Pub Date : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/09615768.2021.1954799
Karon Monaghan
The ILO’s centenary was a good time to reflect on the work of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR), and on the challenges it has faced over the dec...
{"title":"The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations: The Centenary Year","authors":"Karon Monaghan","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1954799","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1954799","url":null,"abstract":"The ILO’s centenary was a good time to reflect on the work of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR), and on the challenges it has faced over the dec...","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"241 1","pages":"197 - 206"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86924449","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 : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/09615768.2021.1969760
N. Countouris, K. Ewing
This special issue of the King’s Law Journal includes some of the papers that were first presented at a symposium jointly organised by our respective academic institutions, KCL and UCL, in November 2019, to celebrate the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) first centenary. The symposium gave its attendees an opportunity to celebrate the contribution of the ILO to social justice and the quest for dignity in the world of work. It also became an opportunity to reflect on the future of the organisation, the challenges it faces, and the role of international labour standards more broadly. Crucially, it identified the principle of Freedom of Association as the axis around which the entire institutional and normative machinery of the ILO revolves. This was a suitable principle from which to analyse the functioning of an organisation that is sometimes referred to as ‘The World Parliament of Labour’, in a way that seeks to highlight both the rule-setting role of the organisation and its very unique democratic and representative credentials. Indeed, if the International Labour Conference (ILC) is often described as ‘the motor’ of the ILO, then Freedom of Association ought to be seen as the fuel and lubricant that make that engine work. Within the ILO, Freedom of Association is both a constitutional
{"title":"The World Parliament of Labour: The International Labour Organisation's First Hundred Years","authors":"N. Countouris, K. Ewing","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1969760","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1969760","url":null,"abstract":"This special issue of the King’s Law Journal includes some of the papers that were first presented at a symposium jointly organised by our respective academic institutions, KCL and UCL, in November 2019, to celebrate the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) first centenary. The symposium gave its attendees an opportunity to celebrate the contribution of the ILO to social justice and the quest for dignity in the world of work. It also became an opportunity to reflect on the future of the organisation, the challenges it faces, and the role of international labour standards more broadly. Crucially, it identified the principle of Freedom of Association as the axis around which the entire institutional and normative machinery of the ILO revolves. This was a suitable principle from which to analyse the functioning of an organisation that is sometimes referred to as ‘The World Parliament of Labour’, in a way that seeks to highlight both the rule-setting role of the organisation and its very unique democratic and representative credentials. Indeed, if the International Labour Conference (ILC) is often described as ‘the motor’ of the ILO, then Freedom of Association ought to be seen as the fuel and lubricant that make that engine work. Within the ILO, Freedom of Association is both a constitutional","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"22 1","pages":"179 - 182"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75391084","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 : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/09615768.2021.1945770
Ioannis Katsaroumpas
The ILO centenary celebrated in 2019 offered an occasion for reflection on the past, present and future of international labour law. With inequality described by ILO as ‘one of the most daunting challenges for future of work', international labour law confronts the task of developing regulatory responses to the ever-widening gap between the remuneration of corporate executives and those of low-paid workers. In search of new solutions for reversing this process, this article makes the case for the recognition of a new international labour right against extreme wage inequality grounded in the ‘just share’ imperative of the Declaration of Philadelphia. It also advances a novel regulatory model for implementing this right.
{"title":"A Right Against Extreme Wage Inequality: A Social Justice Modernisation of International Labour Law?","authors":"Ioannis Katsaroumpas","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1945770","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1945770","url":null,"abstract":"The ILO centenary celebrated in 2019 offered an occasion for reflection on the past, present and future of international labour law. With inequality described by ILO as ‘one of the most daunting challenges for future of work', international labour law confronts the task of developing regulatory responses to the ever-widening gap between the remuneration of corporate executives and those of low-paid workers. In search of new solutions for reversing this process, this article makes the case for the recognition of a new international labour right against extreme wage inequality grounded in the ‘just share’ imperative of the Declaration of Philadelphia. It also advances a novel regulatory model for implementing this right.","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"31 1","pages":"260 - 286"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87078973","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 : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/09615768.2021.1969758
E. McGaughey
A century ago, the International Labour Organization’s founding document, the ill-fated Versailles Treaty 1919, recalled that ‘peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice’. This idea of social justice, and its emergence at the centre of international law, was audacious because it demanded change. It said that justicewas creative, that it did not simply correct or distribute what was already there. It said that humanity could achieve higher goals, that people were not born for one job, and that the role of a just society was to ensure everyone could develop their personality to the fullest. This tradition of thought followed the conviction that we can expand our ‘capacity’, that we must strive for ‘human improvement’ and for ‘elevating the universal lot’, and we must attain ‘the utmost possible development of faculty in the individual human being’. As one of Versailles’ dejected negotiators would later write, ‘the real
{"title":"The International Labour Organization’s Next Century: Economic Democracy, and the Undemocratic Third","authors":"E. McGaughey","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1969758","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1969758","url":null,"abstract":"A century ago, the International Labour Organization’s founding document, the ill-fated Versailles Treaty 1919, recalled that ‘peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice’. This idea of social justice, and its emergence at the centre of international law, was audacious because it demanded change. It said that justicewas creative, that it did not simply correct or distribute what was already there. It said that humanity could achieve higher goals, that people were not born for one job, and that the role of a just society was to ensure everyone could develop their personality to the fullest. This tradition of thought followed the conviction that we can expand our ‘capacity’, that we must strive for ‘human improvement’ and for ‘elevating the universal lot’, and we must attain ‘the utmost possible development of faculty in the individual human being’. As one of Versailles’ dejected negotiators would later write, ‘the real","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"659 1","pages":"287 - 305"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74922538","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 : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/09615768.2021.1969756
K. Curtis
Freedom of association is the bedrock of the International Labour Organization and yet its century plus history has been confronted with enormous challenges to the protection of this fundamental right and the elaboration of its contours. This reflection aims at reviewing some of the most significant challenges encountered, the tools for their resolution and the important consequential impact, anchoring the basic tenets of democracy. It concludes by reflecting on means for filling remaining gaps to full, equal and democratic participation in tripartite governance.
{"title":"100 years of the ILO in action: Reflections on inclusive collective representation and the organization's quest for social justice","authors":"K. Curtis","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1969756","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1969756","url":null,"abstract":"Freedom of association is the bedrock of the International Labour Organization and yet its century plus history has been confronted with enormous challenges to the protection of this fundamental right and the elaboration of its contours. This reflection aims at reviewing some of the most significant challenges encountered, the tools for their resolution and the important consequential impact, anchoring the basic tenets of democracy. It concludes by reflecting on means for filling remaining gaps to full, equal and democratic participation in tripartite governance.","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"1 1","pages":"183 - 196"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84602235","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 : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/09615768.2021.1951499
G. Gyulai
After centuries of abolitionist struggle and attempts to improve labour standards at a global level, human exploitation is still endemic, including its most egregious forms: slavery, servitude and forced labour. In 2017, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) reported 40.3 million victims of ‘modern slavery’ globally. Representing one of the most deeply entrenched human rights violations in history, it is striking to observe how little international courts and bodies have dealt with the interpretation of slavery, servitude and forced labour, and how recently some of them have started engaging with this task. Slavery, servitude and forced labour are equally prohibited under international law. Most international human rights conventions of a general scope deal with these three forms of treatment in the same article, indicating a strong connection between them. Slavery and forced labour are defined in two widely ratified international conventions, and even the more ‘mysterious’ concept of servitude has been given a
{"title":"Slavery, Servitude and Forced Labour in International Law: Should the Difference Still Matter?","authors":"G. Gyulai","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1951499","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1951499","url":null,"abstract":"After centuries of abolitionist struggle and attempts to improve labour standards at a global level, human exploitation is still endemic, including its most egregious forms: slavery, servitude and forced labour. In 2017, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) reported 40.3 million victims of ‘modern slavery’ globally. Representing one of the most deeply entrenched human rights violations in history, it is striking to observe how little international courts and bodies have dealt with the interpretation of slavery, servitude and forced labour, and how recently some of them have started engaging with this task. Slavery, servitude and forced labour are equally prohibited under international law. Most international human rights conventions of a general scope deal with these three forms of treatment in the same article, indicating a strong connection between them. Slavery and forced labour are defined in two widely ratified international conventions, and even the more ‘mysterious’ concept of servitude has been given a","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"30 1","pages":"228 - 259"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82352264","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 : 2021-03-31DOI: 10.1080/09615768.2021.1904592
Rachael Mulheron
In his claim against Google LLC (‘Google’) for data infringement on behalf of millions of Apple iPhone users, Richard Lloyd has fashioned a ground-breaking and laudatory attempt to obtain modest, yet meaningful, damages for each class member. Mr Lloyd is using the English representative rule (contained in CPR 19.6) to do so, given the continuing absence of any comprehensive and generic class action in this jurisdiction. The litigation has been rightly described by the Court of Appeal as ‘an unusual and innovative use of the representative procedure’. A further appeal is destined for hearing in the Supreme Court in late April 2021. There is no doubt that the representative rule has some characteristics of a more expanded class action procedure, given how it has come to be interpreted over its long history. The question posed in this article, however, is whether the representative rule can facilitate this action, in two respects.
{"title":"Creating, and Distributing, Common Funds Under the English Representative Rule","authors":"Rachael Mulheron","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1904592","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1904592","url":null,"abstract":"In his claim against Google LLC (‘Google’) for data infringement on behalf of millions of Apple iPhone users, Richard Lloyd has fashioned a ground-breaking and laudatory attempt to obtain modest, yet meaningful, damages for each class member. Mr Lloyd is using the English representative rule (contained in CPR 19.6) to do so, given the continuing absence of any comprehensive and generic class action in this jurisdiction. The litigation has been rightly described by the Court of Appeal as ‘an unusual and innovative use of the representative procedure’. A further appeal is destined for hearing in the Supreme Court in late April 2021. There is no doubt that the representative rule has some characteristics of a more expanded class action procedure, given how it has come to be interpreted over its long history. The question posed in this article, however, is whether the representative rule can facilitate this action, in two respects.","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"38 1","pages":"381 - 413"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88485905","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 : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09615768.2021.1885313
Hannah Quirk
Covid-19 poses the greatest threat to the poor and to those with existing vulnerabilities. This meant that the criminal justice system was especially vulnerable to its ravages. The backlog of criminal cases in the CrownCourts has risen by over a third since the beginning of March 2020 to over 53,000 bymid-January 2021. This situation is unacceptable, unsustainable and possibly unlawful. The government is considering the ‘shock therapy’ of removing jury trials in some or all cases as a means to process cases more quickly. The advantages of such a proposal are obvious in terms of speed, savings and the safety of participants. The dangers are more abstract, but no less significant. This article considers: (1) The underlying problems thatmeant the criminal justice systemwas already in a weakened state when the pandemic began; (2) The inadequate response of HerMajesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) to the crisis; (3) The dangers of the ‘shock therapy’ to curtail jury trial, with reference to the Diplock Courts of Northern Ireland which it concludes could cause greater longer-term harm to the system than Covid-19 has done.
{"title":"‘Shock Therapy’ and The Criminal Justice Casualties of Covid-19","authors":"Hannah Quirk","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1885313","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1885313","url":null,"abstract":"Covid-19 poses the greatest threat to the poor and to those with existing vulnerabilities. This meant that the criminal justice system was especially vulnerable to its ravages. The backlog of criminal cases in the CrownCourts has risen by over a third since the beginning of March 2020 to over 53,000 bymid-January 2021. This situation is unacceptable, unsustainable and possibly unlawful. The government is considering the ‘shock therapy’ of removing jury trials in some or all cases as a means to process cases more quickly. The advantages of such a proposal are obvious in terms of speed, savings and the safety of participants. The dangers are more abstract, but no less significant. This article considers: (1) The underlying problems thatmeant the criminal justice systemwas already in a weakened state when the pandemic began; (2) The inadequate response of HerMajesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) to the crisis; (3) The dangers of the ‘shock therapy’ to curtail jury trial, with reference to the Diplock Courts of Northern Ireland which it concludes could cause greater longer-term harm to the system than Covid-19 has done.","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"8 1","pages":"137 - 146"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84743027","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 COVID-19 pandemic has shown the painful consequences of poor job security and workplace democracy. The UK government’s initial flirt with ‘herd immunity’, the delay in lockdown, and the absence of a work strategy that prioritised safety after the summer, caused among the most appalling death rates in the world, worse than Trump’s America. However, a swift change in the job security policy stemmed mass unemployment, after initial reports of 2.1 million people claiming unemployment benefits. The ‘Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme’ eventually meant that the unemployment statistics (as opposed to claimant count) showed only a modest jobless rise. Comparison with the US where there are effectively no rights, and other countries with strong rights, shows that universal social security and workplace democracy are at the core of successful economic performance. This paper explains the UK’s health and safety rights, how the job retention scheme was unfurled with extension to employed and self-employed, and the connection between votes at work and employment. It shows how reality discredits the minority views of economic theorists who oppose labour rights, and suggests the legal reforms we can undertake to achieve a social recovery.
{"title":"A Social Recovery, Workplace Democracy and Security: Covid-19 and Labour Law","authors":"E. McGaughey","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3781475","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3781475","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the painful consequences of poor job security and workplace democracy. The UK government’s initial flirt with ‘herd immunity’, the delay in lockdown, and the absence of a work strategy that prioritised safety after the summer, caused among the most appalling death rates in the world, worse than Trump’s America. However, a swift change in the job security policy stemmed mass unemployment, after initial reports of 2.1 million people claiming unemployment benefits. The ‘Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme’ eventually meant that the unemployment statistics (as opposed to claimant count) showed only a modest jobless rise. Comparison with the US where there are effectively no rights, and other countries with strong rights, shows that universal social security and workplace democracy are at the core of successful economic performance. This paper explains the UK’s health and safety rights, how the job retention scheme was unfurled with extension to employed and self-employed, and the connection between votes at work and employment. It shows how reality discredits the minority views of economic theorists who oppose labour rights, and suggests the legal reforms we can undertake to achieve a social recovery.","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"7 1","pages":"122 - 136"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88312863","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 : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09615768.2021.1885323
Dave Mead
According to theDaily Mail, just before the move to a much fuller national lockdown in early November, and re-introduction of bans on outside gatherings of more than two, the Home Secretary Priti Patel ‘briefed chief constables over the weekend to tell officers to enforce the rules’. That is hard to square with longstanding notions of constabulary independence, most notably the well-known dicta in Blackburn. It illustrates well the rather strange, unchartered constitutional waters that we have been in these past six or so months when we consider the topic of protest and the way it is policed. This paper seeks to sketch out some of the terrain—if waters can have a terrain?— and to offer a few insights. It is in three main parts: an outline of the legal restrictions on ‘gatherings’—covering large-scale, staged protest events such as marches, rallies, demos, sit-ins and occupations—in the various Coronavirus Regulations, then a critique of those rules, followed by a discussion about some of the key policing aspects. This raises the immediate observation of a misplaced focus: ‘Protest as socio-political activity requires an appreciation and comprehension of the small-scale and everyday, a reclaiming of protest from below, to paraphrase E.P. Thompson’. Nonetheless, let us consider how the law has treated mass protests this year.
{"title":"Policing Protest in a Pandemic","authors":"Dave Mead","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1885323","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1885323","url":null,"abstract":"According to theDaily Mail, just before the move to a much fuller national lockdown in early November, and re-introduction of bans on outside gatherings of more than two, the Home Secretary Priti Patel ‘briefed chief constables over the weekend to tell officers to enforce the rules’. That is hard to square with longstanding notions of constabulary independence, most notably the well-known dicta in Blackburn. It illustrates well the rather strange, unchartered constitutional waters that we have been in these past six or so months when we consider the topic of protest and the way it is policed. This paper seeks to sketch out some of the terrain—if waters can have a terrain?— and to offer a few insights. It is in three main parts: an outline of the legal restrictions on ‘gatherings’—covering large-scale, staged protest events such as marches, rallies, demos, sit-ins and occupations—in the various Coronavirus Regulations, then a critique of those rules, followed by a discussion about some of the key policing aspects. This raises the immediate observation of a misplaced focus: ‘Protest as socio-political activity requires an appreciation and comprehension of the small-scale and everyday, a reclaiming of protest from below, to paraphrase E.P. Thompson’. Nonetheless, let us consider how the law has treated mass protests this year.","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"16 1","pages":"96 - 108"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91234236","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：