{"title":"Books Received","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/ajil.2023.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2023.1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47841,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41716970","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}
{"title":"Veiled Power: International Law and the Private Corporation 1886–1981. By Doreen Lustig. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2020. Pp. vii, 256. Index.","authors":"K. Alter","doi":"10.1017/ajil.2022.75","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2022.75","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47841,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48505575","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 resolution] that multilateral environmental agreements are implemented ‘under the principles of international environmental law’ or have any bearing on any State’s international legal obligations. There is no single set of principles under which multilateral environmental agreements operate, and such agreements are each implemented in accordance with their own provisions and are applicable only to those States that have joined them.”36 U.S. support for Resolution 76/300 is in marked contrast to its usual attitude toward the recognition of new human rights. The United States was alone in its vote against the 1986 resolution recognizing the right to development, a position that it reiterated as recently as 2020.37 It voted against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007, although it later reversed its position.38 It abstained on the resolution recognizing the human right to water and sanitation in 2010.39 It is one of six states that have not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and it is the only state that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.40
{"title":"Signatories of the U.S.-Led Artemis Accords Meet in Person for the First Time","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/ajil.2022.88","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2022.88","url":null,"abstract":"the resolution] that multilateral environmental agreements are implemented ‘under the principles of international environmental law’ or have any bearing on any State’s international legal obligations. There is no single set of principles under which multilateral environmental agreements operate, and such agreements are each implemented in accordance with their own provisions and are applicable only to those States that have joined them.”36 U.S. support for Resolution 76/300 is in marked contrast to its usual attitude toward the recognition of new human rights. The United States was alone in its vote against the 1986 resolution recognizing the right to development, a position that it reiterated as recently as 2020.37 It voted against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007, although it later reversed its position.38 It abstained on the resolution recognizing the human right to water and sanitation in 2010.39 It is one of six states that have not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and it is the only state that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.40","PeriodicalId":47841,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46706025","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}
{"title":"AJI volume 117 issue 1 Cover and Back matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/ajil.2022.90","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2022.90","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47841,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43293431","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}
{"title":"Request for Advisory Opinion by the Pan African Lawyers Union (Palu) on the Compatibility of Vagrancy Laws with the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Other Human Rights Instruments Applicable in Africa, No. 001/2018","authors":"Jacquelene Mwangi","doi":"10.1017/ajil.2022.83","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2022.83","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47841,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48245462","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}
Abstract The “temporary golden age” of international courts is likely over. States seeking to provide oversight mechanisms and individual remedies at the international level are likely to opt for less intrusive and more flexible alternatives to adjudication. This Article analyzes the phenomenon of international complaint mechanisms through a detailed case study of the Ombudsperson to the ISIL and Al-Qaida sanctions regime. The analysis reveals an in-built tension between principle and pragmatism: the Ombudsperson's institutional design falls short of the requirements that are essential for adjudication, but it nevertheless proves to be a surprisingly effective remedy for persons wrongfully listed. The Article makes the case for the establishment of such bodies, despite some of their inherent shortcomings.
{"title":"Alternatives to Adjudication in International Law: A Case Study of the Ombudsperson to the ISIL and Al-Qaida Sanctions Regime of the UN Security Council","authors":"Andrej Lang","doi":"10.1017/ajil.2022.81","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2022.81","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The “temporary golden age” of international courts is likely over. States seeking to provide oversight mechanisms and individual remedies at the international level are likely to opt for less intrusive and more flexible alternatives to adjudication. This Article analyzes the phenomenon of international complaint mechanisms through a detailed case study of the Ombudsperson to the ISIL and Al-Qaida sanctions regime. The analysis reveals an in-built tension between principle and pragmatism: the Ombudsperson's institutional design falls short of the requirements that are essential for adjudication, but it nevertheless proves to be a surprisingly effective remedy for persons wrongfully listed. The Article makes the case for the establishment of such bodies, despite some of their inherent shortcomings.","PeriodicalId":47841,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41761153","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}
Pub Date : 2022-10-05DOI: 10.1017/S0002930000232260
S. Bianco
Taking a lead from the comments of Nigel Rodley and Ellen FreyWouters, I disagree that we are concerned with radical groups but not with revolutionary groups. There are at least two kinds of doctrinal sources upon which (Western) international lawyers can draw to help define their own radical perceptions. These are, in general, risk-laden terms. First, the European social democratic background, the historic trends of which have been spelled out by Ellen Frey-Wouters and which has been related elsewhere to other formulations of Marxist thought Second, a background, best characterized as eclectic, based upon events in the United States, which especially concern us here. There is an absence of rigid doctrinal formulations. A whole range of radical thought is covered, ranging from the Weathermen (luddite anarchism?) to Imamu Baraka's black cultural nationalism which substantively differs from them. All of these groups are making fundamental radical or revolutionary claims upon the status quo, raising the question of how international lawyers should relate to them, whether or not we have our own coherent radical position. The way to reach such a position may well come from a willingness to represent the claims of such groups. For example, although the Black Panthers have no coherent position on international law, nonetheless they challenge the international status quo by setting up an office in Algiers and by claiming in speech and action a right of free passage across national boundaries, unhindered by national governments, for transnational purposes. A radical international lawyer would have a duty to formulate such claims in the context of the existing international system. As Nigel Rodley said, an international radical legal position cannot be separated from value questions and ideology. The Black experience dictates the value orientation of Black lawyers frequently against the status quo, as may be seen in the writings of DuBois and Malcolm X, in terms of the way they think and the claims they will represent. Further, the Black Panthers' claim raises the issue of whether a major tenet of a radical position is a fundamental questioning of the premise of universal doctrine, that it applies to all entities equally, no matter what their value and resource position. This would lead to such a concept as "selective national sovereignty" —that certain states in a stated value position should have their sovereignty protected and others should not—and to the legal claims that would flow therefrom. Prof. FREY-WOOTERS observed that Nigel Rodle/s statement that the key word in any definition of "radical" is anti-imperialist may be too narrow a view of radicalism. Socialist radicals accept the existence of three basic and interacting contradictions that affect the international legal system. These perceptions seem to be shared by a great number of peaceful transformation oriented non-socialist radicals. As Charles Chaumont pointed out in his Hague lectures in
{"title":"Discussion","authors":"S. Bianco","doi":"10.1017/S0002930000232260","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0002930000232260","url":null,"abstract":"Taking a lead from the comments of Nigel Rodley and Ellen FreyWouters, I disagree that we are concerned with radical groups but not with revolutionary groups. There are at least two kinds of doctrinal sources upon which (Western) international lawyers can draw to help define their own radical perceptions. These are, in general, risk-laden terms. First, the European social democratic background, the historic trends of which have been spelled out by Ellen Frey-Wouters and which has been related elsewhere to other formulations of Marxist thought Second, a background, best characterized as eclectic, based upon events in the United States, which especially concern us here. There is an absence of rigid doctrinal formulations. A whole range of radical thought is covered, ranging from the Weathermen (luddite anarchism?) to Imamu Baraka's black cultural nationalism which substantively differs from them. All of these groups are making fundamental radical or revolutionary claims upon the status quo, raising the question of how international lawyers should relate to them, whether or not we have our own coherent radical position. The way to reach such a position may well come from a willingness to represent the claims of such groups. For example, although the Black Panthers have no coherent position on international law, nonetheless they challenge the international status quo by setting up an office in Algiers and by claiming in speech and action a right of free passage across national boundaries, unhindered by national governments, for transnational purposes. A radical international lawyer would have a duty to formulate such claims in the context of the existing international system. As Nigel Rodley said, an international radical legal position cannot be separated from value questions and ideology. The Black experience dictates the value orientation of Black lawyers frequently against the status quo, as may be seen in the writings of DuBois and Malcolm X, in terms of the way they think and the claims they will represent. Further, the Black Panthers' claim raises the issue of whether a major tenet of a radical position is a fundamental questioning of the premise of universal doctrine, that it applies to all entities equally, no matter what their value and resource position. This would lead to such a concept as \"selective national sovereignty\" —that certain states in a stated value position should have their sovereignty protected and others should not—and to the legal claims that would flow therefrom. Prof. FREY-WOOTERS observed that Nigel Rodle/s statement that the key word in any definition of \"radical\" is anti-imperialist may be too narrow a view of radicalism. Socialist radicals accept the existence of three basic and interacting contradictions that affect the international legal system. These perceptions seem to be shared by a great number of peaceful transformation oriented non-socialist radicals. As Charles Chaumont pointed out in his Hague lectures in ","PeriodicalId":47841,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0002930000232260","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48498481","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}
Russia ’ s invasion of Ukraine, initiated on February 24, 2022, is among the most — if not the most — signi fi cant shocks to the global order since World War II. This piece assesses the stakes of the invasion for the core principles that lie at the heart of contemporary international law and the world order that it has helped to create. We argue, relying in part on the other contributions to the October 2022 agora on Ukraine in the American Journal of International Law , that however this war ends, it will reshape, in ways large and small, the world we all inhabit. member states to demonstrate their territorial claims, including in the Falklands dispute and the Israel-Palestine con fl ict. This has now arisen in the Russo-Ukrainian war, as con fl icting declarations have been formulated by eight states under the Convention. This Essay analyzes the legal dilemmas brought by these declarations and proposes preliminary solutions. novel digital technologies, civil society have seized the opportunity pro-vided by the vast amount of publicly available evidence to counter-narrate Russia ’ s pretexts to justify its invasion within the deliberative bodies of the United Nations. This Essay explains the potential of this emerging practice to in fl uence international legal discourse by increasing the costs for actors who base their conduct on false factual claims.
俄罗斯于2022年2月24日入侵乌克兰，是二战以来对全球秩序最严重的冲击之一，如果不是最严重的话。这篇文章评估了入侵对当代国际法和它帮助创建的世界秩序的核心原则的影响。我们认为，无论这场战争如何结束，它都将以或大或小的方式重塑我们所居住的世界，这在一定程度上取决于《美国国际法杂志》(American Journal of International Law)对2022年10月乌克兰问题的其他贡献。包括福克兰群岛争端和巴以冲突在内的领土要求。这一点现在已经在俄乌战争中出现，因为八个国家根据《公约》发表了相互矛盾的声明。本文分析了这些声明所带来的法律困境，并提出了初步的解决方案。利用新的数字技术，公民社会抓住了大量公开证据提供的机会，在联合国审议机构内反驳俄罗斯为其入侵辩护的借口。本文解释了这种新兴做法的潜力，通过增加基于虚假事实主张的行为者的成本来影响国际法律话语。
{"title":"AJI volume 116 issue 4 Cover and Front matter","authors":"Anton Moiseienko, Martina Buscemi","doi":"10.1017/ajil.2022.72","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2022.72","url":null,"abstract":"Russia ’ s invasion of Ukraine, initiated on February 24, 2022, is among the most — if not the most — signi fi cant shocks to the global order since World War II. This piece assesses the stakes of the invasion for the core principles that lie at the heart of contemporary international law and the world order that it has helped to create. We argue, relying in part on the other contributions to the October 2022 agora on Ukraine in the American Journal of International Law , that however this war ends, it will reshape, in ways large and small, the world we all inhabit. member states to demonstrate their territorial claims, including in the Falklands dispute and the Israel-Palestine con fl ict. This has now arisen in the Russo-Ukrainian war, as con fl icting declarations have been formulated by eight states under the Convention. This Essay analyzes the legal dilemmas brought by these declarations and proposes preliminary solutions. novel digital technologies, civil society have seized the opportunity pro-vided by the vast amount of publicly available evidence to counter-narrate Russia ’ s pretexts to justify its invasion within the deliberative bodies of the United Nations. This Essay explains the potential of this emerging practice to in fl uence international legal discourse by increasing the costs for actors who base their conduct on false factual claims.","PeriodicalId":47841,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45552037","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}
exclude a reference to Katyn was made. Nikitchenko wrote a separate and dissenting opinion. Or, rather, he filed a separate and dissenting opinion that had been written for him, in whole or in part. The issues that so troubled the Vishinsky Commission were actually not that important. The Soviet judge argued for conviction of the three defendants whom the other judges had voted to acquit, Schacht, Von Papen, and Fritzche. He also contended that Hess deserved a death sentence. Nikitchenko’s disagreement with the majority appeared to be essentially about the assessment of the facts. Nevertheless, there was also a legal dispute, although Nikitchenko did not directly call attention to it. Nikitchenko considered that Rudolf Hess and Hjalmar Schacht were responsible for various acts of persecution, including racial attacks directed against Jews, that had taken place during the 1930s prior to the outbreak of the war. Rudolf Hess, explained Nikitchenko, was an advocate of the Nazi “master race” theory who had signed the Nuremberg laws in 1935 and legislation extending them to Austria in 1938. The majority judgment adopted a restrictive reading of the definition of crimes against humanity and rejected any criminal liability for acts perpetrated prior to the outbreak of the war. Hirsch dispenses with the traditional bibliography, replacing it with a bibliographic essay highlighting the most useful materials. It is positive in tone, dealing with less adequate sources by omission rather than dismissing them with criticism. She also helpfully discusses the primary sources, going out of her way to thank the generosity of Russian archivists. Archival research is by its very nature somewhat hit and miss. Scholars may know of relevant materials that remain inaccessible but there are also sources whose existence is unknown and whose discovery may depend on serendipity. The more open the sources, the greater the likelihood of discoveries that change our understanding of history. There is certainly more to be written and researched on the Nuremberg trial, with unexploited sources for all four of the participating states. Documents in Russia probably exist that can help provide answers to some of the questions that remain. However, their availability to scholars may be dependent on political decisions. For example, several years ago the relatives of victims of the Katyn massacre were denied access to certain of Moscow’s files on the ground of national security. Their challenge went as far as Strasbourg and the European Court of Human Rights, but they were unsuccessful. In any event, with the expulsion of Russia from the Council of Europe even that avenue is now blocked. Russian resistance to release of the materials confirms the fact that important information from that period remains hidden from view. For researchers like Francine Hirsch, further study of Russia’s engagement with international criminal law, and with public international law more generally, may prove
{"title":"Confronting Apartheid: A Personal History of South Africa, Namibia and Palestine. By John Dugard. Auckland Park, South Africa: Jacana Media, 2018. Pp. 312. Index.","authors":"R. Falk","doi":"10.1017/ajil.2022.44","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2022.44","url":null,"abstract":"exclude a reference to Katyn was made. Nikitchenko wrote a separate and dissenting opinion. Or, rather, he filed a separate and dissenting opinion that had been written for him, in whole or in part. The issues that so troubled the Vishinsky Commission were actually not that important. The Soviet judge argued for conviction of the three defendants whom the other judges had voted to acquit, Schacht, Von Papen, and Fritzche. He also contended that Hess deserved a death sentence. Nikitchenko’s disagreement with the majority appeared to be essentially about the assessment of the facts. Nevertheless, there was also a legal dispute, although Nikitchenko did not directly call attention to it. Nikitchenko considered that Rudolf Hess and Hjalmar Schacht were responsible for various acts of persecution, including racial attacks directed against Jews, that had taken place during the 1930s prior to the outbreak of the war. Rudolf Hess, explained Nikitchenko, was an advocate of the Nazi “master race” theory who had signed the Nuremberg laws in 1935 and legislation extending them to Austria in 1938. The majority judgment adopted a restrictive reading of the definition of crimes against humanity and rejected any criminal liability for acts perpetrated prior to the outbreak of the war. Hirsch dispenses with the traditional bibliography, replacing it with a bibliographic essay highlighting the most useful materials. It is positive in tone, dealing with less adequate sources by omission rather than dismissing them with criticism. She also helpfully discusses the primary sources, going out of her way to thank the generosity of Russian archivists. Archival research is by its very nature somewhat hit and miss. Scholars may know of relevant materials that remain inaccessible but there are also sources whose existence is unknown and whose discovery may depend on serendipity. The more open the sources, the greater the likelihood of discoveries that change our understanding of history. There is certainly more to be written and researched on the Nuremberg trial, with unexploited sources for all four of the participating states. Documents in Russia probably exist that can help provide answers to some of the questions that remain. However, their availability to scholars may be dependent on political decisions. For example, several years ago the relatives of victims of the Katyn massacre were denied access to certain of Moscow’s files on the ground of national security. Their challenge went as far as Strasbourg and the European Court of Human Rights, but they were unsuccessful. In any event, with the expulsion of Russia from the Council of Europe even that avenue is now blocked. Russian resistance to release of the materials confirms the fact that important information from that period remains hidden from view. For researchers like Francine Hirsch, further study of Russia’s engagement with international criminal law, and with public international law more generally, may prove","PeriodicalId":47841,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49542385","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}
Abstract Russia's aggression against Ukraine has brought into focus the growing significance of open-source information for international legal processes. Enabled by novel digital technologies, civil society actors have seized the opportunity provided by the vast amount of publicly available evidence to counter-narrate Russia's pretexts to justify its invasion within the deliberative bodies of the United Nations. This Essay explains the potential of this emerging practice to influence international legal discourse by increasing the costs for actors who base their conduct on false factual claims.
{"title":"Ukraine, Open-Source Investigations, and the Future of International Legal Discourse","authors":"Henning Lahmann","doi":"10.1017/ajil.2022.52","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2022.52","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Russia's aggression against Ukraine has brought into focus the growing significance of open-source information for international legal processes. Enabled by novel digital technologies, civil society actors have seized the opportunity provided by the vast amount of publicly available evidence to counter-narrate Russia's pretexts to justify its invasion within the deliberative bodies of the United Nations. This Essay explains the potential of this emerging practice to influence international legal discourse by increasing the costs for actors who base their conduct on false factual claims.","PeriodicalId":47841,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45727109","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：