Pub Date : 2014-09-18DOI: 10.1093/LAW/9780199684601.003.0028
A. Wang
The extraordinary growth of greenhouse gas emissions in China represents the single greatest challenge to global climate change efforts in coming decades. China is the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases, having surpassed the United States in 2006. China’s greenhouse gas emissions accounted for nearly a third (29 percent) of the global total in 2011, slightly more than emissions of the United States and the European Union combined (27 percent). This state of affairs is the result of more than three decades of energy-intensive, coal-fired economic growth, wherein China’s GDP grew by an average of 10 percent a year. This chapter offers an overview of China’s developing climate change response by examining the framework on the books and significant implementation challenges in practice. First, it offers background on China’s contribution to global climate change and its positions in international climate negotiations. Second, it describes China’s formal framework of climate change-related laws and policies. This body of authorities has expanded significantly since the beginning of China’s 11th five-year plan in 2006. This part also describes the preliminary results as reported by official and third party sources. Finally, this chapter concludes by discussing several dynamics that will influence the efficacy of China’s climate change efforts in practice. These include the evolution of various co-benefits (i.e., economic growth, pollution reduction, social stability, and enhancement of international reputation) and their impact on China’s cost-benefit calculation for climate change action; the extent to which implementation problems can be resolved; and whether China’s still developing interior regions continue to be the locus of carbon outsourcing (from wealthier coastal regions of China) or instead shift toward a low-carbon growth path.
{"title":"Climate Change Policy and Law in China","authors":"A. Wang","doi":"10.1093/LAW/9780199684601.003.0028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/LAW/9780199684601.003.0028","url":null,"abstract":"The extraordinary growth of greenhouse gas emissions in China represents the single greatest challenge to global climate change efforts in coming decades. China is the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases, having surpassed the United States in 2006. China’s greenhouse gas emissions accounted for nearly a third (29 percent) of the global total in 2011, slightly more than emissions of the United States and the European Union combined (27 percent). This state of affairs is the result of more than three decades of energy-intensive, coal-fired economic growth, wherein China’s GDP grew by an average of 10 percent a year. This chapter offers an overview of China’s developing climate change response by examining the framework on the books and significant implementation challenges in practice. First, it offers background on China’s contribution to global climate change and its positions in international climate negotiations. Second, it describes China’s formal framework of climate change-related laws and policies. This body of authorities has expanded significantly since the beginning of China’s 11th five-year plan in 2006. This part also describes the preliminary results as reported by official and third party sources. Finally, this chapter concludes by discussing several dynamics that will influence the efficacy of China’s climate change efforts in practice. These include the evolution of various co-benefits (i.e., economic growth, pollution reduction, social stability, and enhancement of international reputation) and their impact on China’s cost-benefit calculation for climate change action; the extent to which implementation problems can be resolved; and whether China’s still developing interior regions continue to be the locus of carbon outsourcing (from wealthier coastal regions of China) or instead shift toward a low-carbon growth path.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"146 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77665410","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 : 2014-09-09DOI: 10.7916/CBLR.V2014I1.1769
Jonathan D. Glater
Fraud claims filed by investors in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008 reveal a significant and unrecognized problem in securities law: the law treats claims of investors who purchase securities through private placements more favorably than it treats claims of investors who purchase shares on public exchanges or in public offerings. The disparity is a symptom of financial markets outpacing their legal and regulatory framework, and this Article proposes a remedy.The different hurdles confronting investors who invest in different transactions but who make similar allegations and rely on the same law are, the Article contends, an unfair and apparently unintended result of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") which sought to curb frivolous shareholder class actions. The PSLRA raised the standard plaintiffs must meet in alleging that a defendant had wrongful intent, or scienter, but it did not raise the standard applicable to claims that a plaintiff reasonably relied on an allegedly fraudulent misrepresentation or omission. Because establishing scienter is difficult for investors with access only to regulatory disclosures by publicly traded companies, while establishing reasonable reliance is more likely to be difficult for putatively sophisticated investors in private placements, investors in publicly accessible transactions face a higher hurdle than private placement investors when alleging fraud.This Article describes and critiques this effect of the PSLRA, and calls on Congress to revise standards so that investors victimized by fraud have the same chance of recovery through litigation whether or not they purchased securities in a private placement.
{"title":"Hurdles of Different Heights for Securities Fraud Litigants of Different Types","authors":"Jonathan D. Glater","doi":"10.7916/CBLR.V2014I1.1769","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/CBLR.V2014I1.1769","url":null,"abstract":"Fraud claims filed by investors in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008 reveal a significant and unrecognized problem in securities law: the law treats claims of investors who purchase securities through private placements more favorably than it treats claims of investors who purchase shares on public exchanges or in public offerings. The disparity is a symptom of financial markets outpacing their legal and regulatory framework, and this Article proposes a remedy.The different hurdles confronting investors who invest in different transactions but who make similar allegations and rely on the same law are, the Article contends, an unfair and apparently unintended result of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (\"PSLRA\") which sought to curb frivolous shareholder class actions. The PSLRA raised the standard plaintiffs must meet in alleging that a defendant had wrongful intent, or scienter, but it did not raise the standard applicable to claims that a plaintiff reasonably relied on an allegedly fraudulent misrepresentation or omission. Because establishing scienter is difficult for investors with access only to regulatory disclosures by publicly traded companies, while establishing reasonable reliance is more likely to be difficult for putatively sophisticated investors in private placements, investors in publicly accessible transactions face a higher hurdle than private placement investors when alleging fraud.This Article describes and critiques this effect of the PSLRA, and calls on Congress to revise standards so that investors victimized by fraud have the same chance of recovery through litigation whether or not they purchased securities in a private placement.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84389690","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}
Assessing regulatory benefits is crucial to cost-benefit analysis. And yet, quantification can be problematic, either because of the nature of the benefit themselves or because of uncertainty about achieving them. In such situations, Cass Sunstein calls for the use of a breakeven analysis based on a judgment about whether regulatory benefits are at least as high as costs. Even assuming that cost-benefit analysis is the best way of making decisions when benefits can be readily quantified, breakeven analysis may or may not be the right approach when quantification is difficult. Instead, depending on the causes of the difficulty, we might want either to revert to more qualitative methods of decision-making or to move beyond breakeven analysis into more rigorous methodologies. Thus, the case for breakeven analysis remains unproven.
{"title":"Breaking Bad? The Uneasy Case for Regulatory Breakeven Analysis","authors":"D. Farber","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2430263","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2430263","url":null,"abstract":"Assessing regulatory benefits is crucial to cost-benefit analysis. And yet, quantification can be problematic, either because of the nature of the benefit themselves or because of uncertainty about achieving them. In such situations, Cass Sunstein calls for the use of a breakeven analysis based on a judgment about whether regulatory benefits are at least as high as costs. Even assuming that cost-benefit analysis is the best way of making decisions when benefits can be readily quantified, breakeven analysis may or may not be the right approach when quantification is difficult. Instead, depending on the causes of the difficulty, we might want either to revert to more qualitative methods of decision-making or to move beyond breakeven analysis into more rigorous methodologies. Thus, the case for breakeven analysis remains unproven.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"58 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89058993","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}
As the ongoing court battle between the Republic of Argentina and NML Capital, Ltd. illustrates, the meaning of pari passu in sovereign debt contracts remains highly contested. This article presents what might be the clearest historical evidence of what the pari passu clause was understood to mean in the pre-war period. It examines Nazi Germany’s defaults of the Dawes and Young Loans during the 1930s. According to this historical evidence, the parties believed that the clause promised parity in payment across different creditor groups (in this context, the various tranches representing nationals of different countries) considered to be part of the same general undertaking. This article reports no evidence to support what may be the most commonly offered interpretation for the clause today — that the pari passu clause was intended to prohibit the sovereign from passing laws that would have the effect of involuntarily subordinating certain creditors. This article also finds no evidence to suggest that the pari passu clause was understood as entitling the aggrieved creditor to a unilateral right to block payments to bondholders who assented to a government’s restructuring proposal.
{"title":"Pari Passu: The Nazi Gambit","authors":"Sung Hui Kim","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2430588","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2430588","url":null,"abstract":"As the ongoing court battle between the Republic of Argentina and NML Capital, Ltd. illustrates, the meaning of pari passu in sovereign debt contracts remains highly contested. This article presents what might be the clearest historical evidence of what the pari passu clause was understood to mean in the pre-war period. It examines Nazi Germany’s defaults of the Dawes and Young Loans during the 1930s. According to this historical evidence, the parties believed that the clause promised parity in payment across different creditor groups (in this context, the various tranches representing nationals of different countries) considered to be part of the same general undertaking. This article reports no evidence to support what may be the most commonly offered interpretation for the clause today — that the pari passu clause was intended to prohibit the sovereign from passing laws that would have the effect of involuntarily subordinating certain creditors. This article also finds no evidence to suggest that the pari passu clause was understood as entitling the aggrieved creditor to a unilateral right to block payments to bondholders who assented to a government’s restructuring proposal.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72610519","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}
The growing importance of shared networks, shared platforms and shared standards leads to a renewed discussion of the essential facilities doctrine of antitrust. This is an area where European law and American law have diverged. In Trinko (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court came close to abolishing it. At the same time, it was reinvigorated by the European Commission, which asserted it successfully in E.C. v. Microsoft, and then, facing criticism, clarified the doctrine in a Guidance document. We harmonize the main cases around the doctrine’s original but often forgotten purpose namely, harvesting economic synergies through sharing. We argue that, absent such a doctrine, these synergies could be lost as firms either avoid sharing to avoid antitrust liability, or create sharing arrangements that undermine competition. We show how and why the original purpose of the doctrine has become entangled with other antitrust issues, in particular, leveraging. We systematize the sharing rules that have been imposed or allowed, with an emphasis on how to harvest synergies while mitigating any harm to competition.
共享网络、共享平台和共享标准的重要性日益增强，引发了对反垄断基本设施原则的新一轮讨论。这是欧洲法律和美国法律分歧的一个领域。在Trinko(2007)中，美国最高法院几乎废除了它。与此同时，欧盟委员会(European Commission)重新赋予了它活力，在E.C.诉微软案(E.C. v. Microsoft)中成功地主张了这一原则，然后，面对批评，在一份指导文件中澄清了这一原则。我们围绕这一理论最初但常常被遗忘的目的，即通过分享获得经济协同效应，来协调主要案例。我们认为，如果没有这样的原则，这些协同效应可能会丧失，因为企业要么避免共享以避免反垄断责任，要么创造破坏竞争的共享安排。我们展示了该原则的最初目的是如何以及为什么与其他反垄断问题纠缠在一起的，特别是杠杆问题。我们将已经实施或允许的共享规则系统化，重点是如何在减少对竞争的损害的同时获得协同效应。
{"title":"The Essential Facilities Doctrine: The Lost Message of Terminal Railroad","authors":"S. Maurer, Suzanne Scotchmer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2407071","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2407071","url":null,"abstract":"The growing importance of shared networks, shared platforms and shared standards leads to a renewed discussion of the essential facilities doctrine of antitrust. This is an area where European law and American law have diverged. In Trinko (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court came close to abolishing it. At the same time, it was reinvigorated by the European Commission, which asserted it successfully in E.C. v. Microsoft, and then, facing criticism, clarified the doctrine in a Guidance document. We harmonize the main cases around the doctrine’s original but often forgotten purpose namely, harvesting economic synergies through sharing. We argue that, absent such a doctrine, these synergies could be lost as firms either avoid sharing to avoid antitrust liability, or create sharing arrangements that undermine competition. We show how and why the original purpose of the doctrine has become entangled with other antitrust issues, in particular, leveraging. We systematize the sharing rules that have been imposed or allowed, with an emphasis on how to harvest synergies while mitigating any harm to competition.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87751060","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}
The Pareto principle has great intuitive appeal, but poses perplexities on closer examination. What exactly do we mean by “preferences”? Should the principle apply ex post or ex ante? Does it uphold individual autonomy, individual welfare, or both? This essay argues that the Pareto principle is best understood, in utilitarian terms, as connecting social welfare with an objective appraisal of individual welfare. Indeed, with only modest additional assumptions, the Pareto principle implies a utilitarian social welfare function. It is much more difficult to link Pareto with autonomy norms for several reasons, including not only Sen’s paradox but a bevy of other difficulties.
{"title":"Autonomy, Welfare, and the Pareto Principle","authors":"D. Farber","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2392859","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2392859","url":null,"abstract":"The Pareto principle has great intuitive appeal, but poses perplexities on closer examination. What exactly do we mean by “preferences”? Should the principle apply ex post or ex ante? Does it uphold individual autonomy, individual welfare, or both? This essay argues that the Pareto principle is best understood, in utilitarian terms, as connecting social welfare with an objective appraisal of individual welfare. Indeed, with only modest additional assumptions, the Pareto principle implies a utilitarian social welfare function. It is much more difficult to link Pareto with autonomy norms for several reasons, including not only Sen’s paradox but a bevy of other difficulties.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91110198","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}
We conduct a detailed doctrinal and empirical study of the adverse effects of parole on the constitutional rights of both individual parolees and the communities in which they live. We show that parolees’ Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights have been eroded by a multitude of punitive conditions endorsed by the courts. Punitive parole conditions actually increase parolees’ vulnerability to criminal elements, and thus likely worsen recidivism. Simultaneously, the parole system mitigates the rights of non-parolees: family, co-tenants, and communities more broadly. We show that police target parolee-dense neighborhoods for additional Terry stops, even when income, race, population and single-family status are accounted for. Furthermore, police take advantage of the permissive parole search jurisprudence, conducting more searches and arrests of both parolees and their non-parolee neighbors. Combined, this analysis shows that parole institutionalizes individuals and marginalizes communities.
{"title":"The Attrition of Rights Under Parole","authors":"Tonja Jacobi, L. Song Richardson, Greg Barr","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2312072","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2312072","url":null,"abstract":"We conduct a detailed doctrinal and empirical study of the adverse effects of parole on the constitutional rights of both individual parolees and the communities in which they live. We show that parolees’ Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights have been eroded by a multitude of punitive conditions endorsed by the courts. Punitive parole conditions actually increase parolees’ vulnerability to criminal elements, and thus likely worsen recidivism. Simultaneously, the parole system mitigates the rights of non-parolees: family, co-tenants, and communities more broadly. We show that police target parolee-dense neighborhoods for additional Terry stops, even when income, race, population and single-family status are accounted for. Furthermore, police take advantage of the permissive parole search jurisprudence, conducting more searches and arrests of both parolees and their non-parolee neighbors. Combined, this analysis shows that parole institutionalizes individuals and marginalizes communities.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87905859","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}
Nearly all American states use one of two systems for setting the amount of child support that noncustodial parents (NCPs) are required to pay to custodial parents (CPs). In previous work we found that lay judgments of the child support amount the law should require differ in meaningful ways from these two systems: Our respondents favor child support amounts that are more responsive to the NCP’s income, and much more responsive to the CP’s income, than set by either system. They also favor dollar amounts that increase more rapidly with NCP income when CP income is lower, producing a characteristic fanning lines pattern when dollar support amounts are charted against NCP income for several different CP incomes. We give the label “Fair Shares” to these two features of our respondents’ child support judgments. We describe 6 new experimental studies that vary the context of these judgments in ways that test whether the “Fair Shares” account is robust. Our studies consistently replicate the fan shaped pattern and shed further light on lay judgments. A revised version of this paper has been acceptred for publication in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.
{"title":"Public Intuitions about Fair Child Support Allocations: Converging Evidence for a 'Fair Shares' Rule","authors":"S. Braver, I. M. Ellman, R. MacCoun","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2110376","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2110376","url":null,"abstract":"Nearly all American states use one of two systems for setting the amount of child support that noncustodial parents (NCPs) are required to pay to custodial parents (CPs). In previous work we found that lay judgments of the child support amount the law should require differ in meaningful ways from these two systems: Our respondents favor child support amounts that are more responsive to the NCP’s income, and much more responsive to the CP’s income, than set by either system. They also favor dollar amounts that increase more rapidly with NCP income when CP income is lower, producing a characteristic fanning lines pattern when dollar support amounts are charted against NCP income for several different CP incomes. We give the label “Fair Shares” to these two features of our respondents’ child support judgments. We describe 6 new experimental studies that vary the context of these judgments in ways that test whether the “Fair Shares” account is robust. Our studies consistently replicate the fan shaped pattern and shed further light on lay judgments. A revised version of this paper has been acceptred for publication in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81033270","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}
The study attempted to measure the facebook proficiency of the students. In particular, the study sought to answer the following questions:
1. Is there a relationship between the facebook proficiency of the students and their educational level?
2. Is there a relationship between the facebook proficiency of the students and their sex?
3. Is there a relationship between the facebook proficiency of the students and their age?
4. Is there a relationship between the facebook proficiency of the students and their personal gadgets?
The information gathered were interpreted and analyzed through the use of frequency distribution, analysis of variance, z-test, correlation and chi-square.
{"title":"Facebook Proficiency of Students in Dalican, Datu Odin Sinsuat, Maguindanao","authors":"Bai Putri Morayah Amil","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3545244","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3545244","url":null,"abstract":"The study attempted to measure the facebook proficiency of the students. In particular, the study sought to answer the following questions:<br><br>1. Is there a relationship between the facebook proficiency of the students and their educational level?<br><br>2. Is there a relationship between the facebook proficiency of the students and their sex?<br><br>3. Is there a relationship between the facebook proficiency of the students and their age?<br><br>4. Is there a relationship between the facebook proficiency of the students and their personal gadgets?<br><br>The information gathered were interpreted and analyzed through the use of frequency distribution, analysis of variance, z-test, correlation and chi-square.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"88 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76665883","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：