Pub Date : 2022-06-01DOI: 10.1177/14614529221103001
Alina Holzhausen
In times of a climate emergency, the law plays an important role in finding (legal) solutions to damaging processes such as environmental degradation. The role of public international law in areas related to the environment has been analysed by Markus Vordermayer-Riemer initially in a doctoral thesis while having been a research assistant at the Institute of International Law of Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich. Based upon the thesis, Vordermayer-Riemer has recently published a long, but comprehensive book on Non-Regression in International Environmental Law: Human Rights Doctrine and the Promises of Comparative International Law. Focusing on international treaties, the book looks at non-regression from the perspective of human rights law (Part I), environmental treaty regimes (Part II), and comparative international law (Part III). ‘(T)he central hypothesis of the (...) book is that human rights treaties and [multilateral environmental agreements] may have much more in common than is usually thought’ (Page 28). Human rights treaties and multilateral environmental agreements are, therefore, considered together in Part I and II, while comparative international law is introduced in the final part in order to build on encountered traces and to examine the potential of ‘mutual inspiration’ of human rights law and international environmental law. Part I consists of three chapters and covers the human rights angle of the book. The first chapter provides important background on the sources and interpretation of international human rights law. The second chapter solely covers the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Different regional human rights regimes such as the European Social Charter and the Inter-American Human Rights system are covered in the third chapter. Altogether, Part I provides a detailed analysis of progressive obligations and non-regression on the respective human rights frameworks. A conclusion covering the characteristics, strengths, and shortcomings of each regime can be found at the end of every section, or if applicable, at the end of the chapter. Part II of the book is also divided into three chapters and examines whether corresponding or similar normative elements have emerged in international environmental law. Chapter 4 lays out the sources of international environmental law and the interpretation of multilateral environmental agreements. A deeper insight into environmental regimes is provided in the following two chapters, covering the climate change legal regime (Chapter 5) and environmental agreements, focusing on the conservation of biodiversity, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Chapter 6). Book Review
{"title":"Book Review: Non-Regression in International Environmental Law: Human Rights Doctrine and the Promises of Comparative International Law","authors":"Alina Holzhausen","doi":"10.1177/14614529221103001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529221103001","url":null,"abstract":"In times of a climate emergency, the law plays an important role in finding (legal) solutions to damaging processes such as environmental degradation. The role of public international law in areas related to the environment has been analysed by Markus Vordermayer-Riemer initially in a doctoral thesis while having been a research assistant at the Institute of International Law of Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich. Based upon the thesis, Vordermayer-Riemer has recently published a long, but comprehensive book on Non-Regression in International Environmental Law: Human Rights Doctrine and the Promises of Comparative International Law. Focusing on international treaties, the book looks at non-regression from the perspective of human rights law (Part I), environmental treaty regimes (Part II), and comparative international law (Part III). ‘(T)he central hypothesis of the (...) book is that human rights treaties and [multilateral environmental agreements] may have much more in common than is usually thought’ (Page 28). Human rights treaties and multilateral environmental agreements are, therefore, considered together in Part I and II, while comparative international law is introduced in the final part in order to build on encountered traces and to examine the potential of ‘mutual inspiration’ of human rights law and international environmental law. Part I consists of three chapters and covers the human rights angle of the book. The first chapter provides important background on the sources and interpretation of international human rights law. The second chapter solely covers the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Different regional human rights regimes such as the European Social Charter and the Inter-American Human Rights system are covered in the third chapter. Altogether, Part I provides a detailed analysis of progressive obligations and non-regression on the respective human rights frameworks. A conclusion covering the characteristics, strengths, and shortcomings of each regime can be found at the end of every section, or if applicable, at the end of the chapter. Part II of the book is also divided into three chapters and examines whether corresponding or similar normative elements have emerged in international environmental law. Chapter 4 lays out the sources of international environmental law and the interpretation of multilateral environmental agreements. A deeper insight into environmental regimes is provided in the following two chapters, covering the climate change legal regime (Chapter 5) and environmental agreements, focusing on the conservation of biodiversity, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Chapter 6). Book Review","PeriodicalId":52213,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Law Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"168 - 169"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75685725","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 : 2022-06-01DOI: 10.1177/14614529221094254
Gideon Fosoh Ngwome
This paper examines the challenges that bedevil the regulation of plastic pollution in Cameroon. Drawing on existing primary and secondary data, the paper argues that although there is an enabling legal environment for regulating plastic pollution in Cameroon, such an enabling environment disappointingly is not comprehensive and holistic to effectively combat plastic pollution owing to some pertinent reasons. Because of such reasons, the paper finds that the legal environment is timid and lends little support for effectively combating plastic pollution in Cameroon as land and marine plastics litter is continually on a hike. After demonstrating that the current legal efforts are timid and are not fit to address the current plastic pollution crisis and its associated harms, the paper recommends some key measures and pathways to effectively tackle the problem with a major one being the dire need for a comprehensive legislation that addresses plastics and the plastic pollution crisis in a holistic manner and that such legislation must be contingent on a similar global legally binding agreement that enjoins all countries to adopt, implement and enforce national plastics and plastic pollution legislation.
{"title":"Plastic waste pollution, environmental impacts and regulatory challenges: The Cameroonian example","authors":"Gideon Fosoh Ngwome","doi":"10.1177/14614529221094254","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529221094254","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the challenges that bedevil the regulation of plastic pollution in Cameroon. Drawing on existing primary and secondary data, the paper argues that although there is an enabling legal environment for regulating plastic pollution in Cameroon, such an enabling environment disappointingly is not comprehensive and holistic to effectively combat plastic pollution owing to some pertinent reasons. Because of such reasons, the paper finds that the legal environment is timid and lends little support for effectively combating plastic pollution in Cameroon as land and marine plastics litter is continually on a hike. After demonstrating that the current legal efforts are timid and are not fit to address the current plastic pollution crisis and its associated harms, the paper recommends some key measures and pathways to effectively tackle the problem with a major one being the dire need for a comprehensive legislation that addresses plastics and the plastic pollution crisis in a holistic manner and that such legislation must be contingent on a similar global legally binding agreement that enjoins all countries to adopt, implement and enforce national plastics and plastic pollution legislation.","PeriodicalId":52213,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Law Review","volume":"37 1","pages":"93 - 110"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90850715","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 : 2022-06-01DOI: 10.1177/14614529221101098
Gerard Kelly
A diverse range of regulatory schemes in climate policy has produced a fragmented and crowded governance landscape. Devising pathways towards converging all of the different climate governance approaches would be a Herculean task, but it is argued here that this should not inhibit efforts to scale up regulatory initiatives in specific areas of climate governance. In this respect, it is argued that linking emissions trading schemes (ETSs) would significantly contribute to the development of creating more durable and connected climate governance arrangements. At present, the global expansion of ETSs raises risks of potential regulatory divergence, conflict, and the emergence of a disconnected patchwork of schemes. However, the expansion of trading schemes has also brought an increased interest in the feasibility of linkage between ETSs. This opinion argues that, in the absence of a comprehensive multilateral regime governing emissions trading, policymakers and scholars must instead refocus on the challenges of creating a coherent climate governance architecture from the bottom-up. It further suggests that the development and implementation of durable linkages between ETSs are critical building blocks in this quest.
{"title":"The quest for coherent climate governance and the importance of linking emissions trading schemes","authors":"Gerard Kelly","doi":"10.1177/14614529221101098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529221101098","url":null,"abstract":"A diverse range of regulatory schemes in climate policy has produced a fragmented and crowded governance landscape. Devising pathways towards converging all of the different climate governance approaches would be a Herculean task, but it is argued here that this should not inhibit efforts to scale up regulatory initiatives in specific areas of climate governance. In this respect, it is argued that linking emissions trading schemes (ETSs) would significantly contribute to the development of creating more durable and connected climate governance arrangements. At present, the global expansion of ETSs raises risks of potential regulatory divergence, conflict, and the emergence of a disconnected patchwork of schemes. However, the expansion of trading schemes has also brought an increased interest in the feasibility of linkage between ETSs. This opinion argues that, in the absence of a comprehensive multilateral regime governing emissions trading, policymakers and scholars must instead refocus on the challenges of creating a coherent climate governance architecture from the bottom-up. It further suggests that the development and implementation of durable linkages between ETSs are critical building blocks in this quest.","PeriodicalId":52213,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Law Review","volume":"32 1 1","pages":"85 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82048107","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 : 2022-06-01DOI: 10.1177/14614529221102760
E. Lees
large geographical area involved, can be (and in Jalla 2 perhaps is) the subject of perfectly workable litigation: it is just not possible to categorise it as a representative action under r.19.6. 13 This litigation has been bedevilled by problems, many of which arise from the limitation issues, and others from the way in which it has been set up and run. Those problems are, I am afraid, the claimants ’ responsibility. Their unconventional attempts to avoid the defendants ’ limitation defences (by way of the assertion of continuing nuisance and the suggestion that the 2017 action was a representative action) have been rejected by every court which has considered them. In some ways, this is a claim that is facing death by a thousand cuts. 22 The paradigm example of a continuing cause of action in nuisance is the tree-roots case. The roots of a landowner ’ s tree spread, and encroach under the neighbouring land. The roots begin to undermine the foundations of his neighbour ’ s house. Until such time as the landowner cuts down or severely prunes back the tree in question, he is responsible for the continuing encroachment of the roots. The tree roots therefore comprise a continuing nuisance. The landowner ’ s failure to abate the nuisance by dealing with the tree is a continuing one. 33
{"title":"Continuing nuisance and limitation in the Court of Appeal: Jalla v Shell","authors":"E. Lees","doi":"10.1177/14614529221102760","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529221102760","url":null,"abstract":"large geographical area involved, can be (and in Jalla 2 perhaps is) the subject of perfectly workable litigation: it is just not possible to categorise it as a representative action under r.19.6. 13 This litigation has been bedevilled by problems, many of which arise from the limitation issues, and others from the way in which it has been set up and run. Those problems are, I am afraid, the claimants ’ responsibility. Their unconventional attempts to avoid the defendants ’ limitation defences (by way of the assertion of continuing nuisance and the suggestion that the 2017 action was a representative action) have been rejected by every court which has considered them. In some ways, this is a claim that is facing death by a thousand cuts. 22 The paradigm example of a continuing cause of action in nuisance is the tree-roots case. The roots of a landowner ’ s tree spread, and encroach under the neighbouring land. The roots begin to undermine the foundations of his neighbour ’ s house. Until such time as the landowner cuts down or severely prunes back the tree in question, he is responsible for the continuing encroachment of the roots. The tree roots therefore comprise a continuing nuisance. The landowner ’ s failure to abate the nuisance by dealing with the tree is a continuing one. 33","PeriodicalId":52213,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Law Review","volume":"8 1","pages":"128 - 135"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91162484","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 : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.1177/14614529221085937
Yarema Ronish, H. Hilburn
England's new biodiversity net gain legislation represents a historic milestone, and a vital step towards reversing the long-term depletion of the natural environment by human activity. Adopted in November 2021, the new legislation will require new building and infrastructure projects to provide a 10% net gain in biodiversity. First proposed over a decade ago, biodiversity net gain policies were initially envisaged as a means to create large scale ecological networks, by offsetting habitat lost to development with strategically located habitat creation. In their current form however, the net gain policies primarily focus on mitigating localised effects of development. We argue that off-site habitat gains should be encouraged, to support the creation of large-scale ecological networks. There are considerable resourcing bottlenecks and knowledge gaps which could hamper the successful delivery of the net gain legislation. To roll out these policies across all of England and at all scales of development will require a much bigger cohort of ecologists, specialist training for developers and their professional teams, and new collaborative working practices linking the private, public and charitable sectors.
{"title":"Biodiversity – gaining ground?","authors":"Yarema Ronish, H. Hilburn","doi":"10.1177/14614529221085937","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529221085937","url":null,"abstract":"England's new biodiversity net gain legislation represents a historic milestone, and a vital step towards reversing the long-term depletion of the natural environment by human activity. Adopted in November 2021, the new legislation will require new building and infrastructure projects to provide a 10% net gain in biodiversity. First proposed over a decade ago, biodiversity net gain policies were initially envisaged as a means to create large scale ecological networks, by offsetting habitat lost to development with strategically located habitat creation. In their current form however, the net gain policies primarily focus on mitigating localised effects of development. We argue that off-site habitat gains should be encouraged, to support the creation of large-scale ecological networks. There are considerable resourcing bottlenecks and knowledge gaps which could hamper the successful delivery of the net gain legislation. To roll out these policies across all of England and at all scales of development will require a much bigger cohort of ecologists, specialist training for developers and their professional teams, and new collaborative working practices linking the private, public and charitable sectors.","PeriodicalId":52213,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"3 - 9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73332146","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 : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.1177/14614529211073040
D. Ziebarth
This analysis considers the case of R (on the application of ClientEarth) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and another. The piece will begin by providing an overview of the case background. It will then provide more detailed discussion of the ruling. Finally, analysis of the significance of the case and the subsequent ruling will follow. Specifically, it will point towards three important implications resulting from the ruling. The first implication concerns the reflection of the rising visibility of cases relating to emissions targets being brought to court in the UK. The second implication is how the ruling displays the limitations appellants face when bringing cases to court on the grounds of actors failing to align with future emissions target agreements. The third is that the ruling sets precedent proving government bodies to approve fossil fuel-based energy development projects with essentially no limitations.
{"title":"ClientEarth v Secretary of State: Considering Judicial Implications in Relation to Emissions Target Rules in the United Kingdom","authors":"D. Ziebarth","doi":"10.1177/14614529211073040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529211073040","url":null,"abstract":"This analysis considers the case of R (on the application of ClientEarth) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and another. The piece will begin by providing an overview of the case background. It will then provide more detailed discussion of the ruling. Finally, analysis of the significance of the case and the subsequent ruling will follow. Specifically, it will point towards three important implications resulting from the ruling. The first implication concerns the reflection of the rising visibility of cases relating to emissions targets being brought to court in the UK. The second implication is how the ruling displays the limitations appellants face when bringing cases to court on the grounds of actors failing to align with future emissions target agreements. The third is that the ruling sets precedent proving government bodies to approve fossil fuel-based energy development projects with essentially no limitations.","PeriodicalId":52213,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Law Review","volume":"44 1","pages":"45 - 51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76928787","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 : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.1177/14614529211069839
K. Tsipiras, W. Grant
Geoengineering technologies – deliberate, large-scale interventions to alter the Earth's climate – present an opportunity to ameliorate the effects of climate change; an opportunity policy-makers are beginning to consider. However, the safety and efficacy of geoengineering strategies is uncertain, and there is concern advancing these technologies engenders a range of non-physical risks; in particular, moral hazard. In economics, moral hazard occurs when insured agents no longer bear the full consequences of risk-taking, and consequentially increase their exposure to risk. However, while certainly analogous, the way the term is used in the geoengineering literature is ambiguous, describing a patchwork of mechanisms of action, hazardous behaviours, and undesirable outcomes. Importantly, as moral hazard concerns are likely to inform policy-making and regulatory responses to these technologies, this unclear specification could impede scholarly, policy, and public debate. This article charts this ambiguity, documenting the range of meanings of moral hazard in the geoengineering literature. Results suggest moral hazard is used at least eight different ways in the literature, with the three most common frames being Insurance, Unwilling and Avoid. With this, we suggest that those articulating moral hazard concerns about geoengineering technologies work to articulate as clearly as possible what the problem actually is.
{"title":"What do we mean when we talk about the moral hazard of geoengineering?","authors":"K. Tsipiras, W. Grant","doi":"10.1177/14614529211069839","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529211069839","url":null,"abstract":"Geoengineering technologies – deliberate, large-scale interventions to alter the Earth's climate – present an opportunity to ameliorate the effects of climate change; an opportunity policy-makers are beginning to consider. However, the safety and efficacy of geoengineering strategies is uncertain, and there is concern advancing these technologies engenders a range of non-physical risks; in particular, moral hazard. In economics, moral hazard occurs when insured agents no longer bear the full consequences of risk-taking, and consequentially increase their exposure to risk. However, while certainly analogous, the way the term is used in the geoengineering literature is ambiguous, describing a patchwork of mechanisms of action, hazardous behaviours, and undesirable outcomes. Importantly, as moral hazard concerns are likely to inform policy-making and regulatory responses to these technologies, this unclear specification could impede scholarly, policy, and public debate. This article charts this ambiguity, documenting the range of meanings of moral hazard in the geoengineering literature. Results suggest moral hazard is used at least eight different ways in the literature, with the three most common frames being Insurance, Unwilling and Avoid. With this, we suggest that those articulating moral hazard concerns about geoengineering technologies work to articulate as clearly as possible what the problem actually is.","PeriodicalId":52213,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Law Review","volume":"107 1","pages":"27 - 44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83942743","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 : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.1177/14614529221080037
Laisa Branco de Almeida
Achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 infers that the total CO2 emissions would need to fall by around 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. The general sustainable development scenario suggests that change in energy demand will uphold an extensive usage of renewable energy and clean energy technologies. This paper focuses on the Rotterdam Nucleus Project and how it can contribute to large-scale CO2 transportation from the Port of Rotterdam to CO2 storage with capacity within 20 km of the Dutch coast. The Project is a model for establishing a European CCS infrastructure in the North Sea, targeting a gateway transferring CO2 from source to sink. It envisions taking part in the subsequent EU CO2 Project of Common Interest (PCI), facilitating financial support from the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). In the first section, this paper analyses the ad hoc approach governing the implementation of the Rotterdam Nucleus, including the relevant regulatory framework at both national and local levels and its investment arrangements alongside the EU Commission. The following section stresses the Project's foundational approach and how inter-national law assists the global governance of offshore CCS transportation.
{"title":"The International Law of Energy of Offshore Carbon Capture and Storage: The Rotterdam Nucleus Project case study","authors":"Laisa Branco de Almeida","doi":"10.1177/14614529221080037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529221080037","url":null,"abstract":"Achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 infers that the total CO2 emissions would need to fall by around 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. The general sustainable development scenario suggests that change in energy demand will uphold an extensive usage of renewable energy and clean energy technologies. This paper focuses on the Rotterdam Nucleus Project and how it can contribute to large-scale CO2 transportation from the Port of Rotterdam to CO2 storage with capacity within 20 km of the Dutch coast. The Project is a model for establishing a European CCS infrastructure in the North Sea, targeting a gateway transferring CO2 from source to sink. It envisions taking part in the subsequent EU CO2 Project of Common Interest (PCI), facilitating financial support from the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). In the first section, this paper analyses the ad hoc approach governing the implementation of the Rotterdam Nucleus, including the relevant regulatory framework at both national and local levels and its investment arrangements alongside the EU Commission. The following section stresses the Project's foundational approach and how inter-national law assists the global governance of offshore CCS transportation.","PeriodicalId":52213,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Law Review","volume":"13 1","pages":"10 - 26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79575536","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：