Abstract The UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs) and their concept of human rights due diligence (HRDD) cannot succeed in their current form, because they reify neoliberalism’s public/private divide. This article establishes this argument across historical, theoretical, and normative dimensions, and charts a new way forward. The UNGPs’ separation of the ‘state duty to protect’ from the ‘corporate responsibility to respect’ reflects a contestable conception of companies as private actors: free to act/transact in any way that is not harmful. This is a problem because harm is often invisible, even when taking an active due-diligence approach. To resolve this, HRDD practices must also be based on the positive value of equality. However, businesses are more than mere agents; they also coordinate production and enable social connections. These structural features reveal a ‘missing fourth pillar’ of the UNGPs: a collective political responsibility to challenge and change our current world order.
{"title":"Business and Human Rights in a Changing World Order: Beyond the Ethics of Disembedded Liberalism","authors":"D. Karp","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2023.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2023.10","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs) and their concept of human rights due diligence (HRDD) cannot succeed in their current form, because they reify neoliberalism’s public/private divide. This article establishes this argument across historical, theoretical, and normative dimensions, and charts a new way forward. The UNGPs’ separation of the ‘state duty to protect’ from the ‘corporate responsibility to respect’ reflects a contestable conception of companies as private actors: free to act/transact in any way that is not harmful. This is a problem because harm is often invisible, even when taking an active due-diligence approach. To resolve this, HRDD practices must also be based on the positive value of equality. However, businesses are more than mere agents; they also coordinate production and enable social connections. These structural features reveal a ‘missing fourth pillar’ of the UNGPs: a collective political responsibility to challenge and change our current world order.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45686461","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 topic of business and human rights (BHR) is of multidimensional character. A purely legalistic dimension is hardly sufficient to capture the multiple aspects of BHR. This is why the effective promotion of the BHR agenda on universal and local levels depends upon a variety of factors, including sociocultural context and legal, political and economic modes and practices. These factors are distinct in different regions, including Western and Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe and Central Asia (albeit the former two regions are often joined in BHR discussions on a global level).1 Yet, the challenges of the Eastern European region also vary from country to country. For example, if we take the rule of law indicator (which is very important for effective BHR promotion), it is obvious that the rule of law situation in Eastern European countries that are members of the European Union (EU) creates very different challenges compared with those in Eastern European countries that are not members of the EU.2
{"title":"BHR Agenda and Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Political and Human Rights Crisis in Belarus Since 2020","authors":"Ekaterina Deikalo","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2023.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2023.8","url":null,"abstract":"The topic of business and human rights (BHR) is of multidimensional character. A purely legalistic dimension is hardly sufficient to capture the multiple aspects of BHR. This is why the effective promotion of the BHR agenda on universal and local levels depends upon a variety of factors, including sociocultural context and legal, political and economic modes and practices. These factors are distinct in different regions, including Western and Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe and Central Asia (albeit the former two regions are often joined in BHR discussions on a global level).1 Yet, the challenges of the Eastern European region also vary from country to country. For example, if we take the rule of law indicator (which is very important for effective BHR promotion), it is obvious that the rule of law situation in Eastern European countries that are members of the European Union (EU) creates very different challenges compared with those in Eastern European countries that are not members of the EU.2","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42722483","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":"Power, Participation, and Private Regulatory Initiatives: Human Rights Under Supply Chain Capitalism (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2021) Edited by Daniel Brinks, Julia Dehm, Karen Engle and Kate Taylor","authors":"Chris Okafor, D. Birchall","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2023.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2023.5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46653971","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}
Since their adoption, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights have become crucial to intensify actions to protect human rights in the context of business conduct. Numerous countries, including Poland, have adopted National Action Plans (NAPs). Taking into account the years that have passed, it is worth assessing the implementation of their goals. Guidelines for the preparation of NAPs on business and human rights of the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights (UNWG) are helpful in assessing the Polish NAPs. This Development in the Field piece concludes that every NAP should begin with an assessment that would help identify areas where there is a need to implement necessary policies. Such an assessment could be used to compare the initial stage with future achievements. It should rely on clear milestones mentioned in NAPs, and on key performance indicators to assess effectiveness while also relying on inclusive decision-making processes. Unfortunately, this was not the case with the two Polish NAPs.
{"title":"Evaluating the Polish NAPs: Lessons for the Future Implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights","authors":"Marcin Kilanowski","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2023.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2023.4","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Since their adoption, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights have become crucial to intensify actions to protect human rights in the context of business conduct. Numerous countries, including Poland, have adopted National Action Plans (NAPs). Taking into account the years that have passed, it is worth assessing the implementation of their goals. Guidelines for the preparation of NAPs on business and human rights of the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights (UNWG) are helpful in assessing the Polish NAPs. This Development in the Field piece concludes that every NAP should begin with an assessment that would help identify areas where there is a need to implement necessary policies. Such an assessment could be used to compare the initial stage with future achievements. It should rely on clear milestones mentioned in NAPs, and on key performance indicators to assess effectiveness while also relying on inclusive decision-making processes. Unfortunately, this was not the case with the two Polish NAPs.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43027806","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 September 2022, the international criminal trial of Félicien Kabuga for participation in the 1994 Rwandan genocide began in a courtroom in The Hague. Kabuga’s trial is noteworthy, not only as it is probably one of the last international criminal trials arising from the genocidal scheme that saw 800,000 Tutsis murdered, but also because Kabuga is not accused of directly participating in the killings but facilitating and enabling them through his various business enterprises.1 Kabuga’s trial is a rare moment in the history of international criminal law that sees a businessman being held accountable for his involvement in atrocity crimes. To understand the 75þ years’ history of international criminal law (ICL) that have led to this point and why having a businessman being tried for international crimes is such a rare occurrence, there is no better book than Joanna Kyriakakis’ Corporations, Accountability and International Criminal Law: Industry and Atrocity. ‘There is a problem with the global economy’, Kyriakakis begins, that of a ‘governance gap’ identified by John Ruggie – the lack of effective regulation of transnational corporations. Addressing that problem serves as the framing and impetus for the book. On this basis, Kyriakakis has produced a timely and important contribution to the increasing literature around corporate accountability through hard-law mechanisms for egregious human rights abuses. From Nuremberg to Kabuga, this book provides a comprehensive overview of the key moments when ICL has been used to try and hold companies, and individuals within them, accountable for ‘atrocity crimes’. Kyriakakis weaves legal commentary into each section as well as critical analysis of the key jurisprudential, sociolegal and political debates that surround the core animating question of the book: ‘what is the appropriate role to be played by atrocity law in addressing corporate wrongs?’ The historical review of ICL’s treatment of corporate defendants begins with the postWorld War II period (in chapter 2). Both German and Japanese companies were accused of actively participating and abetting in war crimes. The chapter devotes considerable space to the treatment of corporate actors at Nuremberg – widely seen as the founding moment of modern-day ICL. The absence of an industrialist in the primary International Military Tribunal is discussed as well as subsequent trials of corporate leaders in the trials held by each of the Allies in each of their German occupation zones. The inclusion of how Russian and French authorities treated economic actors, as well as the treatment (or lack thereof) of the Japanese zaibatsu conglomerates in the Tokyo war crimes trials – are useful
{"title":"‘From Nuremberg to Kabuga’","authors":"Jonathan Kolieb","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2023.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2023.1","url":null,"abstract":"In September 2022, the international criminal trial of Félicien Kabuga for participation in the 1994 Rwandan genocide began in a courtroom in The Hague. Kabuga’s trial is noteworthy, not only as it is probably one of the last international criminal trials arising from the genocidal scheme that saw 800,000 Tutsis murdered, but also because Kabuga is not accused of directly participating in the killings but facilitating and enabling them through his various business enterprises.1 Kabuga’s trial is a rare moment in the history of international criminal law that sees a businessman being held accountable for his involvement in atrocity crimes. To understand the 75þ years’ history of international criminal law (ICL) that have led to this point and why having a businessman being tried for international crimes is such a rare occurrence, there is no better book than Joanna Kyriakakis’ Corporations, Accountability and International Criminal Law: Industry and Atrocity. ‘There is a problem with the global economy’, Kyriakakis begins, that of a ‘governance gap’ identified by John Ruggie – the lack of effective regulation of transnational corporations. Addressing that problem serves as the framing and impetus for the book. On this basis, Kyriakakis has produced a timely and important contribution to the increasing literature around corporate accountability through hard-law mechanisms for egregious human rights abuses. From Nuremberg to Kabuga, this book provides a comprehensive overview of the key moments when ICL has been used to try and hold companies, and individuals within them, accountable for ‘atrocity crimes’. Kyriakakis weaves legal commentary into each section as well as critical analysis of the key jurisprudential, sociolegal and political debates that surround the core animating question of the book: ‘what is the appropriate role to be played by atrocity law in addressing corporate wrongs?’ The historical review of ICL’s treatment of corporate defendants begins with the postWorld War II period (in chapter 2). Both German and Japanese companies were accused of actively participating and abetting in war crimes. The chapter devotes considerable space to the treatment of corporate actors at Nuremberg – widely seen as the founding moment of modern-day ICL. The absence of an industrialist in the primary International Military Tribunal is discussed as well as subsequent trials of corporate leaders in the trials held by each of the Allies in each of their German occupation zones. The inclusion of how Russian and French authorities treated economic actors, as well as the treatment (or lack thereof) of the Japanese zaibatsu conglomerates in the Tokyo war crimes trials – are useful","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57043967","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 recognition of the need for a more ‘socially just’ implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) that embraces bottom-up, rights holder-driven approaches.1 An initiative is underway to articulate a set of community principles to supplement the three-pillar ‘respect, protect, remedy’ framework of the UNGPs, with a fourth pillar that underscores the importance of rights holder agency to the effective implementation of human rights protections.2 With regard to access to remedy, the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights has emphasized that ‘rights holders should be central to the entire remedy process’,3 and others have made similar observations, encouraging a ‘co-design’ process.4
{"title":"Awareness, Analysis and Action: A Rights Holder Perspective on Building the Fair Food Movement and the Way Forward for Worker-Driven Social Responsibility","authors":"Gerardo Reyes Chavez","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.36","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.36","url":null,"abstract":"There is growing recognition of the need for a more ‘socially just’ implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) that embraces bottom-up, rights holder-driven approaches.1 An initiative is underway to articulate a set of community principles to supplement the three-pillar ‘respect, protect, remedy’ framework of the UNGPs, with a fourth pillar that underscores the importance of rights holder agency to the effective implementation of human rights protections.2 With regard to access to remedy, the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights has emphasized that ‘rights holders should be central to the entire remedy process’,3 and others have made similar observations, encouraging a ‘co-design’ process.4","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48606160","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}
Abstract There has been tremendous momentum in adoption of business and human rights regulations, specifically national legislation that mandate human rights due diligence. While these laws have been heralded as the torchbearers of progress, this article approaches national legislation on business and human rights by placing them in context of a North–South divide through a Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) lens. It looks at the form of regulation of transnational corporations (national/international) – not the substance – and illustrates the neo-colonial flavour of these laws by diving into the narrative behind the adoption of the French devoir de vigilance law. It illustrates that the French law can also be read as an attempt to universalise European values while reinforcing power hierarchies. The claim of this article is that national legislation cannot be a substitute for a treaty but only a path towards one, because national legislation structurally lacks means to take the Global South participation seriously.
{"title":"Decentring Narratives around Business and Human Rights Instruments: An Example of the French Devoir de Vigilance Law","authors":"Debadatta Bose","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2023.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2023.6","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract There has been tremendous momentum in adoption of business and human rights regulations, specifically national legislation that mandate human rights due diligence. While these laws have been heralded as the torchbearers of progress, this article approaches national legislation on business and human rights by placing them in context of a North–South divide through a Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) lens. It looks at the form of regulation of transnational corporations (national/international) – not the substance – and illustrates the neo-colonial flavour of these laws by diving into the narrative behind the adoption of the French devoir de vigilance law. It illustrates that the French law can also be read as an attempt to universalise European values while reinforcing power hierarchies. The claim of this article is that national legislation cannot be a substitute for a treaty but only a path towards one, because national legislation structurally lacks means to take the Global South participation seriously.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48437161","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}
August 16th, 2022 marked the 10th anniversary of the Marikana Massacre in Rustenburg, South Africa. This was the worst incident of mass killing by police since the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960 in the heyday of the Apartheid regime. In the first days of August 2012, workers at Lonmin plc, a platinum group metals mining company, went on a wildcat strike demanding a minimum salary of 12500 Rand, circa 800 USD, per month and protesting against the poor living conditions they and their families where subjected to in the Marikana vicinity, an area 100 km north of Johannesburg where the mine is located. As days passed, tension escalated leading to the killing of ten people, including three non-striking workers, two security guards, three striking workers, and two police officers. Various attempts to facilitate negotiations with striking workers were turned down by Lonmin management. Instead, Lonmin managers actively engaged in communications with senior political leaders, police officers, and state mining officials to frame the situation as one that required strong and decisive police intervention.1
{"title":"Remedy and Accountability a Decade after the Marikana Massacre","authors":"Jordi Vives-Gabriel, H. van der Merwe","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2023.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2023.2","url":null,"abstract":"August 16th, 2022 marked the 10th anniversary of the Marikana Massacre in Rustenburg, South Africa. This was the worst incident of mass killing by police since the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960 in the heyday of the Apartheid regime. In the first days of August 2012, workers at Lonmin plc, a platinum group metals mining company, went on a wildcat strike demanding a minimum salary of 12500 Rand, circa 800 USD, per month and protesting against the poor living conditions they and their families where subjected to in the Marikana vicinity, an area 100 km north of Johannesburg where the mine is located. As days passed, tension escalated leading to the killing of ten people, including three non-striking workers, two security guards, three striking workers, and two police officers. Various attempts to facilitate negotiations with striking workers were turned down by Lonmin management. Instead, Lonmin managers actively engaged in communications with senior political leaders, police officers, and state mining officials to frame the situation as one that required strong and decisive police intervention.1","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43652236","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}
Abstract The concept of a ‘safe harbour’ has been mentioned in several contexts during ongoing discussions around regulatory developments towards mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (mHREDD) which continue at international, European and national levels. This article analyses the concept of a ‘safe harbour’ and how it relates to human rights due diligence (HRDD) as described in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). It discusses examples of other types of safe harbours which were recognized in legislation and case law; considers that a safe harbour could result in a ‘tick-box’ approach; highlights the implications for access to remedy; and distinguishes a safe harbour exemption from a defence of having undertaken HRDD in accordance with an expected standard of conduct.
{"title":"Muddying the Waters: The Concept of a ‘Safe Harbour’ in Understanding Human Rights Due Diligence","authors":"L. Smit, C. Bright, Stuart Neely","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.40","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.40","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The concept of a ‘safe harbour’ has been mentioned in several contexts during ongoing discussions around regulatory developments towards mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (mHREDD) which continue at international, European and national levels. This article analyses the concept of a ‘safe harbour’ and how it relates to human rights due diligence (HRDD) as described in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). It discusses examples of other types of safe harbours which were recognized in legislation and case law; considers that a safe harbour could result in a ‘tick-box’ approach; highlights the implications for access to remedy; and distinguishes a safe harbour exemption from a defence of having undertaken HRDD in accordance with an expected standard of conduct.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44541051","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 October 2020, the Government of Japan formulated a National Action Plan (NAP) on Business and Human Rights in response to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and ensuing greater international awareness of violations of human rights by corporations.1 In the NAP, the government of Japan stated that on the basis of the UNGPs, it expects companies to (i) formulate human rights policies, (ii) conduct due diligence with respect to human rights, and (iii) establish grievance mechanisms.2 In order to achieve these goals, businesses need to understand whether and how they are violating human rights and prepare appropriate solutions. Whistleblowers play a crucial role in this process.
{"title":"Whistleblowers as Defenders of Human Rights: The Whistleblower Protection Act in Japan","authors":"Masaki Iwasaki","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.41","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.41","url":null,"abstract":"In October 2020, the Government of Japan formulated a National Action Plan (NAP) on Business and Human Rights in response to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and ensuing greater international awareness of violations of human rights by corporations.1 In the NAP, the government of Japan stated that on the basis of the UNGPs, it expects companies to (i) formulate human rights policies, (ii) conduct due diligence with respect to human rights, and (iii) establish grievance mechanisms.2 In order to achieve these goals, businesses need to understand whether and how they are violating human rights and prepare appropriate solutions. Whistleblowers play a crucial role in this process.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44299745","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：