Between August and November, 2017, the Myanmar military carried out a series of brutal attacks against Rohingya Muslim communities in Rakhine State in Myanmar. Myanmar’s military used Facebook as a tool for ethnic cleansing. In theory, Rohingya plaintiffs could bring a state tort law claim against Facebook alleging that Facebook was negligent (or worse) in permitting its social media platform to be utilized to spark mass violence against the Rohingya. Could Facebook be held liable in a civil suit for complicity in genocide, or for aiding and abetting the commission of a crime against humanity? Under current federal law, the answer is clearly “no.” Section 230 of Title 47 of the U.S. Code states: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Judicial decisions establish that Section 230 grants online service providers broad immunity for content posted by third parties. Thus, Section 230 provides Facebook a valid federal preemption defense to a state tort law claim. This essay contends that Congress should create a statutory exception to Section 230 to permit civil suits against social media companies for complicity in genocide or crimes against humanity. The United States has a clear duty under international law to prevent genocide. One could also make a persuasive argument that the United States has a duty under customary international law to prevent crimes against humanity. The United States is not violating its international legal duty to prevent mass atrocities by granting immunity to internet companies. However, withdrawal of that immunity for content that contributes to commission of mass atrocity crimes would be a helpful step for the United States to implement its duty to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity.
{"title":"Section 230 and the Duty to Prevent Mass Atrocities","authors":"D. Sloss","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3650346","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3650346","url":null,"abstract":"Between August and November, 2017, the Myanmar military carried out a series of brutal attacks against Rohingya Muslim communities in Rakhine State in Myanmar. Myanmar’s military used Facebook as a tool for ethnic cleansing. In theory, Rohingya plaintiffs could bring a state tort law claim against Facebook alleging that Facebook was negligent (or worse) in permitting its social media platform to be utilized to spark mass violence against the Rohingya. Could Facebook be held liable in a civil suit for complicity in genocide, or for aiding and abetting the commission of a crime against humanity? Under current federal law, the answer is clearly “no.” Section 230 of Title 47 of the U.S. Code states: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Judicial decisions establish that Section 230 grants online service providers broad immunity for content posted by third parties. Thus, Section 230 provides Facebook a valid federal preemption defense to a state tort law claim. \u0000 \u0000This essay contends that Congress should create a statutory exception to Section 230 to permit civil suits against social media companies for complicity in genocide or crimes against humanity. The United States has a clear duty under international law to prevent genocide. One could also make a persuasive argument that the United States has a duty under customary international law to prevent crimes against humanity. The United States is not violating its international legal duty to prevent mass atrocities by granting immunity to internet companies. However, withdrawal of that immunity for content that contributes to commission of mass atrocity crimes would be a helpful step for the United States to implement its duty to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity.","PeriodicalId":80896,"journal":{"name":"Case Western Reserve journal of international law","volume":"52 1","pages":"199"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47733094","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}
{"title":"Blood Antiquities: Addressing a Culture of Impunity in the Antiquities Market","authors":"Paul R. Williams, Christin Coster","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3072533","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3072533","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":80896,"journal":{"name":"Case Western Reserve journal of international law","volume":"49 1","pages":"103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47112328","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 : 2016-05-24DOI: 10.1163/2468-1733_shafr_sim260100036
Jacques Delisle
{"title":"International Law in the Obama Administration's Pivot to Asia: The China Seas Disputes, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Rivalry with the PRC, and Status Quo Legal Norms in U.S. Foreign Policy","authors":"Jacques Delisle","doi":"10.1163/2468-1733_shafr_sim260100036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2468-1733_shafr_sim260100036","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":80896,"journal":{"name":"Case Western Reserve journal of international law","volume":"48 1","pages":"143"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64432745","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}
There is growing interest in using the quickly developing field of genomics to contribute to military readiness and effectiveness. Specifically, influential military advisory panels have recommended that the U.S. military apply genomics to help treat, prevent, or minimize the risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among service members. This article highlights some important scientific, legal, and ethical challenges regarding the development and deployment of a preventive genomic sequencing (PGS) program to predict the risk of PTSD among military service members.
{"title":"CHALLENGES FOR IMPLEMENTING A PTSD PREVENTIVE GENOMIC SEQUENCING PROGRAM IN THE U.S. MILITARY.","authors":"Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz, Eric T Juengst","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is growing interest in using the quickly developing field of genomics to contribute to military readiness and effectiveness. Specifically, influential military advisory panels have recommended that the U.S. military apply genomics to help treat, prevent, or minimize the risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among service members. This article highlights some important scientific, legal, and ethical challenges regarding the development and deployment of a preventive genomic sequencing (PGS) program to predict the risk of PTSD among military service members.</p>","PeriodicalId":80896,"journal":{"name":"Case Western Reserve journal of international law","volume":"47 1","pages":"87-113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4577019/pdf/nihms704354.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34030436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Maritime piracy is among the original universal jurisdiction crimes. Denounced by customary international law and recognized as a breach of jus cogens, piracy also is defined and proscribed by a number of international treaties. Piracy has garnered recent international attention through its proliferation off the coast of Somalia and the resultant impact on international shipping and trade, not to mention loss of life. While incidents of Somali piracy are decreasing, piratical attacks are on the upswing elsewhere, for example off the Gulf of Guinea in Western Africa. The United Nations Security Council endorses a criminal justice model in response to acts of piracy. The Security Council thereby promotes a mechanism of judicialization and penalization. So, too, do the United Nations General Assembly, many states, international organizations (such as the International Maritime Organization), trade groups, and the shippers lobby. In the recent past, many detained pirates were perfunctorily captured and released. With the spread of the criminal justice model, however, pirates are increasingly facing prosecution in national courts, mainly in Kenya, Seychelles, and Maldives, but also in Germany, the US, India, France, Spain, Japan, and Somalia – among others.It has been estimated that approximately one-third of captured pirates are minors, that is, persons under the age of eighteen. This article explores issues of accountability, reintegration, deterrence and rehabilitation in the context of child pirates. It recommends modalities of restorative and reintegrative justice for child pirates that avoid the careless superficiality of immediate release and the retributive heavy-handedness of criminal trials. Regrettably, prevailing imagery that cloaks juveniles enmeshed in international crimes, for example child soldiers, does not favor this middle ground. Instead, this narrative imagery facilitates either perfunctory release (the faultless passive victim image) or criminal trials regardless of age (the demon and bandit image). Unlike the case with child soldiers, however, the position of UN entities when it comes to child pirates tends toward greater punitiveness – assuredly, a concerning development.Part I of this Article sets out data on piracy generally and addresses some specifics regarding juvenile involvement. Part II summarizes current efforts to criminally prosecute child pirates in instances where capture and release policies are not implemented. Part III explores why juveniles may end up in pirate gangs. Part IV critically assesses the deterrent effect of criminal prosecutions of juvenile pirates and proposes a new path, namely, one that leads toward restorative justice. Part V concludes.
{"title":"Child Pirates: Rehabilitation, Reintegration, and Accountability","authors":"M. Drumbl","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2331510","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2331510","url":null,"abstract":"Maritime piracy is among the original universal jurisdiction crimes. Denounced by customary international law and recognized as a breach of jus cogens, piracy also is defined and proscribed by a number of international treaties. Piracy has garnered recent international attention through its proliferation off the coast of Somalia and the resultant impact on international shipping and trade, not to mention loss of life. While incidents of Somali piracy are decreasing, piratical attacks are on the upswing elsewhere, for example off the Gulf of Guinea in Western Africa. The United Nations Security Council endorses a criminal justice model in response to acts of piracy. The Security Council thereby promotes a mechanism of judicialization and penalization. So, too, do the United Nations General Assembly, many states, international organizations (such as the International Maritime Organization), trade groups, and the shippers lobby. In the recent past, many detained pirates were perfunctorily captured and released. With the spread of the criminal justice model, however, pirates are increasingly facing prosecution in national courts, mainly in Kenya, Seychelles, and Maldives, but also in Germany, the US, India, France, Spain, Japan, and Somalia – among others.It has been estimated that approximately one-third of captured pirates are minors, that is, persons under the age of eighteen. This article explores issues of accountability, reintegration, deterrence and rehabilitation in the context of child pirates. It recommends modalities of restorative and reintegrative justice for child pirates that avoid the careless superficiality of immediate release and the retributive heavy-handedness of criminal trials. Regrettably, prevailing imagery that cloaks juveniles enmeshed in international crimes, for example child soldiers, does not favor this middle ground. Instead, this narrative imagery facilitates either perfunctory release (the faultless passive victim image) or criminal trials regardless of age (the demon and bandit image). Unlike the case with child soldiers, however, the position of UN entities when it comes to child pirates tends toward greater punitiveness – assuredly, a concerning development.Part I of this Article sets out data on piracy generally and addresses some specifics regarding juvenile involvement. Part II summarizes current efforts to criminally prosecute child pirates in instances where capture and release policies are not implemented. Part III explores why juveniles may end up in pirate gangs. Part IV critically assesses the deterrent effect of criminal prosecutions of juvenile pirates and proposes a new path, namely, one that leads toward restorative justice. Part V concludes.","PeriodicalId":80896,"journal":{"name":"Case Western Reserve journal of international law","volume":"46 1","pages":"235"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2331510","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68111030","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}
In recent years, maritime piracy has reemerged as a serious threat to the international community, particularly following the significant increase in incidents of maritime piracy and armed robbery at sea that occurred off the coast of Somalia and in the Gulf of Guinea. As presented in this article, international cooperation is indispensable for combating piracy. To that end, the article argues that a duty to cooperate in the repression of piracy is moored in various international instruments — notably in article 100 of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) — as well as in general principles of international law. It requires states to adhere to due diligence ‘best efforts’ standards, which, in the context of maritime piracy, entail exercising sincere, concerted, and proactive efforts. The duty to cooperate should serve as a guiding principle in identifying the specific obligations imposed on states. Among those specific obligations is the duty to share relevant information that can assist in preventing piracy attacks and in facilitating prosecution of suspected pirates. It is further submitted that successful undertakings to fight maritime piracy necessitate inter-disciplinary cooperation, namely cooperation among entities whose expertise generally lies in different fields. The article further discusses the main challenges for information sharing and proposes solutions to meet those challenges.
{"title":"Combating Maritime Piracy: Inter-Disciplinary Cooperation and Information Sharing","authors":"Y. Gottlieb","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2325279","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2325279","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, maritime piracy has reemerged as a serious threat to the international community, particularly following the significant increase in incidents of maritime piracy and armed robbery at sea that occurred off the coast of Somalia and in the Gulf of Guinea. As presented in this article, international cooperation is indispensable for combating piracy. To that end, the article argues that a duty to cooperate in the repression of piracy is moored in various international instruments — notably in article 100 of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) — as well as in general principles of international law. It requires states to adhere to due diligence ‘best efforts’ standards, which, in the context of maritime piracy, entail exercising sincere, concerted, and proactive efforts. The duty to cooperate should serve as a guiding principle in identifying the specific obligations imposed on states. Among those specific obligations is the duty to share relevant information that can assist in preventing piracy attacks and in facilitating prosecution of suspected pirates. It is further submitted that successful undertakings to fight maritime piracy necessitate inter-disciplinary cooperation, namely cooperation among entities whose expertise generally lies in different fields. The article further discusses the main challenges for information sharing and proposes solutions to meet those challenges.","PeriodicalId":80896,"journal":{"name":"Case Western Reserve journal of international law","volume":"46 1","pages":"303"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68105282","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}
Targeted killing sits at the intersection of law, morality, strategy, and policy. For the very reasons that lawful and effective targeted killing enables the state to engage in its core function of self-defense and defense of its nationals, I am a proponent of targeted killing. However, my support for targeted killing is conditioned upon it being subject to rigorous standards, criteria, and guidelines. At present, new conceptions of threat and new technological capabilities are drastically affecting the implementation of targeted killing and the application of core legal and moral principles. High-level decision makers have begun to seemingly place a disproportionate level of importance on tactical and strategic gain over respect for a narrow definition of criteria-based legal and moral framework. Nonetheless, an effective targeted killing provides the state with significant advantages in the context of counterterrorism. Rather than relying on the executive branch making decisions in a “closed world” devoid of oversight and review, the intelligence information justifying the proposed action must be submitted to a court that would ascertain the information’s admissibility. The process of preparing and submitting available intelligence information to a court would significantly contribute to minimizing operational error that otherwise would occur.
{"title":"Targeted Killing: When Proportionality Gets All Out of Proportion","authors":"A. Guiora","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2230686","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2230686","url":null,"abstract":"Targeted killing sits at the intersection of law, morality, strategy, and policy. For the very reasons that lawful and effective targeted killing enables the state to engage in its core function of self-defense and defense of its nationals, I am a proponent of targeted killing. However, my support for targeted killing is conditioned upon it being subject to rigorous standards, criteria, and guidelines. At present, new conceptions of threat and new technological capabilities are drastically affecting the implementation of targeted killing and the application of core legal and moral principles. High-level decision makers have begun to seemingly place a disproportionate level of importance on tactical and strategic gain over respect for a narrow definition of criteria-based legal and moral framework. Nonetheless, an effective targeted killing provides the state with significant advantages in the context of counterterrorism. Rather than relying on the executive branch making decisions in a “closed world” devoid of oversight and review, the intelligence information justifying the proposed action must be submitted to a court that would ascertain the information’s admissibility. The process of preparing and submitting available intelligence information to a court would significantly contribute to minimizing operational error that otherwise would occur.","PeriodicalId":80896,"journal":{"name":"Case Western Reserve journal of international law","volume":"45 1","pages":"235"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68010707","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}
In Medellin v. Texas (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court further mystified the already ambiguous doctrine of self-execution of treaty provisions that create rights for individuals. Lower court self-execution decisions since Medellin suggest that, at least in certain classes of cases, the potentially broad language in Medellin that appears to restrict self-execution is being ignored.
{"title":"A Tragi-Comedy of Errors Erodes Self-Execution of Treaties: Medellin v. Texas and Beyond","authors":"J. Quigley","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2080130","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2080130","url":null,"abstract":"In Medellin v. Texas (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court further mystified the already ambiguous doctrine of self-execution of treaty provisions that create rights for individuals. Lower court self-execution decisions since Medellin suggest that, at least in certain classes of cases, the potentially broad language in Medellin that appears to restrict self-execution is being ignored.","PeriodicalId":80896,"journal":{"name":"Case Western Reserve journal of international law","volume":"45 1","pages":"403"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67902886","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}
Deciphering an American presidential administration is truly yeoman’s work. Whether the Obama Administration is significantly distinct from previous administrations is too early to judge. Arguably, the task should be left to historians. Nevertheless, even a casual perusal of President Obama’s Middle East policy (perhaps best described as "policy") reflects a combination of naivete, inconsistency and murkiness. While perhaps by design, the impact — on the ground — is deeply troublesome. While domestic political considerations are a reality, the implications of the Administration’s policy in an area of the world as treacherous as the Middle East are, potentially, staggering.Precisely because international law does not articulate either normative or architectural standards as to when international humanitarian intervention is justified, national leaders arguably have a responsibility to act. The oft-cited phrase "when the cannons roar, the muses are silent" is particularly relevant to this discussion. For a variety of reasons, the international community has determined — whether actively or passively — that the massacre of the Syrian population by the Assad government does not justify international humanitarian intervention. While the human rights violations occurring on a daily basis do not compare to the horrors of Rwanda, Kosovo, or Sierra Leone they are not less compelling than the events transpiring in Libya. If, by metaphorical analogy, the international community is the cannons and the U.S. is the muse, does that mean that the Obama Administration is required to be silent? After all, if the quote were to be rigorously applied, then many of the institutions created to minimize human suffering would neither exist, much less function in wartime. While the distinction — from the perspective of international humanitarian intervention — between Libya and Syria is as unclear, as are the criteria that justify intervention, that must not serve as a misguided basis for the Obama Administration to largely turn its back on the Syrian people.
{"title":"Intervention in Libya, Yes; Intervention in Syria, No: Deciphering the Obama Administration","authors":"A. Guiora","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1993322","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1993322","url":null,"abstract":"Deciphering an American presidential administration is truly yeoman’s work. Whether the Obama Administration is significantly distinct from previous administrations is too early to judge. Arguably, the task should be left to historians. Nevertheless, even a casual perusal of President Obama’s Middle East policy (perhaps best described as \"policy\") reflects a combination of naivete, inconsistency and murkiness. While perhaps by design, the impact — on the ground — is deeply troublesome. While domestic political considerations are a reality, the implications of the Administration’s policy in an area of the world as treacherous as the Middle East are, potentially, staggering.Precisely because international law does not articulate either normative or architectural standards as to when international humanitarian intervention is justified, national leaders arguably have a responsibility to act. The oft-cited phrase \"when the cannons roar, the muses are silent\" is particularly relevant to this discussion. For a variety of reasons, the international community has determined — whether actively or passively — that the massacre of the Syrian population by the Assad government does not justify international humanitarian intervention. While the human rights violations occurring on a daily basis do not compare to the horrors of Rwanda, Kosovo, or Sierra Leone they are not less compelling than the events transpiring in Libya. If, by metaphorical analogy, the international community is the cannons and the U.S. is the muse, does that mean that the Obama Administration is required to be silent? After all, if the quote were to be rigorously applied, then many of the institutions created to minimize human suffering would neither exist, much less function in wartime. While the distinction — from the perspective of international humanitarian intervention — between Libya and Syria is as unclear, as are the criteria that justify intervention, that must not serve as a misguided basis for the Obama Administration to largely turn its back on the Syrian people.","PeriodicalId":80896,"journal":{"name":"Case Western Reserve journal of international law","volume":"44 1","pages":"251"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.1993322","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67835624","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 : 2012-01-01DOI: 10.4324/9781315084572-28
N. Passas
{"title":"Financial Controls and Counter-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction","authors":"N. Passas","doi":"10.4324/9781315084572-28","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315084572-28","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":80896,"journal":{"name":"Case Western Reserve journal of international law","volume":"44 1","pages":"747"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70626923","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：