.11","url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the analysis of current socio-political changes caused by the full-scale Russian military invasion of Ukraine. The author emphasises the axiological nature of these changes. It is shown that the criminal, unprovoked Russian military invasion of Ukraine in 2022 not only dramatically changed people's lives, but also affected the structure of value orientations of Ukrainian citizens. A real threat to the state, its sovereignty and territorial integrity has united and mobilised Ukrainian society, and changes in the value priorities of the Ukrainian population have become the basis of its value and orientation unity.It is argued that value-oriented unity is a key characteristic of the system of social relations, based on the closeness of assessments, attitudes, consensus of values, positions on the most socially significant events, motivates behaviour and influences the choice of behavioural models of citizens. The author substantiates the thesis that the ability of Ukrainian citizens to mobilise and unite in countering Russian aggression is the result of the formation and development of civil society in Ukraine, its development on the basis of self-organisation and mutual assistance.Some indicators of the emotional state of Ukrainian citizens are analysed. It is emphasised that the prevalence of negative emotions is objective, and the change in dominant feelings is a certain psychological reaction to the lack of expected quick and unconditional positive results. It is shown that despite the high level of psychological tension, society remains consolidated, and national unity remains the basis for countering Russian aggression and one of the conditions for victory in this war. The author proposes some directions for strengthening social unity and mutual assistance, shaping public opinion and increasing the level of trust in the authorities.","PeriodicalId":477981,"journal":{"name":"Політичне життя","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136305212","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.31558/2519-2949.2023.3.7
Ю. В. Узун
The paper analyses the complex of institutions that perform the functions of regional representation in the context of global transformation of territorial and political systems. It is noted that glocalisation as a specific process of the second half of the twentieth century has led to: 1) the rise of the role of regions of different scales in the implementation of the global action programme aimed at ensuring the needs and human rights, interests of local regional communities, 2) strengthening the functional capacity of subnational regions by reducing the distance of political participation in supranational integration macro-regional systems. The paper demonstrates the theoretical and methodological basis for the formation of a new architecture of glocal political relations, which is constructed on the basis of the following principles: rejection of "methodological nationalism", accompanied by the definition of localities and regions as the main object of research; replacement of the top-down logic of analysis (from the state to regions and localities) with the bottom-up logic (from self-government systems to national systems and supranational systems such as the EU); substantiation of political space as the result of cooperation of social and political actors. The paper is built around several problems of constitutionalising regional representation in political systems: 1) the correlation of territorial and political contexts of regional participation in systems of macro-regional integration interaction; 2) electoral systems that technically provide models of representation; 3) parliamentary supranational macro-regional representation, by which each elected region represents itself in the global context of international relations; 4) parliamentary and extra-parliamentary ways of representing subnational regions. The paper concludes that the process of institutionalisation of extra-parliamentary forms of regional representation is underway, which are replacing the traditional form of territorial representation represented by bicameralism. The modern logic of institutionalisation is based on the recognition of asymmetric functionally determined forms of representation of regional interests in networks of intergovernmental structures, built not so much on the basis of the representation model as on the basis of participation and coordination.
{"title":"Архітектура регіонального представництва в системах багаторівневих відносин","authors":"Ю. В. Узун","doi":"10.31558/2519-2949.2023.3.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31558/2519-2949.2023.3.7","url":null,"abstract":"The paper analyses the complex of institutions that perform the functions of regional representation in the context of global transformation of territorial and political systems. It is noted that glocalisation as a specific process of the second half of the twentieth century has led to: 1) the rise of the role of regions of different scales in the implementation of the global action programme aimed at ensuring the needs and human rights, interests of local regional communities, 2) strengthening the functional capacity of subnational regions by reducing the distance of political participation in supranational integration macro-regional systems. The paper demonstrates the theoretical and methodological basis for the formation of a new architecture of glocal political relations, which is constructed on the basis of the following principles: rejection of \"methodological nationalism\", accompanied by the definition of localities and regions as the main object of research; replacement of the top-down logic of analysis (from the state to regions and localities) with the bottom-up logic (from self-government systems to national systems and supranational systems such as the EU); substantiation of political space as the result of cooperation of social and political actors. The paper is built around several problems of constitutionalising regional representation in political systems: 1) the correlation of territorial and political contexts of regional participation in systems of macro-regional integration interaction; 2) electoral systems that technically provide models of representation; 3) parliamentary supranational macro-regional representation, by which each elected region represents itself in the global context of international relations; 4) parliamentary and extra-parliamentary ways of representing subnational regions. The paper concludes that the process of institutionalisation of extra-parliamentary forms of regional representation is underway, which are replacing the traditional form of territorial representation represented by bicameralism. The modern logic of institutionalisation is based on the recognition of asymmetric functionally determined forms of representation of regional interests in networks of intergovernmental structures, built not so much on the basis of the representation model as on the basis of participation and coordination.","PeriodicalId":477981,"journal":{"name":"Політичне життя","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136305017","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.31558/2519-2949.2023.3.8
К. О. Голденштейн
The article analyzes the source base of memory policy research as a constructive element and a key resource of symbolic policy. The proposition that the idea of the past is the most important political resource in the conditions of modern development is substantiated. The main directions of studying the symbolic aspects of the politics of memory within the framework of political science studies, as well as those directly or indirectly related to political science, are systematized. The theoretical-methodological specifics and conceptual-categorical basis of memory policy have been clarified, achievements and miscalculations in its interdisciplinary research have been revealed. The key parameters of symbolic politics as a means of stimulating memory politics are elaborated. The potential possibilities of the approach to memory policy as a set of public interactions of actors who seek to form a certain understanding of the past are determined.It is proved that in modern conditions, the symbolic potential of historical memory is used to strengthen the legitimacy of the government, which relies on the resource of history and collective memories, inscribed in the mythological panorama of the national community. It was found that historical memory today is becoming a necessary tool for managing political processes, so the power structures are forced to resort to memory politics in order to have an operational and effective influence on society. The experience of applying the policy of crumpled in the structure of the symbolic policy of the state is articulated. The thesis that existing approaches to the politics of memory seek to reveal the mechanisms of transformation of collective memory in the context of its competing interpretations and the struggle for political dominance is substantiated.
{"title":"Джерела дослідження символічних аспектів політики пам’яті","authors":"К. О. Голденштейн","doi":"10.31558/2519-2949.2023.3.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31558/2519-2949.2023.3.8","url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes the source base of memory policy research as a constructive element and a key resource of symbolic policy. The proposition that the idea of the past is the most important political resource in the conditions of modern development is substantiated. The main directions of studying the symbolic aspects of the politics of memory within the framework of political science studies, as well as those directly or indirectly related to political science, are systematized. The theoretical-methodological specifics and conceptual-categorical basis of memory policy have been clarified, achievements and miscalculations in its interdisciplinary research have been revealed. The key parameters of symbolic politics as a means of stimulating memory politics are elaborated. The potential possibilities of the approach to memory policy as a set of public interactions of actors who seek to form a certain understanding of the past are determined.It is proved that in modern conditions, the symbolic potential of historical memory is used to strengthen the legitimacy of the government, which relies on the resource of history and collective memories, inscribed in the mythological panorama of the national community. It was found that historical memory today is becoming a necessary tool for managing political processes, so the power structures are forced to resort to memory politics in order to have an operational and effective influence on society. The experience of applying the policy of crumpled in the structure of the symbolic policy of the state is articulated. The thesis that existing approaches to the politics of memory seek to reveal the mechanisms of transformation of collective memory in the context of its competing interpretations and the struggle for political dominance is substantiated.","PeriodicalId":477981,"journal":{"name":"Політичне життя","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136305020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.31558/2519-2949.2023.3.5
О. А. Третяк, В. М. Торяник
The article is devoted to the study of the public, which ensures the provision of priorities for state policy and forms the perception of government officials regarding the needs and demands of citizens. It was revealed that public opinion becomes the object of influence of media subjects who do not have a clear ideological, value or doctrinal identity. It is taken into account that for modern Ukraine in the conditions of a full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation, the question of compliance of the political and institutional structure with the requirements and needs of capacity and resistance is important. It has been proven that public opinion in a democracy will be formed on the basis of the real needs of society, which will be agreed upon in free democratic discussions. At each of these stages, political parties either qualitatively changed their own structure and integrated into the new political reality, or their structure underwent a decline, which consisted in party splits and subsequent absorption by more effective structures. The purpose of the article is to establish the importance of public policy as a factor in the formation of public opinion in the context of the development of the party system of modern Ukraine. Methods that are widely used in modern political sciences are used. In particular, it is about systemic, comparative, scenario and retrospective. As a result of the research, the issue of publicity in the political world is characterized by cultural and civilizational limitations and orientation to the practices of a democratic society. The proposed concept of a network party, or public organization, which will be built not as a part of an already existing party, but as a new political force based on engaged users of the worldwide network. Attention is focused on the increase of users of Internet networks, which leads to offers on the political market and may be of interest to certain political forces. It was determined that public discussion is a prerequisite for the direct management activity of the state. It has been proven that in the conditions of digitalization of political communications, parties are able to acquire the status of a mediator of a dynamic public environment and the institutional environment of public policy. It was concluded that public opinion should also acquire features of subjectivity in the form of parties, which will be delegated the functions of interaction with the public authorities on a permanent basis.
{"title":"Публічна політика як чинник формування громадської думки: значення для сучасного партійного будівництва","authors":"О. А. Третяк, В. М. Торяник","doi":"10.31558/2519-2949.2023.3.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31558/2519-2949.2023.3.5","url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the study of the public, which ensures the provision of priorities for state policy and forms the perception of government officials regarding the needs and demands of citizens. It was revealed that public opinion becomes the object of influence of media subjects who do not have a clear ideological, value or doctrinal identity. It is taken into account that for modern Ukraine in the conditions of a full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation, the question of compliance of the political and institutional structure with the requirements and needs of capacity and resistance is important. It has been proven that public opinion in a democracy will be formed on the basis of the real needs of society, which will be agreed upon in free democratic discussions. At each of these stages, political parties either qualitatively changed their own structure and integrated into the new political reality, or their structure underwent a decline, which consisted in party splits and subsequent absorption by more effective structures. The purpose of the article is to establish the importance of public policy as a factor in the formation of public opinion in the context of the development of the party system of modern Ukraine. Methods that are widely used in modern political sciences are used. In particular, it is about systemic, comparative, scenario and retrospective. As a result of the research, the issue of publicity in the political world is characterized by cultural and civilizational limitations and orientation to the practices of a democratic society. The proposed concept of a network party, or public organization, which will be built not as a part of an already existing party, but as a new political force based on engaged users of the worldwide network. Attention is focused on the increase of users of Internet networks, which leads to offers on the political market and may be of interest to certain political forces. It was determined that public discussion is a prerequisite for the direct management activity of the state. It has been proven that in the conditions of digitalization of political communications, parties are able to acquire the status of a mediator of a dynamic public environment and the institutional environment of public policy. It was concluded that public opinion should also acquire features of subjectivity in the form of parties, which will be delegated the functions of interaction with the public authorities on a permanent basis.","PeriodicalId":477981,"journal":{"name":"Політичне життя","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136305207","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.31558/2519-2949.2023.3.16
І. Б. Озадовський
Borderlands, as spaces where two or more spheres of hegemony intersect, seeking to control resources and extend their sphere of influence, are formed in various chronological and spatial contexts with different initial conditions, with historical factors having a key role. This leads to the fact that borderlands are not homogeneous in nature, essence, and forms of interaction with political actors.The process of borderlands formation is non-linear: the peculiarities of this process depend on spatial and temporal factors. Borders in the same region have different functions and meanings in different periods. Consequently, borders and borderlands in modern Africa, Asia, and Europe also significantly differ.Before the establishment of nation states, geographical factors contributed to the formation of border areas, which largely determined the initial conditions for these regions: resource potential, access to migration routes, natural preconditions for protection from external aggression, and to some extent, the specifics of political institutions. In the modern era, Eurasian frontier regions that failed to acquire full-fledged statehood became buffer zones of empires and objects of expansion. At the same time, the empires within which these territories were located tried to consolidate their power by violence. The limited opportunities for expansion on the European continent stimulated the " export" of violence to other parts of the world, where borders and frontiers were formed not on the basis of local specifics, but as a result of decisions made in the empire centers.The world wars, which largely erupted due to attempts to redistribute borderlands, both in Europe and on the periphery of empires, were the culmination of attempts to establish power over certain regions by force. The outcome of the World War II was attempted to be consolidated by introducing the inviolability of borders as one of the basic principles of international relations. However, in fact, this principle worked only in Europe and North America, while the world hegemons continued to "export" violence to other regions, using them as a battlefield. In addition, for new and weak sovereignties, "hard borders" proved to be a factor that did not contribute to the development of state institutions. Due to the influence of negative factors, the borders of these countries are transforming into conflict spaces, where the level of violence is constantly growing. In some cases, these conflicts are already destabilizing the states as a whole.At the same time, under the pressure of globalization, borders around the world are losing their importance and are eroding. Cross-border cooperation and free movement of capital are intensifying, and political power is gradually "migrating" from the state to supranational and subnational actors.In such circumstances, borderlands can claim their own subjectivity. Depending on the history of their formation and current state, border areas can be transfo
{"title":"Умови формування прикордонних територій в історико-політологічному контексті становлення світопорядку","authors":"І. Б. Озадовський","doi":"10.31558/2519-2949.2023.3.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31558/2519-2949.2023.3.16","url":null,"abstract":"Borderlands, as spaces where two or more spheres of hegemony intersect, seeking to control resources and extend their sphere of influence, are formed in various chronological and spatial contexts with different initial conditions, with historical factors having a key role. This leads to the fact that borderlands are not homogeneous in nature, essence, and forms of interaction with political actors.The process of borderlands formation is non-linear: the peculiarities of this process depend on spatial and temporal factors. Borders in the same region have different functions and meanings in different periods. Consequently, borders and borderlands in modern Africa, Asia, and Europe also significantly differ.Before the establishment of nation states, geographical factors contributed to the formation of border areas, which largely determined the initial conditions for these regions: resource potential, access to migration routes, natural preconditions for protection from external aggression, and to some extent, the specifics of political institutions. In the modern era, Eurasian frontier regions that failed to acquire full-fledged statehood became buffer zones of empires and objects of expansion. At the same time, the empires within which these territories were located tried to consolidate their power by violence. The limited opportunities for expansion on the European continent stimulated the \" export\" of violence to other parts of the world, where borders and frontiers were formed not on the basis of local specifics, but as a result of decisions made in the empire centers.The world wars, which largely erupted due to attempts to redistribute borderlands, both in Europe and on the periphery of empires, were the culmination of attempts to establish power over certain regions by force. The outcome of the World War II was attempted to be consolidated by introducing the inviolability of borders as one of the basic principles of international relations. However, in fact, this principle worked only in Europe and North America, while the world hegemons continued to \"export\" violence to other regions, using them as a battlefield. In addition, for new and weak sovereignties, \"hard borders\" proved to be a factor that did not contribute to the development of state institutions. Due to the influence of negative factors, the borders of these countries are transforming into conflict spaces, where the level of violence is constantly growing. In some cases, these conflicts are already destabilizing the states as a whole.At the same time, under the pressure of globalization, borders around the world are losing their importance and are eroding. Cross-border cooperation and free movement of capital are intensifying, and political power is gradually \"migrating\" from the state to supranational and subnational actors.In such circumstances, borderlands can claim their own subjectivity. Depending on the history of their formation and current state, border areas can be transfo","PeriodicalId":477981,"journal":{"name":"Політичне життя","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136305013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.31558/2519-2949.2023.3.12
О. І. Войтович
Review of the «special relationship» between the United States and Great Britain in the period 1997–2009 through higher bilateral relations and joint activities in solving international problems in Europe and the Persian Gulf region. As result relations have proven their effectiveness, and countries became interdependent. The purpose of article is to research the activities of the Anglo-American Union in modern international forms. At the same time, the author solved the following tasks: to give an assessment of the «special relations» of the two countries through the prism of overcoming crisis phenomena, relying on the analysis of memoir literature as a source of research. The methods of research are comparative-historical and systematic, which provide an opportunity to objectively cover the subject of scientific research. Bilateral opinions during the second administration of President B. Clinton and Prime Minister T. Blair were quite productive. The two leaders demonstrated complete mutual understanding, a commonality of philosophical and political views, which they called the «third way», but differences in overcoming internal political, socio-economic and foreign political problems. It was one of the strongest tandems in bilateral relations in the years after the end of the Second World War. It proved its effectiveness in resolving the Kosovo problem, successfully completing its mission in Northern Ireland. No less intense and effective were the exchanges between President J.V. Bush and T. Blair despite their certain differences in political and philosophical views. Tragic Horseshoes On September 11, 2001, two leaders who fought international terrorism in Afghanistan met with the United States. Their activity against the regime of S. Hussein, who was called in the production of weapons of mass destruction, is not key, but its evaluations are contradictory. However, the Iraqi leader's non-constructive approach to solving this issue, which has long challenged the countries of the region, is worthy of harsh criticism. Memoir literature was the main source of the study of the «special» American-British relations and gave an opportunity to consider a certain variety of points of view on question that was investigated.
{"title":"Американо-британські відносини (1997–2009 рр.)","authors":"О. І. Войтович","doi":"10.31558/2519-2949.2023.3.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31558/2519-2949.2023.3.12","url":null,"abstract":"Review of the «special relationship» between the United States and Great Britain in the period 1997–2009 through higher bilateral relations and joint activities in solving international problems in Europe and the Persian Gulf region. As result relations have proven their effectiveness, and countries became interdependent. The purpose of article is to research the activities of the Anglo-American Union in modern international forms. At the same time, the author solved the following tasks: to give an assessment of the «special relations» of the two countries through the prism of overcoming crisis phenomena, relying on the analysis of memoir literature as a source of research. The methods of research are comparative-historical and systematic, which provide an opportunity to objectively cover the subject of scientific research. Bilateral opinions during the second administration of President B. Clinton and Prime Minister T. Blair were quite productive. The two leaders demonstrated complete mutual understanding, a commonality of philosophical and political views, which they called the «third way», but differences in overcoming internal political, socio-economic and foreign political problems. It was one of the strongest tandems in bilateral relations in the years after the end of the Second World War. It proved its effectiveness in resolving the Kosovo problem, successfully completing its mission in Northern Ireland. No less intense and effective were the exchanges between President J.V. Bush and T. Blair despite their certain differences in political and philosophical views. Tragic Horseshoes On September 11, 2001, two leaders who fought international terrorism in Afghanistan met with the United States. Their activity against the regime of S. Hussein, who was called in the production of weapons of mass destruction, is not key, but its evaluations are contradictory. However, the Iraqi leader's non-constructive approach to solving this issue, which has long challenged the countries of the region, is worthy of harsh criticism. Memoir literature was the main source of the study of the «special» American-British relations and gave an opportunity to consider a certain variety of points of view on question that was investigated.","PeriodicalId":477981,"journal":{"name":"Політичне життя","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136305443","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","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：