Lex Portus最新文献

{"title":"International Maritime Organization and Decarbonization of Maritime Industry: Mandate and Instruments","authors":"K. Yeremenko","doi":"10.26886/2524-101x.8.3.2022.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26886/2524-101x.8.3.2022.2","url":null,"abstract":"The International Maritime Organization (IMO) makes a crucial contribution to the decarbonization of the maritime industry within the United National Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) objectives. The IMO’s mandate provides for many activities to reduce CO2 emissions from international shipping, including imposing binding and non-binding instruments. The regulations on energy efficiency for ships play a critical role in implementing this IMO strategy. The article examines the conditions of Chapter 4 of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex VI. It focuses on the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) as a non-administrative mechanism and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) as the operational activity. This article also covers the legal aspects of international cooperation, the dissemination of energy-efficient technologies in the maritime sector, and the IMO’s contribution to the Norway GreenVoyage2050 project to promote MARPOL rules in national legislation.","PeriodicalId":36374,"journal":{"name":"Lex Portus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43922240","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":"Dispute between Albania and Greece over the Delimitation of Maritime Zones","authors":"J. Mehmetaj, S. Mecaj","doi":"10.26886/2524-101x.8.3.2022.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26886/2524-101x.8.3.2022.1","url":null,"abstract":"The law of the sea guarantees the sovereignty of states and preserves the territorial integrity of sovereign states under international law. Disputes under the law of the sea often arise in the international arena. This study analyses a dispute, brought under the law of the sea, between Albania and Greece. The long-standing dispute between Albania and Greece over the delimitation of maritime zones was revived by the Greek Parliament’s January 20, 2021 approval of the expansion of the country’s territorial waters in the Ionian Sea from six miles to twelve miles. The Greek Parliament’s action triggered numerous debates and reactions, as Albania questioned how Greece’s decision affects the maritime zones between the two countries, particularly with respect to the continental shelf of Albania and the Greek islands. Beyond the desire and interests of the parties to resolve the «issue of the sea», international law imposes certain rules and principles on the signatories to its various international conventions. The issue between Greece and Albania has become even more controversial due to the assessments of international law experts in Albania that a small island and continental land cannot have equal rights. This article analyses the effect of normative acts on the law of the sea in Albania and the legal issues of the Albanian legislation; the effect of the Albanian legislation in light of the international law of the sea; and the problems of the agreement between Albania and Greece for delineation of the continental shelf, which the Constitutional Court of Albania has declared invalid.","PeriodicalId":36374,"journal":{"name":"Lex Portus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45951383","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":"Underwater Cultural Heritage: Regime and Jurisdiction Challenges","authors":"M. Tsutskiridze, Оleksandra Krasnikova, M. Pohoretskyi","doi":"10.26886/2524-101x.8.3.2022.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26886/2524-101x.8.3.2022.3","url":null,"abstract":"The present paper focuses on international and national aspects of a legal regime of underwater cultural heritage and highlights peculiarities of States’ jurisdiction towards discovered underwater archaeological values. Underwater cultural heritage legal regime correlates with regimes of maritime zones where objects in question are located or found. On these grounds, it is possible to distinguish the UCH regimes in (i) sovereign and jurisdictional areas and (ii) in the High Seas and the Area. The UCH regime in the first case is trifold, including rights of coastal States, other concern States, and flag states of government ships and aircraft. While on the High Seas or in the Area, such regime is subject to bilateral or multilateral arrangements. The effectiveness of enforcing said regime rules also depend upon possible territorial claims and contested jurisdiction. The issue becomes critical for maritime ‘gray zones’ or conventional armed conflicts at sea.","PeriodicalId":36374,"journal":{"name":"Lex Portus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46150314","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":"The Role of the Unilateral Harmonization to the EU Integration","authors":"Flamur Mrasori","doi":"10.26886/2524-101x.8.2.2022.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26886/2524-101x.8.2.2022.3","url":null,"abstract":"The addressing regarding EU integration done so far presents different observations and analyses including almost the same dimension or components. This is due to the fact that concepts for EU integration were usually constructed from the Union’s perspective, i.e. this process was portrayed as an attempt of the aspiring countries (including their specifics) for accession to the auspices of the Union (including but not limited to interests, policies and proactivity of the Union on the basis of formal accession criteria). Through this research paper, I attempt to make a step forward in observing a “nonconventional” component of integration, that is the role of unilateral harmonisation to the EU Integration and its adverse effect. As a concept, herein unilateral harmonization is constructed by being compared with different approaches dedicated to harmonization, in particular, with the Copenhagen criteria for the very purpose of showing the originality, bindingness and impact of unilateral harmonization on European integration. In this regard, it is herewith argued whether unilateral harmonization is cognitive (mandatory) in nature or not, compared to the accession process from a legal and political perspective. Finally, its role and effect on European integration and/or its adverse effect on European integration is evaluated. Therefore, based on current circumstances related to Unions’ integration processes and policies, the effect of unilateral harmonization in two enlargement or currently integrating regions, i.e. Western Balkan countries and countries where EU neighbourhood policy applies (focusing on one of those countries), has been assessed. Sustainable conclusions have been built upon realistic arguments and circumstances which bring into light new concepts and advantages and disadvantages regarding EU integration of relevant enlargement regions.","PeriodicalId":36374,"journal":{"name":"Lex Portus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46764861","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":"Ukrainian Maritime Industry under Fire: Consequences of Russian Invasion","authors":"Borys Kormych, T. Averochkina","doi":"10.26886/2524-101x.8.2.2022.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26886/2524-101x.8.2.2022.1","url":null,"abstract":"The maritime industry in Ukraine has now been under significant pressure for eight years. The illegal annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014 created a gray area which included a portion of Ukrainian coastal waters around Crimea, where Russia exercises effective control. Disputes over coastal state rights and shipping transit created fertile ground for further bellicose actions and costly vessel detentions. In that period, Russia exerted hybrid pressure on Ukraine’s maritime industry. This involved the creation of various obstacles to freedom of navigation through the construction of the Crimean bridge and the complication of the passage of ships through the Kerch Strait; the closure of significant sea areas by the Russian Federation under the pretext of military exercises; and Ukraine’s actual loss of control over a significant part of the EEZ, among others. With the start of a full-scale Russian invasion on February 24, 2022, the Ukrainian maritime industry became the target of direct and indirect attacks. Ukrainian ports and other maritime infrastructure in Ukrainian-controlled territories are regularly subjected to rocket attacks, while the Russian occupation administration loots captured ports. Ukrainian ports have also been indirectly damaged by the blocking of navigation in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. This article analyzes the legal aspects of the naval blockade of Ukraine, and the legal actions taken by the Ukrainian maritime authorities and the maritime industry to mitigate the consequences of the ongoing armed conflict.","PeriodicalId":36374,"journal":{"name":"Lex Portus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44457986","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":"Maritime Autonomous Weapon Systems from the Standpoint of International Humanitarian Law","authors":"Iurii Usmanov, Marta Chernychka","doi":"10.26886/2524-101x.8.2.2022.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26886/2524-101x.8.2.2022.2","url":null,"abstract":"Modern armed conflicts demonstrate constant military transformation, and the weapon of the future will be precisely what we now name by the word “autonomous weapon systems” (AWS). Despite many advantages of using it, the possibility of lawful use of AWS and especially unmanned maritime systems as a kind of AWS remains a debatable issue in international law. It is primarily due to the loss of human control over the use of lethal force and the autonomy of such systems. AWS are already widely used by many countries, including Israel, the US, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and others, to protect their 34 LEX PORTUS VOL 8 ISS 2 2022 borders, increasing the response times and effectiveness of border forces both on land and at sea. Authors highlight a list of issues, namely the absence of the conventional definition of the term “autonomous weapon systems”, the possibility of individual prosecution due to the misuse of AWS, the protection of human life, privacy and appropriate remedies, the compliance of the use of AWS with the principles of distinction between civilians and combatants, military necessity and proportionality, precautions, etc. The problems of using autonomous weapon systems lie in both legal and ethical areas. Such uncertainty automatically narrows the protection of human rights in armed conflicts, which is unacceptable and illegal. Therefore, it is proposed at the regulatory level to prohibit states from using fully autonomous weapon systems and unmanned maritime systems as a kind of AWS that could use lethal force against humans, as well as to provide for the definition of AWS, their types, and principles of use, clearly define and limit their scope within which states could guarantee respect for human rights, as they are responsible for compliance with IHL and international human rights law. The keywords: autonomous weapon systems, AWS, drones, naval warfare, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, the law of the armed conflict. Introduction Due to technological progress and modernization, new, more advanced technologies emerge that are empowered by artificial intelligence (AI) instead of human intelligence every year. It also applies to the development of weapons, which historically have often been the driving force. Today, the world is still in the process of constant military transformation, and the weapon of the future will be precisely what we now name by the word “autonomous weapon systems” (AWS). AWS, and especially unmanned maritime systems as a kind of AWS, are already widely used by many countries, including Israel, the US, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and others, to protect their borders, increasing the response times and effectiveness of border forces on land and at sea. Despite the many advantages of using AWS, the possibility of lawful use remains a debatable issue in international law. It is primarily due to the loss of human control 35 LEX PORTUS VOL 8 ISS 2 2022 over the use of lethal for","PeriodicalId":36374,"journal":{"name":"Lex Portus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43096972","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":"Reexamining the UNCLOS: a Lack of Compliance and Enforceability","authors":"Kishore Vaangal","doi":"10.26886/2524-101x.8.1.2022.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26886/2524-101x.8.1.2022.1","url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the effeteness of UNCLOS and espouses on why it is not a De Jure legally binding agreement but a De facto non-binding agreement. The uncertainty in the law of the sea would inevitably grow and increasingly State practice, across geographies, may well continue to diverge from the traditional views of the law. Given that states are increasingly under the influence of domestic politics and racial tensions, divergence per se is inevitable, and the dire need of the hour is for the comity of nations to get their act together, vis a vis, re-examining the UNCLOS agreement and to thereafter usher in an agreement that would work. The need to rewrite would require much effort and the cooperation of all the states and indubitably, it would call for egalitarian approaches. The keywords: law of the seas, Constitution of the Seas, maritime jurisprudence, the one ocean concept, the binding nature, interpretations of UNCLOS, International Law, USA, China. ISSN 2524-101X eISSN 2617-541X 8 LEX PORTUS VOL 8 ISS 1 2022","PeriodicalId":36374,"journal":{"name":"Lex Portus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42912493","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":"Review of the Positions of the Ukrainian Supreme Court on Maritime Law Disputes (Administrative Jurisdiction)","authors":"Albert Yezerov","doi":"10.26886/2524-101x.8.1.2022.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26886/2524-101x.8.1.2022.2","url":null,"abstract":"The present paper provides an overview of the legal positions of the Ukrainian Supreme Court on maritime disputes within the framework of administrative jurisdiction. In this class of cases, disputes arise about the performance or non-performance of public administration functions or the provision or nonprovision of administrative services in matters related to navigation, fisheries, seaports functioning, environmental protection in the coastal waters, etc. Mainly, this paper focuses on the cases concerning prohibitions for ships to call out from a port, services provided by harbormasters, pollution of coastal waters, and fishing. In addition, special attention is paid to disputes related to the legal regime of seaports enforcement in terms of the performance of ISSN 2524-101X eISSN 2617-541X 29 LEX PORTUS VOL 8 ISS 1 2022 functions of port authorities and other agencies entitled to various types of controls in the port (in particular, environmental). The keywords: maritime disputes, administrative jurisdiction, seaports, harbormasters, port authorities, Ukraine. Introduction The practice of court decisions on disputes related to merchant shipping in Ukraine mainly refers to the jurisdiction of commercial courts. However, cases, the subject of which is appeal of decisions and actions of governmental authority, belong to the jurisdiction of administrative courts. In several categories of such cases, The Supreme Court has formulated legal positions, which are binding on regional and appeal courts in resolving similar disputes. A brief overview of the relevant legal positions is offered. Most cases are decided by the courts of the first instance and do not go for review on appeal and cassation. Such situation derives from the fact that most cases need to be resolved as soon as possible due to the threat of financial losses for shipowners. Since 2018, the Supreme Court has ruled out on 14 administrative cases related to the settlement of maritime disputes. These cases concerned the powers of the port captain, activities within the internal sea waters and territorial sea of Ukraine (including in the field of environmental safety of sea waters and territorial sea from pollution and littering), the legal regime in seaports, preservation of state property of ports and compliance with customs rules in ports. 1. Disputes concerning the authorities of the harbor master In case No. 814/1100/18 on granting permission for the vessel to enter commercial seaport the Company appealed to the court the inaction of Port Authority in granting permission or refusal to enter the port, and non-agreement and failure to notify the plaintiff and the Master of vessel (agent) about the conditions of pilotage in the port, mooring berth or place of anchorage and scheduled date of mooring. The lawsuit was justified by the fact that due to the 30 LEX PORTUS VOL 8 ISS 1 2022 inaction of the defendants there was a disruption of the schedule of the Company’s terminal in relation to","PeriodicalId":36374,"journal":{"name":"Lex Portus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47721239","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":"Legal Origins and Intersectoral Regulation of AEO Institution","authors":"Tetyana Ostrikova","doi":"10.26886/2524-101x.8.1.2022.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26886/2524-101x.8.1.2022.3","url":null,"abstract":"The main elements of AEO institution initially emerged in legislations of different countries, which legal systems belong both to common law and civil law families. In addition, there was an inevitable variability towards the tasks being solved, from general supply chain security issues to a focus on countering terrorist threats. At the same time, the modern AEO standards formed both at the level of international organizations, like WCO and WTO, and the regional level, such as the EU and associated countries. Therefore, we argue that there are several promising approaches to analyzing the legal status of AEO, including the concept of ‘legal origins’ and the institutions’ legal theories. They have a significant potential for explaining national differences in the implementation of the AEO institution, the specifics of the interaction of the norms of different branches of law in regulating the activities of the AEO, the methods, and methods of state administration of the AEO programs. Besides, the paper addresses the issue of intersectoral regulation of AEO institution, which embraces norms of several branches of law, including both public (administrative, tax and customs) ISSN 2524-101X eISSN 2617-541X 50 LEX PORTUS VOL 8 ISS 1 2022 law and private. Furthermore, the idea of delegation of competence and responsibilities towards granting supply chains security from state authorities to private entities (i.e. ‘trusted traders’) creates a shift in legal regulation where different internal rules and practices of private companies become essential to achieving the tasks assigned to AEO institution. The keywords: AEO, institution, customs, security, supply chain, legal origins, trade facilitation. Introduction After the worldwide introduction of Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) made through WCO SAFE Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade in June 2005, its legal status became another internationally recognized trade facilitation standard for customs legislation. However, the fact that we speak about specific conditions for doing business for private entities enhances the AEO status goes far beyond mere customs or administrative legal regulations. Due to Tweddle (2008), the aim of AEO introduction, besides improving customs to business relations, was to provide businesses with an internationally recognized quality mark, indicating that their role in the international supply chain is secure, and their customs controls and procedures are efficient and compliant. Such AEO ‘quality mark’ embraces two basics aspects: – recognition that the company is reliable in the traditional financial and customs terms, and; – assuring that the company’s compliance with security and safety standards permits other companies to consider it as a ‘secure’ trader and thus a reliable trading partner. These facts permit to assess the AEO legal institute as the ‘intersectoral one incorporating legal norms both of public law (administrative, customs, tax legis","PeriodicalId":36374,"journal":{"name":"Lex Portus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43055663","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":"Legal Regulation of Sea Towage Contracts in the EU Countries","authors":"Oleg Drobitko, Natalja Drobitko","doi":"10.26886/2524-101x.7.6.2021.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26886/2524-101x.7.6.2021.2","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, the authors are trying to consider and analyze the main peculiarities of legal regulation of the contract of towage at sea in such common law countries as Great Britain, USA and Canada, and some countries of the European Union (Germany, Lithuania, Poland). The first part of the study is devoted to the analysis of the influence of towing technology on its legal regulation. The authors consider different towing options with the main difference being towing guidelines. The article analyzes how the technological aspects of towing have influenced the development of various standard forms of towage contracts adopted in the international maritime sector. The second part of the study analyzes the connections, similarities and differences between towing and salvages. Salvages services are provided when the vessel is in such ISSN 2524-101X eISSN 2617-541X 38 LEX PORTUS VOL 7 ISS 6 2021 a dangerous situation that the master has no real choice but to accept salvages services so that the vessel or cargo is not lost. Towing services are provided when the vessel is safe, so the shipowner can choose to have the vessel repaired on site or conclude a towing contract to bring the vessel to a convenient port. The nature of towage and salvages services at sea also determines the difference between towage and salvages charges. Payment for towing services is carried out on the basis and under the terms of the towing contract. At the same time, given the surprising nature of salvages at sea, it is impossible to foresee in advance the amount of remuneration for salvages operations at sea, therefore, the amount of remuneration usually depends on the value of the salvaged property. The third part analyzes the contract of towage, the rights, and obligations of the parties, especially the legal regulation of carriage, some court decisions of common law countries and some of European Union countries, such as Germany, Lithuania, Poland. In Lithuania and Poland, a towage contract can be classified as consensual, paid, and bilateral. In some cases, a contract of towage may be considered as multilateral. Briefly comparing the Lithuanian and Polish legal regulation of towage relations, one can conclude that there are no special differences between them. At the same time, In German law a towage contract is not codified as a specific art of a contract. German law regulates that a towage contract (Germ. Schleppvertrag or Remorkvertrag) can be recognized either as a contract to produce a work (Germ. Werkvertrag), or as a contract for services (Germ. Dienstvertrag) or a contract of carriage (Germ. Frachtvertrag). In common law countries, a contract of towage is considered to be a service contract. Therefore, in accordance with the contract of towage, the owners of the tug undertake to provide a towing service themselves, during which they are the performer, the crew, and supply, at the same time. Therefore, they undertake to provide 1) an agreed or specified service, o","PeriodicalId":36374,"journal":{"name":"Lex Portus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43983600","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}