风险预防在国际环境法中的有效性研究
|
摘要
本文以《保护臭氧层维也纳公约》体系和《气候变化框架公约》体系的形成过程及主要内容为例，通过比较分析二公约体系分别对臭氧层损耗风险和全球变暖风险的反应过程，得出关于影响风险预防在国际环境法中有效性的因素以及各因素间的相互关系。文中比较分析的构建以对风险预防和风险预防有效性的如下理解为基础：1)风险预防不同于风险预防原则。前者作为一种革命性的理念，要求在环境风险达到一定阈值的时候，采取预防行动以防止可能出现的重大不利后果。后者作为一个法律原则，是前者在法律意义上的认可和表达。前者的实现不以后者的出现为必要条件，反之，后者的成熟也并不代表前者的成功。本文考察的对象是风险预防的理念，而非风险预防原则。2) 风险预防的有效性反映在三个方面：对环境风险的反应速度、反应力度和反应效率。由于本文主要在国际环境法的制定的范围内考察风险预防的有效性，因此将国际环境条约在存在科学不确定性的条件下对环境风险采取预防措施的速度、预防措施特别是有法律约束力的义务条款的严格程度、条约体系中对风险预防措施的实现所提供的制度保障作为考查内容。
本文因此分为第一章绪论、第二章《保护臭氧层维也纳公约》体系与《气候变化框架公约》体系比较、第三章决定风险预防有效性的因素和结语四个部分。
第一章绪论中对风险预防和风险预防原则作了区分，提出了作者拟进行风险预防有效性的考察的进路和对考察内容的设计。
第二章对《保护臭氧层维也纳公约》体系与《气候变化框架公约》体系分阶段进行了比较，每小节落脚在对风险预防有效性三个方面的分析和评价，每节落脚在对二案例的对比和对影响风险预防有效性因素的发掘。二案例的比较结果是：臭氧层损耗风险具有确定可知的来源，损耗臭氧层物质只是在特定范围内使用的可替代的化学品，臭氧层损耗风险的界定得益于联合国环境规划署所发挥的组织和协调作用，因此《保护臭氧层维也纳公约》体系得以对臭氧层损耗风险做出较为迅速的反应；应对臭氧层损耗风险的行动是在对损耗臭氧层物质的研发和生产负主要责任的发达工业化国家首先开始的，国家经济对损耗臭氧层物质的依赖性以及国内预防措施的采取是这
些国家在国际条约谈判中的立场的主要决定因素;维也纳公约体系设立的缔约方会议
审查制度、不履行制度以及议定书的调整、修正吟有关规定都不仅反映出缔约国集体
采取风险预防措施的决心，而且也从客观上提高和加强了风险预防的反应速度和反应
力度。全球变暖理论对现代工业化国家经济结构提出了严正挑战，同时也引发了广大
发展中国家对气候变化的国际法会，阻碍其经济发展的担忧，因而从界定气候变化风险
的国际合作时起即掺杂了较多的政治因素，条约谈判过程中各派别和利益集团的矛盾
与冲突都导致了风险预防反应速度的降低;同样的原因也使得反应力度远远低于维也
纳公约体系对臭氧层损耗风险的反应。气候变化框架公约体系所设置的京都三机制实
际上是各缔约国基于本国国家利益出发在温室气体削减问题上进行斗争的结果，是对
风险预防的反应力度的削弱。
第三章在总结了第一、二章内容的基础上，从反应速度、反应力度和反应效率三
方面对影响风险预防在国际环境法上的有效性的因素进行了提炼。
结语是本文的浓缩和升华，回应了篇首对于风险预防和风险预防原则的区分，再
次提请注意:维也纳公约更加有效的风险预防与其对风险预防原则规定的有限性、气
候变化框架公约对风险预防原则的丰富和发展与其在风险预防方面的无能，此二公约
体系所表现出的理论的进步和立法实践的倒退充分说明了对风险预防的有效性必须
进行个案分析，风险预防理念实现的前景远不如风险预防原则的前景美好。
This paper is based on the comparative study of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer regime and the Framework Convention on Climate Change regime, and is aimed at defining the factors influencing the effectiveness of precaution as well as the relationship between the factors. The comparative analysis in this paper is backed up by the following understandings concerning precaution and the effectiveness of precaution: 1) precaution is different from precautionary principle. The former, as a revolutionary idea, requires that when a certain threshold of environmental risk is reached, precautionary measures be taken to prevent serious irreversible results. The latter, as a legal principle, is the recognition and formulation of the former in law. The existence of the latter is not prerequisite for the achievement of the former, and conversely, the success of the former is not to be represented by the perfection of the latter. The subject of the paper is precaution instead of precautionary pr
inciple. 2) The effectiveness of precaution is reflected in three aspects: the speed, the strength and the efficiency of response to environmental risks. Because the paper is observing effectiveness of precaution within the scope of international environmental law, the speed of legal response to environmental risks in the form of precautionary measure provisions, the strictness of the provisions and the mechanisms provided by the convention regime for the precautionary measures are the objects for this study.
The paper is accordingly divided into four parts: introduction, comparison of Vienna Convention on Ozone Layer Protection regime and Framework Convention on Climate Change regime, factors deciding the effectiveness of precaution and conclusion.
In Chapter One, precaution is distinguished from precautionary principle, the approach of the study and the design of the study scheme are proposed.
Chapter Two compares the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer regime and the Framework Convention on Climate Change regime phase by phase, every subsection focusing on the analysis and evaluation and the three aspects of the effectiveness of precaution, and every section focusing on the search for factors influencing the effectiveness of precaution. The results of the comparison of two cases are: the risk of ozone layer depletion can be attributed to ascertainable sources, the ozone depleting
substances are a number of chemicals used in certain areas, the definition of ozone layer depletion risk greatly benefited from the organization and coordination by United Nations Environmental Program, and thus Vienna Convention regime was able to respond to the risk promptly; the response to the risk of ozone depletion was initiated by the industrialized countries that are mainly responsible for the development and production of ozone depleting substances, the reliance of national economy upon the substances and the precautionary measures that had already been taken within these countries are the main factors deciding the positions of the countries in international negotiations; the review system, noncompliance system and provisions of the adjustment and amendment of protocol are not only reflection of the decisiveness of the parties to take precautionary measures, but also raised and enhanced the speed and strength of the response. The global warming theory challenges the economic structure of modern indu
strialized countries, and at the same time causes the concern of the many developing countries that the international law on climate change may impede their development. Therefore, political factors have been involved even since the time of international cooperation on the definition of climate change risk, which, together with the conflicts between different alliances and interest groups, led to the slow-down of the speed of response. The same reasons also accounted for the weakening of the strength of response. The three "Kyoto Mechanisms" set up by the climate change convention regime were, as a matter
本文因此分为第一章绪论、第二章《保护臭氧层维也纳公约》体系与《气候变化框架公约》体系比较、第三章决定风险预防有效性的因素和结语四个部分。
第一章绪论中对风险预防和风险预防原则作了区分，提出了作者拟进行风险预防有效性的考察的进路和对考察内容的设计。
第二章对《保护臭氧层维也纳公约》体系与《气候变化框架公约》体系分阶段进行了比较，每小节落脚在对风险预防有效性三个方面的分析和评价，每节落脚在对二案例的对比和对影响风险预防有效性因素的发掘。二案例的比较结果是：臭氧层损耗风险具有确定可知的来源，损耗臭氧层物质只是在特定范围内使用的可替代的化学品，臭氧层损耗风险的界定得益于联合国环境规划署所发挥的组织和协调作用，因此《保护臭氧层维也纳公约》体系得以对臭氧层损耗风险做出较为迅速的反应；应对臭氧层损耗风险的行动是在对损耗臭氧层物质的研发和生产负主要责任的发达工业化国家首先开始的，国家经济对损耗臭氧层物质的依赖性以及国内预防措施的采取是这
些国家在国际条约谈判中的立场的主要决定因素;维也纳公约体系设立的缔约方会议
审查制度、不履行制度以及议定书的调整、修正吟有关规定都不仅反映出缔约国集体
采取风险预防措施的决心，而且也从客观上提高和加强了风险预防的反应速度和反应
力度。全球变暖理论对现代工业化国家经济结构提出了严正挑战，同时也引发了广大
发展中国家对气候变化的国际法会，阻碍其经济发展的担忧，因而从界定气候变化风险
的国际合作时起即掺杂了较多的政治因素，条约谈判过程中各派别和利益集团的矛盾
与冲突都导致了风险预防反应速度的降低;同样的原因也使得反应力度远远低于维也
纳公约体系对臭氧层损耗风险的反应。气候变化框架公约体系所设置的京都三机制实
际上是各缔约国基于本国国家利益出发在温室气体削减问题上进行斗争的结果，是对
风险预防的反应力度的削弱。
第三章在总结了第一、二章内容的基础上，从反应速度、反应力度和反应效率三
方面对影响风险预防在国际环境法上的有效性的因素进行了提炼。
结语是本文的浓缩和升华，回应了篇首对于风险预防和风险预防原则的区分，再
次提请注意:维也纳公约更加有效的风险预防与其对风险预防原则规定的有限性、气
候变化框架公约对风险预防原则的丰富和发展与其在风险预防方面的无能，此二公约
体系所表现出的理论的进步和立法实践的倒退充分说明了对风险预防的有效性必须
进行个案分析，风险预防理念实现的前景远不如风险预防原则的前景美好。
This paper is based on the comparative study of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer regime and the Framework Convention on Climate Change regime, and is aimed at defining the factors influencing the effectiveness of precaution as well as the relationship between the factors. The comparative analysis in this paper is backed up by the following understandings concerning precaution and the effectiveness of precaution: 1) precaution is different from precautionary principle. The former, as a revolutionary idea, requires that when a certain threshold of environmental risk is reached, precautionary measures be taken to prevent serious irreversible results. The latter, as a legal principle, is the recognition and formulation of the former in law. The existence of the latter is not prerequisite for the achievement of the former, and conversely, the success of the former is not to be represented by the perfection of the latter. The subject of the paper is precaution instead of precautionary pr
inciple. 2) The effectiveness of precaution is reflected in three aspects: the speed, the strength and the efficiency of response to environmental risks. Because the paper is observing effectiveness of precaution within the scope of international environmental law, the speed of legal response to environmental risks in the form of precautionary measure provisions, the strictness of the provisions and the mechanisms provided by the convention regime for the precautionary measures are the objects for this study.
The paper is accordingly divided into four parts: introduction, comparison of Vienna Convention on Ozone Layer Protection regime and Framework Convention on Climate Change regime, factors deciding the effectiveness of precaution and conclusion.
In Chapter One, precaution is distinguished from precautionary principle, the approach of the study and the design of the study scheme are proposed.
Chapter Two compares the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer regime and the Framework Convention on Climate Change regime phase by phase, every subsection focusing on the analysis and evaluation and the three aspects of the effectiveness of precaution, and every section focusing on the search for factors influencing the effectiveness of precaution. The results of the comparison of two cases are: the risk of ozone layer depletion can be attributed to ascertainable sources, the ozone depleting
substances are a number of chemicals used in certain areas, the definition of ozone layer depletion risk greatly benefited from the organization and coordination by United Nations Environmental Program, and thus Vienna Convention regime was able to respond to the risk promptly; the response to the risk of ozone depletion was initiated by the industrialized countries that are mainly responsible for the development and production of ozone depleting substances, the reliance of national economy upon the substances and the precautionary measures that had already been taken within these countries are the main factors deciding the positions of the countries in international negotiations; the review system, noncompliance system and provisions of the adjustment and amendment of protocol are not only reflection of the decisiveness of the parties to take precautionary measures, but also raised and enhanced the speed and strength of the response. The global warming theory challenges the economic structure of modern indu
strialized countries, and at the same time causes the concern of the many developing countries that the international law on climate change may impede their development. Therefore, political factors have been involved even since the time of international cooperation on the definition of climate change risk, which, together with the conflicts between different alliances and interest groups, led to the slow-down of the speed of response. The same reasons also accounted for the weakening of the strength of response. The three "Kyoto Mechanisms" set up by the climate change convention regime were, as a matter
引文
1．方精云主编，《全球生态学：气候变化与生态响应》，北京：高等教育出版社：海德堡：施普林格出版社2000年版。
2．寒冬，寒之编著，《臭氧层》，北京：中国环境科学出版社，2001年版。
3．李龙主编，《法理学》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，1996年版。
4．王曦编著，《国际环境法》，北京：法律出版社，1998年版。
5．王曦主编，《国际环境法资料选编》，北京：民主与建设出版社版，1999年版。
6．王曦主编：《国际环境法与比较环境法评论》2002年第1卷，北京：法律出版社2002年版
7．王曦主编译，《联合国环境规划署环境法教程》，北京：法律出版社，2002年版。
1．庄贵阳，“举步维艰的《京都议定书》”，http://www.china.org.cn/Chinese/zhuanti/263842.htm
2．曹凤中，“气候变化是科学问题也是经济和政治问题——气候公约第二次缔约国会议及我国研究情况”，《江苏环境科技》，1996年04期。
3．曹淑涛，曹淑江，“控制全球气候变化的经济手段与制度安排”，《环境科学》，1997年01期。
4．丁一汇，“IPCC第二次气候变化科学评估报告的主要科学成果和问题”，《地球科学进展》1997年02期。
5．杜志华，杜群，“气候变化的国际法发展：从温室效应理论到《联合国气候变化框架公约》”，《现代法学》，2002年05期。
6．高广生，李丽艳，“气候变化国际谈判进展及其核心问题”，《中国人口．资源与环境》，2002年03期。
7．何建坤，张阿玲，“全球气候变化评价研究中的几个热点问题”，《预测》，1995年06期。
8．胡少锋，张洁清，“国际保护臭氧层合作的发展与展望”，《环境保护》，2000年09期。
9．李东燕，“对气候变化问题的若干政治分析”，《世界经济与政治》，2000年08期。
10．陆文华，“从京都到海牙——再谈美国的气候变化政策”，《全球科技经济了望》，2001年01期。
11．潘家华，“国家利益的科学论争与国际政治妥协——联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会《关于减缓气候变化社会经济分析评估报告》述评”，《世界经济与政治》，2002年02期。
12．潘家华，“气候变化的国际游戏”，《科学中国人》，2002年08期。
13．秦天宝，周艳芳，“关于气候变化的《波恩协定》及其前景展望”，《世界环境》，2002年01期。
14．孙成权，高峰，曲建升，“全球气候变化的新认识——IPCC第三次气候变化评价报告概览”，《自然杂志》，2002年02期。
15．田亚平，谢正栋，“从《气候变化框架公约》进展看当前国际环境关系”，《地理》，2002年03期。
16．徐再荣，“臭氧层损耗问题与国际社会的回应”，《世界历史》，2003年03期。
17．杨玉峰，林巍，傅国伟，“减缓气候变化对策的公平性评价准则初探”，《世界环境》，1997年03期。
18．于贵瑞，牛栋，王秋凤，“《联合国气候变化框架公约》谈判中的焦点问题”，《资源科学》2001年06期。
1. Bruce, James P., et al. ed. 1996. Climate Change 1995. Cambridge University Press.
2. Burroughs, William James. 1997. Does the Weather Really Matter?: the Social
Implications of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
3. Carroll, John E. (John Edward). ed. 1988. International Environmental Diplomacy. Cambridge University Press.
4. Porter, Gareth and Brown, Janet Welsh. 1995. Global Environmental Politics. Westview Press.
5. Sjostedt, Gunnar. ed. 1993. International Environmental negotiation. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
6. Soroos, Marvin S.1997. The Endangered Atmosphere: Preserving a Global Commons, University of South Carolina.
7. Susskind, Lawrence E. 1994. Environmental Diplomacy: Negotiating more effective global agreements. New York Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Victor, David G.. 2001. The Collapse of the Koyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming. Princeton University Press.
9. Yoshida, O. 2001. The International Legal Regime for the Protection of the Stratospheric Ozone Layer: International Law, International Regime and Sustainable Development, Kluwer Law International.
1. Grubb, Michael and Yamin, Farhana. "Climatic collapse at the Hague: what happened, why, and where do we go from here?" International Affairs v 77 no2 Apr 2001.
2. Grubb, Michael. "Seeking fair weather: ethics and the international debate on climate change: part of a symposium on: Ethics, the environment and the changing international order, "International Affairs v 71 July 1995.
3. Martin J. LaLonde, "The role of risk analysis in the 1992 framework convention on climate change", Michigan Journal of International Law, Fall, 1993.15 Mich. J. Int'l L. 215.
4. Paterson, Matthew and Grubb, Michael. 1992. "The international politics of
climate change, "International Affairs v 68 Apr 1992.
5. UNEP/WG. 69/5. "Towards an ozone convention: a look at some issues", by the UNEP secretariat.
6. UNEP/WG. 69/6.
7. UNEP/WG.69/8. "Some obstructions on the preparation of a global framework convention for the protection of the stratospheric ozone layer", by the UNEP secretariat.
1. The New York Times, August 2, 2000, Section A; Page 1; Column 3; National Desk. "U.S. is Proposing New Way to Fight to Global Warming".
2. The New York Times, December 8, 1996, Section 1; Page 14; Column 1; Foreign Desk. "U.S. Taking Cautious Approach in Talks on Global Warming".
3. The New York Times, July 20, 2001, Section A; Page 5; Column 1; Foreign Desk. "8 Months Later, Talks on Climate Treaty Restart, Now in Bonn".
4. The New York Times, March 30, '2001, Section A; Page 13; Column 1; National Desk. "U.S. Stance On Warming Puts Whitman In Tense Spot".
5. The New York Times, October 21, 1997, Section A; Page 22; Column 1; National Desk. "U.S. Says Its Greenhouse Gas Emissions Are at Highest Rate in Years".
6. The Washington Fost, February 18, 1992, Fist Section; Page A3. "Global Warming Pact Talks to Resume; 'No Appreciable Change' Seen in U.S. Stance Against Binding Goals".
7. The Washington Post, November 8, 1989, Wednesday, First Section; Page A33. "Nations Pass Resolution on Environment; U.S., Japan Accused Of Blocking Progress".
8. The Washington Post. May 2, 1992, First Section; Page A6. "U.S. Indicates Readiness to Accept Non-Binding 'Earth Summit' Goals on Gases".
2．寒冬，寒之编著，《臭氧层》，北京：中国环境科学出版社，2001年版。
3．李龙主编，《法理学》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，1996年版。
4．王曦编著，《国际环境法》，北京：法律出版社，1998年版。
5．王曦主编，《国际环境法资料选编》，北京：民主与建设出版社版，1999年版。
6．王曦主编：《国际环境法与比较环境法评论》2002年第1卷，北京：法律出版社2002年版
7．王曦主编译，《联合国环境规划署环境法教程》，北京：法律出版社，2002年版。
1．庄贵阳，“举步维艰的《京都议定书》”，http://www.china.org.cn/Chinese/zhuanti/263842.htm
2．曹凤中，“气候变化是科学问题也是经济和政治问题——气候公约第二次缔约国会议及我国研究情况”，《江苏环境科技》，1996年04期。
3．曹淑涛，曹淑江，“控制全球气候变化的经济手段与制度安排”，《环境科学》，1997年01期。
4．丁一汇，“IPCC第二次气候变化科学评估报告的主要科学成果和问题”，《地球科学进展》1997年02期。
5．杜志华，杜群，“气候变化的国际法发展：从温室效应理论到《联合国气候变化框架公约》”，《现代法学》，2002年05期。
6．高广生，李丽艳，“气候变化国际谈判进展及其核心问题”，《中国人口．资源与环境》，2002年03期。
7．何建坤，张阿玲，“全球气候变化评价研究中的几个热点问题”，《预测》，1995年06期。
8．胡少锋，张洁清，“国际保护臭氧层合作的发展与展望”，《环境保护》，2000年09期。
9．李东燕，“对气候变化问题的若干政治分析”，《世界经济与政治》，2000年08期。
10．陆文华，“从京都到海牙——再谈美国的气候变化政策”，《全球科技经济了望》，2001年01期。
11．潘家华，“国家利益的科学论争与国际政治妥协——联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会《关于减缓气候变化社会经济分析评估报告》述评”，《世界经济与政治》，2002年02期。
12．潘家华，“气候变化的国际游戏”，《科学中国人》，2002年08期。
13．秦天宝，周艳芳，“关于气候变化的《波恩协定》及其前景展望”，《世界环境》，2002年01期。
14．孙成权，高峰，曲建升，“全球气候变化的新认识——IPCC第三次气候变化评价报告概览”，《自然杂志》，2002年02期。
15．田亚平，谢正栋，“从《气候变化框架公约》进展看当前国际环境关系”，《地理》，2002年03期。
16．徐再荣，“臭氧层损耗问题与国际社会的回应”，《世界历史》，2003年03期。
17．杨玉峰，林巍，傅国伟，“减缓气候变化对策的公平性评价准则初探”，《世界环境》，1997年03期。
18．于贵瑞，牛栋，王秋凤，“《联合国气候变化框架公约》谈判中的焦点问题”，《资源科学》2001年06期。
1. Bruce, James P., et al. ed. 1996. Climate Change 1995. Cambridge University Press.
2. Burroughs, William James. 1997. Does the Weather Really Matter?: the Social
Implications of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
3. Carroll, John E. (John Edward). ed. 1988. International Environmental Diplomacy. Cambridge University Press.
4. Porter, Gareth and Brown, Janet Welsh. 1995. Global Environmental Politics. Westview Press.
5. Sjostedt, Gunnar. ed. 1993. International Environmental negotiation. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
6. Soroos, Marvin S.1997. The Endangered Atmosphere: Preserving a Global Commons, University of South Carolina.
7. Susskind, Lawrence E. 1994. Environmental Diplomacy: Negotiating more effective global agreements. New York Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Victor, David G.. 2001. The Collapse of the Koyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming. Princeton University Press.
9. Yoshida, O. 2001. The International Legal Regime for the Protection of the Stratospheric Ozone Layer: International Law, International Regime and Sustainable Development, Kluwer Law International.
1. Grubb, Michael and Yamin, Farhana. "Climatic collapse at the Hague: what happened, why, and where do we go from here?" International Affairs v 77 no2 Apr 2001.
2. Grubb, Michael. "Seeking fair weather: ethics and the international debate on climate change: part of a symposium on: Ethics, the environment and the changing international order, "International Affairs v 71 July 1995.
3. Martin J. LaLonde, "The role of risk analysis in the 1992 framework convention on climate change", Michigan Journal of International Law, Fall, 1993.15 Mich. J. Int'l L. 215.
4. Paterson, Matthew and Grubb, Michael. 1992. "The international politics of
climate change, "International Affairs v 68 Apr 1992.
5. UNEP/WG. 69/5. "Towards an ozone convention: a look at some issues", by the UNEP secretariat.
6. UNEP/WG. 69/6.
7. UNEP/WG.69/8. "Some obstructions on the preparation of a global framework convention for the protection of the stratospheric ozone layer", by the UNEP secretariat.
1. The New York Times, August 2, 2000, Section A; Page 1; Column 3; National Desk. "U.S. is Proposing New Way to Fight to Global Warming".
2. The New York Times, December 8, 1996, Section 1; Page 14; Column 1; Foreign Desk. "U.S. Taking Cautious Approach in Talks on Global Warming".
3. The New York Times, July 20, 2001, Section A; Page 5; Column 1; Foreign Desk. "8 Months Later, Talks on Climate Treaty Restart, Now in Bonn".
4. The New York Times, March 30, '2001, Section A; Page 13; Column 1; National Desk. "U.S. Stance On Warming Puts Whitman In Tense Spot".
5. The New York Times, October 21, 1997, Section A; Page 22; Column 1; National Desk. "U.S. Says Its Greenhouse Gas Emissions Are at Highest Rate in Years".
6. The Washington Fost, February 18, 1992, Fist Section; Page A3. "Global Warming Pact Talks to Resume; 'No Appreciable Change' Seen in U.S. Stance Against Binding Goals".
7. The Washington Post, November 8, 1989, Wednesday, First Section; Page A33. "Nations Pass Resolution on Environment; U.S., Japan Accused Of Blocking Progress".
8. The Washington Post. May 2, 1992, First Section; Page A6. "U.S. Indicates Readiness to Accept Non-Binding 'Earth Summit' Goals on Gases".
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |