Pub Date : 2021-12-21DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340112
S. Montaldo
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the Member States’ overreliance on the rules of the Schengen Borders Code allowing for temporary reintroduction of border control and has questioned the institutional narrative of an EU-wide borderless area as a key achievement of the integration process. This article focuses on the legal implications of the border measures enacted by the Member States following the COVID-19 outbreak and discusses their compatibility with relevant EU law, also in the light of available epidemiological studies on the link between border controls and spread of the virus. The analysis contends that the pandemic has offered an unprecedented opportunity to pave the way to shared solutions to the enduring crisis of the internal dimension of the Schengen area, such as a detailed reform of the Schengen Borders Code and a reconsideration of the current governance of the Schengen area itself.
{"title":"Internal Border Control in the Schengen Area and Health Threats: Any Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic?","authors":"S. Montaldo","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340112","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the Member States’ overreliance on the rules of the Schengen Borders Code allowing for temporary reintroduction of border control and has questioned the institutional narrative of an EU-wide borderless area as a key achievement of the integration process. This article focuses on the legal implications of the border measures enacted by the Member States following the COVID-19 outbreak and discusses their compatibility with relevant EU law, also in the light of available epidemiological studies on the link between border controls and spread of the virus. The analysis contends that the pandemic has offered an unprecedented opportunity to pave the way to shared solutions to the enduring crisis of the internal dimension of the Schengen area, such as a detailed reform of the Schengen Borders Code and a reconsideration of the current governance of the Schengen area itself.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45051288","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-21DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340115
E. Brouwer
To create an area in which persons can move freely, the Schengen states committed to control their external borders to prevent irregular immigration and the entry of third-country nationals (TCN s) who are considered to be ‘a public order and security risk’. The exclusion of ‘unwanted aliens’ can be based on the mutual enforcement of national decisions, such as entry bans reported in the Schengen Information System, or objections against the issuing of a Schengen visa, based on the consultation procedure in the Visa Code. This contribution focuses on the right of TCN s to have access to effective remedies, both with regard to existing and newer mechanisms of exclusion. It argues that when dealing with the use of large-scale databases and risk assessment as basis for excluding admission, existing rules and case-law by the CJEU should be taken into account to ensure access to effective judicial protection for TCN s.
为了创造一个人们可以自由流动的地区，申根国家承诺控制其外部边界，以防止非正常移民和第三国国民入境（TCN s） 他们被认为是“公共秩序和安全风险”。排除“不受欢迎的外国人”可以基于相互执行国家决定，例如申根信息系统中报告的入境禁令，或者基于《签证法》中的协商程序反对签发申根签证。这一贡献侧重于TCN的权利 s在现有和新的排除机制方面都能获得有效的补救。它认为，在处理使用大规模数据库和风险评估作为排除准入的基础时，应考虑欧盟法院的现有规则和判例法，以确保TCN获得有效的司法保护 s
{"title":"Schengen and the Administration of Exclusion: Legal Remedies Caught in between Entry Bans, Risk Assessment and Artificial Intelligence","authors":"E. Brouwer","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340115","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340115","url":null,"abstract":"To create an area in which persons can move freely, the Schengen states committed to control their external borders to prevent irregular immigration and the entry of third-country nationals (TCN s) who are considered to be ‘a public order and security risk’. The exclusion of ‘unwanted aliens’ can be based on the mutual enforcement of national decisions, such as entry bans reported in the Schengen Information System, or objections against the issuing of a Schengen visa, based on the consultation procedure in the Visa Code. This contribution focuses on the right of TCN s to have access to effective remedies, both with regard to existing and newer mechanisms of exclusion. It argues that when dealing with the use of large-scale databases and risk assessment as basis for excluding admission, existing rules and case-law by the CJEU should be taken into account to ensure access to effective judicial protection for TCN s.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42082180","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-21DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340111
E. Guild
The re-introduction of intra-Schengen state border controls has been a constant feature of the area since the abolition of those controls in 1995. The seriousness of the controls introduced and the justifications which have been put forward for them have varied substantially. At the moment there are three overlapping regimes of temporarily reintroduced border controls in the area: those reintroduced to counter terrorism, those reintroduced to counter so-called secondary movements (the movement of people seeking international protection within the Schengen area) and those introduced to counter the spread of COVID-19. The article examines the three frameworks of temporary controls, the justifications provided by states using them for their operation, and the response of the EU institutions.
{"title":"Schengen Borders and Multiple National States of Emergency: From Refugees to Terrorism to COVID-19","authors":"E. Guild","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340111","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The re-introduction of intra-Schengen state border controls has been a constant feature of the area since the abolition of those controls in 1995. The seriousness of the controls introduced and the justifications which have been put forward for them have varied substantially. At the moment there are three overlapping regimes of temporarily reintroduced border controls in the area: those reintroduced to counter terrorism, those reintroduced to counter so-called secondary movements (the movement of people seeking international protection within the Schengen area) and those introduced to counter the spread of COVID-19. The article examines the three frameworks of temporary controls, the justifications provided by states using them for their operation, and the response of the EU institutions.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46841530","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-21DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340114
N. Vavoula
Since the past three decades, an elaborate legal framework on the operation of EU-Schengen information systems has been developed, whereby in the near future a series of personal data concerning almost all third-country nationals (TCN s) with an administrative or criminal law link with the EU/Schengen area will be monitored through at least one information system. This article provides a legal analysis on the embedment of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools at the EU level in information systems for TCN s and critically examines the fundamental rights concerns that ensue from the use AI to manage and control migration. It discusses automated risk assessment and algorithmic profiling used to examine applications for travel authorisations and Schengen visas, the shift towards the processing of facial images of TCN s and the creation of future-proof information systems that anticipate the use of facial recognition technology. The contribution understands information systems as enabling the datafication of mobility and as security tools in an era whereby a foreigner is risky by default. It is argued that a violation of the right to respect for private life is merely the gateway for a series of other fundamental rights which are impacted, such as non-discrimination and right to effective remedies.
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) at Schengen Borders: Automated Processing, Algorithmic Profiling and Facial Recognition in the Era of Techno-Solutionism","authors":"N. Vavoula","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340114","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Since the past three decades, an elaborate legal framework on the operation of EU-Schengen information systems has been developed, whereby in the near future a series of personal data concerning almost all third-country nationals (TCN s) with an administrative or criminal law link with the EU/Schengen area will be monitored through at least one information system. This article provides a legal analysis on the embedment of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools at the EU level in information systems for TCN s and critically examines the fundamental rights concerns that ensue from the use AI to manage and control migration. It discusses automated risk assessment and algorithmic profiling used to examine applications for travel authorisations and Schengen visas, the shift towards the processing of facial images of TCN s and the creation of future-proof information systems that anticipate the use of facial recognition technology. The contribution understands information systems as enabling the datafication of mobility and as security tools in an era whereby a foreigner is risky by default. It is argued that a violation of the right to respect for private life is merely the gateway for a series of other fundamental rights which are impacted, such as non-discrimination and right to effective remedies.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48067690","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-21DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340116
T. Strik
Although the Schengen Border Code (SBC) explicitly obliges Member States to apply the Schengen rules in full compliance with the fundamental rights, Member States’ adherence to this obligation can be questioned in light of recurrent and reliable reports about fundamental rights violations at the EU’s external borders. This contribution will examine why, apart from the deficiencies in the SCHE-VAL mechanism, the current response towards fundamental rights violations at the border is ineffective. First, it will analyse the legal framework, including the implementing rules, to see if additional guidance is needed. Second, the enforcement mechanisms will be examined: how are violations being addressed at the national level, and how does the EU Commission perceive and fulfills its role regarding enforcement of compliance? As the Commission has often referred to the monitoring mechanism as proposed in the draft Screening Regulation, the contribution will examine to what extent this New Pact file will help to resolve the current impunity. Finally, the article will analyse the role of Frontex regarding human rights violations by Member States. What is their responsibility, how do they perform it, and who is enforcing compliance by Frontex?
{"title":"Fundamental Rights as the Cornerstone of Schengen","authors":"T. Strik","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340116","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340116","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Although the Schengen Border Code (SBC) explicitly obliges Member States to apply the Schengen rules in full compliance with the fundamental rights, Member States’ adherence to this obligation can be questioned in light of recurrent and reliable reports about fundamental rights violations at the EU’s external borders. This contribution will examine why, apart from the deficiencies in the SCHE-VAL mechanism, the current response towards fundamental rights violations at the border is ineffective. First, it will analyse the legal framework, including the implementing rules, to see if additional guidance is needed. Second, the enforcement mechanisms will be examined: how are violations being addressed at the national level, and how does the EU Commission perceive and fulfills its role regarding enforcement of compliance? As the Commission has often referred to the monitoring mechanism as proposed in the draft Screening Regulation, the contribution will examine to what extent this New Pact file will help to resolve the current impunity. Finally, the article will analyse the role of Frontex regarding human rights violations by Member States. What is their responsibility, how do they perform it, and who is enforcing compliance by Frontex?","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65164799","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-10DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340103
Madalina Moraru, L. Janků
This article investigates the development of national litigation against the Czech Republic’s governmental policy to detain asylum seekers under the Dublin III Regulation, as a means to address the so-called refugee crisis. The outcome of this litigation has been the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Al Chodor case, which has been praised for enhancing domestic standards of protection of asylum seekers and returnees’ right to liberty across the EU. The article demonstrates that this preliminary ruling has been a catalyst for domestic legislative and jurisprudential reforms across the EU, improving to a certain extent the protection of the right to liberty of asylum seekers. However, it is argued that in the Czech Republic the case has not initiated a change in the legislation, nor has it reduced the systematic use of asylum detention. The article identifies some important legal, political and social factors from within and beyond courtrooms that have contributed to this ambiguous outcome of the Czech litigation. It concludes by identifying circumstances that need to be taken into account when using the preliminary reference procedure as a tool for strategic litigation.
{"title":"Czech Litigation on Systematic Detention of Asylum Seekers: Ripple Effects across Europe","authors":"Madalina Moraru, L. Janků","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340103","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article investigates the development of national litigation against the Czech Republic’s governmental policy to detain asylum seekers under the Dublin III Regulation, as a means to address the so-called refugee crisis. The outcome of this litigation has been the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Al Chodor case, which has been praised for enhancing domestic standards of protection of asylum seekers and returnees’ right to liberty across the EU. The article demonstrates that this preliminary ruling has been a catalyst for domestic legislative and jurisprudential reforms across the EU, improving to a certain extent the protection of the right to liberty of asylum seekers. However, it is argued that in the Czech Republic the case has not initiated a change in the legislation, nor has it reduced the systematic use of asylum detention. The article identifies some important legal, political and social factors from within and beyond courtrooms that have contributed to this ambiguous outcome of the Czech litigation. It concludes by identifying circumstances that need to be taken into account when using the preliminary reference procedure as a tool for strategic litigation.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49385120","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-10DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340106
Annick Pijnenburg
{"title":"Controlling Immigration Through Criminal Law: European and Comparative Perspectives on ‘Crimmigration’, edited by Gian Luigi Gatta, Valsamis Mitsilegas and Stefano Zirulia","authors":"Annick Pijnenburg","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340106","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46608914","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-10DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340108
Johanna Vanto
{"title":"Queer Migration and Asylum in Europe, edited by Richard C.M. Mole","authors":"Johanna Vanto","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340108","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45270451","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-10DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340105
Timo Knäbe, Hervé Yves Caniard
With its Judgment of 27 November 2019 in Case T-31/18 Luisa Izuzquiza and Arne Semsrott v European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), the Court of Justice of the European Union opened a new chapter in the elaboration of the two seemingly antagonistic interests enshrined in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents: the public’s fundamental right to transparency versus the public’s interest as regards “public security”. Focusing on the evolution of “public security” in the EU since 1993, this case note analyses the CJEU’s balancing of these principles, its increased scrutiny of Frontex administrative decisions, and the extent to which Frontex had to justify its denial to grant access to documents through the lens of the management of sensitive operational information. This examination puts the judgment in the context of the ongoing situation in the central Mediterranean and, by providing detailed insights on the underlying operational considerations, shows that the fundamental and wide-reaching right to transparency has to be balanced with the need to protect crew and vessels and the implementation and enforcement of the Frontex mandate. While continuing established case law in its use of the public security exception (a so-called absolute exception that is not subject to an overriding public interest test), in this case the CJEU subsumed, for the first time, individual subjective rights and legal interests under public security. This article argues that this amounts to the individualisation of public security. As pointed out by Frontex in its written and oral defence, the CJEU thus opened the door to extending the scope of public security to also include other groups of people in the government’s continuous and exclusive de jure and de facto control. The conclusion from the Frontex Case is thus that protecting life at sea and ensuring effective border surveillance are two sides of the same medal as they have a common aim: combatting human smugglers, traffickers in human beings and other criminals and safeguarding life, safety and physical integrity of law-enforcement crew and migrants alike.
{"title":"Public Security Revisited","authors":"Timo Knäbe, Hervé Yves Caniard","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340105","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000With its Judgment of 27 November 2019 in Case T-31/18 Luisa Izuzquiza and Arne Semsrott v European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), the Court of Justice of the European Union opened a new chapter in the elaboration of the two seemingly antagonistic interests enshrined in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents: the public’s fundamental right to transparency versus the public’s interest as regards “public security”. Focusing on the evolution of “public security” in the EU since 1993, this case note analyses the CJEU’s balancing of these principles, its increased scrutiny of Frontex administrative decisions, and the extent to which Frontex had to justify its denial to grant access to documents through the lens of the management of sensitive operational information. This examination puts the judgment in the context of the ongoing situation in the central Mediterranean and, by providing detailed insights on the underlying operational considerations, shows that the fundamental and wide-reaching right to transparency has to be balanced with the need to protect crew and vessels and the implementation and enforcement of the Frontex mandate. While continuing established case law in its use of the public security exception (a so-called absolute exception that is not subject to an overriding public interest test), in this case the CJEU subsumed, for the first time, individual subjective rights and legal interests under public security. This article argues that this amounts to the individualisation of public security. As pointed out by Frontex in its written and oral defence, the CJEU thus opened the door to extending the scope of public security to also include other groups of people in the government’s continuous and exclusive de jure and de facto control. The conclusion from the Frontex Case is thus that protecting life at sea and ensuring effective border surveillance are two sides of the same medal as they have a common aim: combatting human smugglers, traffickers in human beings and other criminals and safeguarding life, safety and physical integrity of law-enforcement crew and migrants alike.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49359527","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-10DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340102
C. Downes
The increase in numbers of children travelling unaccompanied to Europe has provoked a sensitive debate as to how to treat their family members. While EU Member States generally grant family reunification for unaccompanied minors, the UK has opted to permit reunion in only ‘exceptional circumstances’. Widely criticised, the UK government counters that child-sponsored family reunification creates incentives for unaccompanied migration that place children at risk. This article explores both policies from a human rights perspective. It suggests that, as regards children reaching Europe, EU policy is more consistent with human rights norms. However, UK policy raises legitimate questions about obligations towards children beyond Europe’s borders. A rights-based justification for either EU or UK policy can be constructed, but requires recourse to additional principles on the balancing of rights among different groups of children. Clearer articulation and scrutiny of these principles could strengthen the rights rationale for child-sponsored family reunification.
{"title":"EU or UK Child-Sponsored Family Reunification Policy: Who’s Right? Whose Rights?","authors":"C. Downes","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340102","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The increase in numbers of children travelling unaccompanied to Europe has provoked a sensitive debate as to how to treat their family members. While EU Member States generally grant family reunification for unaccompanied minors, the UK has opted to permit reunion in only ‘exceptional circumstances’. Widely criticised, the UK government counters that child-sponsored family reunification creates incentives for unaccompanied migration that place children at risk. This article explores both policies from a human rights perspective. It suggests that, as regards children reaching Europe, EU policy is more consistent with human rights norms. However, UK policy raises legitimate questions about obligations towards children beyond Europe’s borders. A rights-based justification for either EU or UK policy can be constructed, but requires recourse to additional principles on the balancing of rights among different groups of children. Clearer articulation and scrutiny of these principles could strengthen the rights rationale for child-sponsored family reunification.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42983425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"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：