Pub Date : 2022-12-07DOI: 10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17579
Rodrigo Camarena González
In March 2021, the Mexican Constitution was amended to transition to a system of precedents. This amendment mandates that the “reasons” of Supreme Court rulings will be binding on the lower courts. However, the reform is rooted in a long-standing practice of ‘Tesis’, i.e., abstract statements that the Court itself identifies when deciding a case. Moreover, there is no consensus as to what these reasons are and why they should be binding. The aim of this article is to identify the possible conceptions of reasons to explore the Court’s different judge-made law roles. Different common law conceptions of the ratio decidendi are used as “mirrors” to identify four models of judicial lawmaking in Mexican practice, namely: judicial legislation, implicit rules, moral-political justifications and social categories. Although the first model seems to prevail, the others provide means for a broader understanding of how the Court creates law depending on the interpretative context in which it operates.
{"title":"The Ratio Decidendi through Mexican Lens","authors":"Rodrigo Camarena González","doi":"10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17579","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17579","url":null,"abstract":"In March 2021, the Mexican Constitution was amended to transition to a system of precedents. This amendment mandates that the “reasons” of Supreme Court rulings will be binding on the lower courts. However, the reform is rooted in a long-standing practice of ‘Tesis’, i.e., abstract statements that the Court itself identifies when deciding a case. Moreover, there is no consensus as to what these reasons are and why they should be binding. The aim of this article is to identify the possible conceptions of reasons to explore the Court’s different judge-made law roles. Different common law conceptions of the ratio decidendi are used as “mirrors” to identify four models of judicial lawmaking in Mexican practice, namely: judicial legislation, implicit rules, moral-political justifications and social categories. Although the first model seems to prevail, the others provide means for a broader understanding of how the Court creates law depending on the interpretative context in which it operates.","PeriodicalId":53459,"journal":{"name":"Problema","volume":"141 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85581177","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 : 2022-12-07DOI: 10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17583
Álvar Núñez
It filled me with pleasure to be asked by Problema editor-in-chief Sandra Gómora Juárez to lead a discussion on the theories and doctrine on precedent in our context alongside Prof. Marina Gascón Abellán. Besides the undeniable and recognized prestige of the Problema journal, there was also the possibility of working with Prof. Marina Gascón again and with Sandra Gómora for the first time. It was also an opportunity to discuss issues regarding precedent with old friends like Flavia Carbonell, Fabio Pulido and Silvia Zorzetto, and exchange opinions with new ones like Rodrigo Camarena. On this occasion, I would like to comment specifically on the works of Prof. Fabio Pulido Ortiz and Prof. Silvia Zorzetto, both of which are of unquestionable quality. The article by Prof. Pulido Ortiz of the Universidad de la Sabana in Colombia is a work of analytical finesse and subtlety that discusses some fundamental problems of legal theory from the standpoint of the theory of precedent. Prof. Silvia Zorzetto from Università Statale di Milano has conducted an analytical and metalinguistic survey of the use of precedents in Italy, particularly at the Italian Sezioni Unite Civili della Corte di Cassazione. This work is priceless not only in terms of its value as a study of (internal) Italian legal culture, but also because the analysis can be generalized, at least in part, to explain how precedents are used in civil law systems.
{"title":"On the Rule and the Use of Precedents: Brief Comments on the Works of Fabio Pulido Ortiz and Silvia Zorzetto","authors":"Álvar Núñez","doi":"10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17583","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17583","url":null,"abstract":"It filled me with pleasure to be asked by Problema editor-in-chief Sandra Gómora Juárez to lead a discussion on the theories and doctrine on precedent in our context alongside Prof. Marina Gascón Abellán. Besides the undeniable and recognized prestige of the Problema journal, there was also the possibility of working with Prof. Marina Gascón again and with Sandra Gómora for the first time. It was also an opportunity to discuss issues regarding precedent with old friends like Flavia Carbonell, Fabio Pulido and Silvia Zorzetto, and exchange opinions with new ones like Rodrigo Camarena. On this occasion, I would like to comment specifically on the works of Prof. Fabio Pulido Ortiz and Prof. Silvia Zorzetto, both of which are of unquestionable quality. The article by Prof. Pulido Ortiz of the Universidad de la Sabana in Colombia is a work of analytical finesse and subtlety that discusses some fundamental problems of legal theory from the standpoint of the theory of precedent. Prof. Silvia Zorzetto from Università Statale di Milano has conducted an analytical and metalinguistic survey of the use of precedents in Italy, particularly at the Italian Sezioni Unite Civili della Corte di Cassazione. This work is priceless not only in terms of its value as a study of (internal) Italian legal culture, but also because the analysis can be generalized, at least in part, to explain how precedents are used in civil law systems.","PeriodicalId":53459,"journal":{"name":"Problema","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89834625","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 : 2022-12-07DOI: 10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17577
Flavia Carbonell Bellolio
This paper is the result of my participation in a discussion event of Problema. Anuario de filosofía y teoría del derecho entitled “The Construction of Precedent in Civil Law: Debates, Concepts and Challenges”. Several colleagues with a vast knowledge on the subject of judicial precedent participated in this seminar, which also delved into the widely debated aspects of judicial precedent focused on the case of Chile. The entire discussion aimed at proposing solutions, as well as shedding some light on some of its important aspects.Starting from such transcendental concepts as, rationality and argumentative use, it is possible to find certain problems arising from the improper use of the above concepts, which in turn leads us to stare decisis, a term that if used incorrectly may result in an act against the internal independence of judges.
{"title":"Variations on Judicial Precedent: From the Perspective of the Chilean Legal System","authors":"Flavia Carbonell Bellolio","doi":"10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17577","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17577","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is the result of my participation in a discussion event of Problema. Anuario de filosofía y teoría del derecho entitled “The Construction of Precedent in Civil Law: Debates, Concepts and Challenges”. Several colleagues with a vast knowledge on the subject of judicial precedent participated in this seminar, which also delved into the widely debated aspects of judicial precedent focused on the case of Chile. The entire discussion aimed at proposing solutions, as well as shedding some light on some of its important aspects.Starting from such transcendental concepts as, rationality and argumentative use, it is possible to find certain problems arising from the improper use of the above concepts, which in turn leads us to stare decisis, a term that if used incorrectly may result in an act against the internal independence of judges.","PeriodicalId":53459,"journal":{"name":"Problema","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87683573","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 : 2022-12-07DOI: 10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17581
S. Zorzetto
The object of this paper is to analyze some main types of judicial arguments based on precedents to grasp their relevance and range in practice. The analysis is drawn from the case law of the Italian Court of Cassation Civil United Sections, to elicit a comparison between the uses of precedents in different legal systems. However, the analysis is of an explanatory or critical-reconstructive nature and illustrates a series of uses and problems linked to judicial reasoning, the scope of which is general and therefore goes beyond the specific juridical context at hand. The analysis is conducted from an internal point of view and, particularly from the standpoint of the decision-maker (i.e., the judge) and addresses some vexatae quaestiones surrounding the idea that case law is the source of law in practice. This study the opinion that the argument surrounding precedent is, in fact, a very heterogeneous and much more extensive family of arguments than what is usually assumed from traditional taxonomies of judicial arguments. Moreover, the study defends the opinion that case law is inevitably a 'source of law' for pragmatic reasons inherent to judicial reasoning.
{"title":"Legal Arguments and Case Law Precedents: An Experiment in Judicial-Sociological Experiment Between Practice and Theory","authors":"S. Zorzetto","doi":"10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17581","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17581","url":null,"abstract":"The object of this paper is to analyze some main types of judicial arguments based on precedents to grasp their relevance and range in practice. The analysis is drawn from the case law of the Italian Court of Cassation Civil United Sections, to elicit a comparison between the uses of precedents in different legal systems. However, the analysis is of an explanatory or critical-reconstructive nature and illustrates a series of uses and problems linked to judicial reasoning, the scope of which is general and therefore goes beyond the specific juridical context at hand. The analysis is conducted from an internal point of view and, particularly from the standpoint of the decision-maker (i.e., the judge) and addresses some vexatae quaestiones surrounding the idea that case law is the source of law in practice. This study the opinion that the argument surrounding precedent is, in fact, a very heterogeneous and much more extensive family of arguments than what is usually assumed from traditional taxonomies of judicial arguments. Moreover, the study defends the opinion that case law is inevitably a 'source of law' for pragmatic reasons inherent to judicial reasoning.","PeriodicalId":53459,"journal":{"name":"Problema","volume":"81 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81236980","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 : 2022-12-07DOI: 10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17582
Fabio Pulido Ortiz
This paper addresses the issue of the necessary or contingent nature of the rules governing the use of precedent. The author argues that the rules governing the use of precedent in lato sensu (the rules that define the legal operation of judicial precedent) is a necessary rule of legal systems. However, legal systems have three different (exclusive and exhaustive) kinds of rules governing the use of precedent: a) binding rules governing the use of precedent, b) rules admitting the use of precedent and c) rules rejecting the use of precedent. The main conclusion is that whether for conceptual reasons of conferring power or for the centrality of the rule of law in current legal systems, when a legal system does not define the legal operation of judicial precedents, it can be said say there are (implicit) rules rejecting the use of precedent.
{"title":"Are Rules Governing the Use of Precedent Necessary?","authors":"Fabio Pulido Ortiz","doi":"10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17582","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17582","url":null,"abstract":"This paper addresses the issue of the necessary or contingent nature of the rules governing the use of precedent. The author argues that the rules governing the use of precedent in lato sensu (the rules that define the legal operation of judicial precedent) is a necessary rule of legal systems. However, legal systems have three different (exclusive and exhaustive) kinds of rules governing the use of precedent: a) binding rules governing the use of precedent, b) rules admitting the use of precedent and c) rules rejecting the use of precedent. The main conclusion is that whether for conceptual reasons of conferring power or for the centrality of the rule of law in current legal systems, when a legal system does not define the legal operation of judicial precedents, it can be said say there are (implicit) rules rejecting the use of precedent.","PeriodicalId":53459,"journal":{"name":"Problema","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74496428","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 : 2022-12-07DOI: 10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17580
Marina Gascón Abellán
This paper is the result of the analysis and discussion that took place at the Problema. Anuario de filosofía y teoría del derecho seminar entitled “The Construction of Precedent in Civil Law: Debates, Concepts and Challenges.” At this event, Flavia Carbonell and Rodrigo Camarena delivered a concise presentation on precedent in their respective countries (Chile and Mexico), addressing issues of a regulatory, practical, theoretical and conceptual nature. Having witnessed both their arguments with keen interest and inspired by their presentations, I offer my points of view on the most important and prominent aspects of their contributions.
本文是在问题中心进行分析和讨论的结果。Anuario de filosofía y teoría del derecho研讨会，题为“民法判例的建构:辩论、概念和挑战”。在本次活动中，Flavia Carbonell和Rodrigo Camarena简要介绍了各自国家(智利和墨西哥)的先例，解决了监管、实践、理论和概念性质的问题。我以浓厚的兴趣目睹了他们的论点，并受到他们的演讲的启发，我对他们的贡献中最重要和最突出的方面提出了我的观点。
{"title":"Precedent and Civil Law: The Road Ahead. Reflections on Precedent Based on the Works of Flavia Carbonell and Rodrigo Camarena","authors":"Marina Gascón Abellán","doi":"10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17580","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17580","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is the result of the analysis and discussion that took place at the Problema. Anuario de filosofía y teoría del derecho seminar entitled “The Construction of Precedent in Civil Law: Debates, Concepts and Challenges.” At this event, Flavia Carbonell and Rodrigo Camarena delivered a concise presentation on precedent in their respective countries (Chile and Mexico), addressing issues of a regulatory, practical, theoretical and conceptual nature. Having witnessed both their arguments with keen interest and inspired by their presentations, I offer my points of view on the most important and prominent aspects of their contributions.","PeriodicalId":53459,"journal":{"name":"Problema","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79245690","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 : 2022-06-22DOI: 10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.17043
Carlos Patiño Gutiérrez
This paper deals with the contributions of the Supreme Court to the democratization of the Mexican political system in the years between 1995 and 2011. It presents the results of a broad research in which I analyzed relevant cases and conducted in-depth interviews with chief justices, researchers and politicians. Although judicial politics has emphasized the role of the judiciary within the political systems, I am interested in studying whether or not the Mexican Supreme Court has contributed to democratic transition from a legal philosophy approach. My argument is that if judges adjudicate based on theories of law, and if theories of law can affect democracy, therefore, courts’ sentences and their philosophical core may have an impact on democracy. This could be of relevance because it operationalizes philosophical categories. Such correlation between theories of law and democracy is reflected on the interpretation used by the Supreme Court. The major conclusion is that when the Supreme Court started to use new forms of argumentation related to natural law, it happened to be a contribution to democracy.
{"title":"The Mexican Supreme Court and its Contributions to Democratic Transition. An Approach from Legal Philosophy","authors":"Carlos Patiño Gutiérrez","doi":"10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.17043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.17043","url":null,"abstract":"This paper deals with the contributions of the Supreme Court to the democratization of the Mexican political system in the years between 1995 and 2011. It presents the results of a broad research in which I analyzed relevant cases and conducted in-depth interviews with chief justices, researchers and politicians. Although judicial politics has emphasized the role of the judiciary within the political systems, I am interested in studying whether or not the Mexican Supreme Court has contributed to democratic transition from a legal philosophy approach. My argument is that if judges adjudicate based on theories of law, and if theories of law can affect democracy, therefore, courts’ sentences and their philosophical core may have an impact on democracy. This could be of relevance because it operationalizes philosophical categories. Such correlation between theories of law and democracy is reflected on the interpretation used by the Supreme Court. The major conclusion is that when the Supreme Court started to use new forms of argumentation related to natural law, it happened to be a contribution to democracy.","PeriodicalId":53459,"journal":{"name":"Problema","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86806560","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 : 2022-06-22DOI: 10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.17041
Yanara Suenaga Olmeda
{"title":"Hart, H. L. A. El concepto del derecho (capítulos iii y v). Una aproximación a la propuesta de reglas primarias y secundarias de H. L. A. Hart","authors":"Yanara Suenaga Olmeda","doi":"10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.17041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.17041","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53459,"journal":{"name":"Problema","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84953692","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 : 2022-06-22DOI: 10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.17036
Carlos Isler Soto
Es conocida la tesis de Norberto Bobbio de que no es necesario buscar un fundamento absoluto de los derechos humanos, sino que lo necesario es protegerlos. En el presente artículo exponemos la tesis de Bobbio, mostramos su similitud y diferencias con posiciones de autores como Maritain y Villey, y la sometemos a crítica. Concluimos que Bobbio comete varias falacias en su argumentación, como la falacia genética, la naturalista, y, además, sus mismas ideas sobre el modo de proteger los derechos humanos resultan discutibles.
{"title":"Crítica al fideísmo de los derechos humanos de Norberto Bobbio","authors":"Carlos Isler Soto","doi":"10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.17036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.17036","url":null,"abstract":"Es conocida la tesis de Norberto Bobbio de que no es necesario buscar un fundamento absoluto de los derechos humanos, sino que lo necesario es protegerlos. En el presente artículo exponemos la tesis de Bobbio, mostramos su similitud y diferencias con posiciones de autores como Maritain y Villey, y la sometemos a crítica. Concluimos que Bobbio comete varias falacias en su argumentación, como la falacia genética, la naturalista, y, además, sus mismas ideas sobre el modo de proteger los derechos humanos resultan discutibles.","PeriodicalId":53459,"journal":{"name":"Problema","volume":"73 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84251231","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 : 2022-06-22DOI: 10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.17037
Jorge Sánchez Pérez
This article discusses the limitations of conducting an analysis of the morality of public policies solely under the lens of domestic considerations. To make this point, I focus my attention on a very promising public policy recently proposed by Robert Hockett called the Open Labor Market Operations. The proposal seeks to recognize labor and wages as core parts of the economic system and, therefore, worthy of a special type of regulation. This regulation, he argues, is justified in economic and moral terms. The second type of justification concerns me. I contend that it is necessary to change the way of evaluating morality of a policy from a domestic to a global perspective, since implementing such a policy in a country like the United States could be detrimental to other parts of the world -like Mexico- due to current global market conditions.
{"title":"Open Labor Market Regulations from a Moral Scope. The Possible Harm of not Looking Beyond the Domestic Threshold of Justice","authors":"Jorge Sánchez Pérez","doi":"10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.17037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.17037","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the limitations of conducting an analysis of the morality of public policies solely under the lens of domestic considerations. To make this point, I focus my attention on a very promising public policy recently proposed by Robert Hockett called the Open Labor Market Operations. The proposal seeks to recognize labor and wages as core parts of the economic system and, therefore, worthy of a special type of regulation. This regulation, he argues, is justified in economic and moral terms. The second type of justification concerns me. I contend that it is necessary to change the way of evaluating morality of a policy from a domestic to a global perspective, since implementing such a policy in a country like the United States could be detrimental to other parts of the world -like Mexico- due to current global market conditions.","PeriodicalId":53459,"journal":{"name":"Problema","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74967807","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：