Pub Date : 2026-09-03DOI: 10.1177/00220027241284803
Nils-Christian Bormann, Lars-Erik Cederman, Manuel Vogt
In a recent contribution to the Journal of Conflict Resolution , Monica Toft presents new data and analysis that suggest a rise in religious civil war, and question our findings on linguistic and religious cleavages' effect on armed conflict onset. We welcome Toft’s contribution, in particular her replication of our results, and the very well documented new dataset on civil wars. Yet we disagree with several of Toft’s specific claims and raise three larger questions about the study of religion and armed conflict. First, what is the relevant counterfactual when analyzing the religion-conflict link? Second, how useful is it to classify entire conflicts as religious? Third, what is the mechanism that links religion and conflict? Revisiting her analysis and adding new empirical evidence, we show that Toft fails to undermine our earlier results and does not find support for her own theoretical mechanism of religious outbidding in the Muslim world.
{"title":"Getting Religion Wrong A Response to Toft’s “Getting Religion Right”","authors":"Nils-Christian Bormann, Lars-Erik Cederman, Manuel Vogt","doi":"10.1177/00220027241284803","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027241284803","url":null,"abstract":"In a recent contribution to the <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">Journal of Conflict Resolution</jats:italic> , Monica Toft presents new data and analysis that suggest a rise in religious civil war, and question our findings on linguistic and religious cleavages' effect on armed conflict onset. We welcome Toft’s contribution, in particular her replication of our results, and the very well documented new dataset on civil wars. Yet we disagree with several of Toft’s specific claims and raise three larger questions about the study of religion and armed conflict. First, what is the relevant counterfactual when analyzing the religion-conflict link? Second, how useful is it to classify entire conflicts as religious? Third, what is the mechanism that links religion and conflict? Revisiting her analysis and adding new empirical evidence, we show that Toft fails to undermine our earlier results and does not find support for her own theoretical mechanism of religious outbidding in the Muslim world.","PeriodicalId":51363,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Resolution","volume":"134 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2026-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148877301","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-08-26DOI: 10.1177/00220027261481045
Wilfred M. Chow, Dov H. Levin, Atsushi Tago
How does whataboutism influence the attitudes of third-party and allied audiences during international diplomatic exchanges? States openly accused of misconduct often employ whataboutism, deflecting criticism by highlighting the accuser’s own transgressions. Although policymakers frequently discuss whataboutism, research on its effects—especially on third-party publics—is limited. This study addresses the gap by examining via survey experiments a “hard case”: the impact of whataboutism targeting the U.S. on Japanese and the British publics, two steadfast U.S. allies. Our findings reveal that whataboutism significantly undermines support for the critic’s actions and diminishes the willingness of these populations to back sanctions led by the critic against states engaging in whataboutism. These results, the first empirical evidence of whataboutism’s effects on third-party allied publics, highlight whataboutism’s potency in shaping international public opinion, even among audiences from nations closely aligned with the critic country, potentially constraining U.S. foreign policy options.
{"title":"Whataboutism in International Diplomacy: Shaping Third-Party Public Attitudes Toward U.S. Foreign Policy","authors":"Wilfred M. Chow, Dov H. Levin, Atsushi Tago","doi":"10.1177/00220027261481045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027261481045","url":null,"abstract":"How does whataboutism influence the attitudes of third-party and allied audiences during international diplomatic exchanges? States openly accused of misconduct often employ whataboutism, deflecting criticism by highlighting the accuser’s own transgressions. Although policymakers frequently discuss whataboutism, research on its effects—especially on third-party publics—is limited. This study addresses the gap by examining via survey experiments a “hard case”: the impact of whataboutism targeting the U.S. on Japanese and the British publics, two steadfast U.S. allies. Our findings reveal that whataboutism significantly undermines support for the critic’s actions and diminishes the willingness of these populations to back sanctions led by the critic against states engaging in whataboutism. These results, the first empirical evidence of whataboutism’s effects on third-party allied publics, highlight whataboutism’s potency in shaping international public opinion, even among audiences from nations closely aligned with the critic country, potentially constraining U.S. foreign policy options.","PeriodicalId":51363,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Resolution","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148815527","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-08-25DOI: 10.1177/00220027261480752
Monica Duffy Toft
{"title":"Toft Response: “Getting Religion Even More Right”","authors":"Monica Duffy Toft","doi":"10.1177/00220027261480752","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027261480752","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51363,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Resolution","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148815533","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-08-24DOI: 10.1177/00220027261480751
Isak Svensson
{"title":"The Role of Religion in Civil War – Are We Really Getting It?","authors":"Isak Svensson","doi":"10.1177/00220027261480751","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027261480751","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51363,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Resolution","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148809810","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-07-16DOI: 10.1177/00220027261468727
Allard Duursma, Govinda Clayton, David Lanz, Marc Werner
This article reviews 60 years of academic research on peace mediation. Drawing on 395 academic articles published between 1966 and 2025, we assess the field through six core mediation process design questions: why, when, who, how, what, and where . We show that scholarship has generated important insights but has often addressed design questions in isolation, with limited attention to how they interact in practice. The literature on peace mediation is therefore marked by blind spots and conceptual fragmentation, not fully capturing the integrated nature of mediation processes. Organizing existing research through a process design framework allows us to identify key gaps and connections across strands of scholarship. We argue that research should more explicitly address the interdependence of design factors. This perspective clarifies priorities for future mediation research by identifying analytically promising questions and highlighting opportunities for more systematic and comparative inquiry.
{"title":"Blueprints and Blind Spots: Sixty Years of Mediation Scholarship and the Design of Peace Processes","authors":"Allard Duursma, Govinda Clayton, David Lanz, Marc Werner","doi":"10.1177/00220027261468727","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027261468727","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews 60 years of academic research on peace mediation. Drawing on 395 academic articles published between 1966 and 2025, we assess the field through six core mediation process design questions: <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">why, when, who, how, what,</jats:italic> and <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">where</jats:italic> . We show that scholarship has generated important insights but has often addressed design questions in isolation, with limited attention to how they interact in practice. The literature on peace mediation is therefore marked by blind spots and conceptual fragmentation, not fully capturing the integrated nature of mediation processes. Organizing existing research through a process design framework allows us to identify key gaps and connections across strands of scholarship. We argue that research should more explicitly address the interdependence of design factors. This perspective clarifies priorities for future mediation research by identifying analytically promising questions and highlighting opportunities for more systematic and comparative inquiry.","PeriodicalId":51363,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Resolution","volume":"106 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2026-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148589074","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-07-02DOI: 10.1177/00220027261463443
Ryan Shandler, Michael L. Gross, Yahli Shereshevsky
How is AI transforming decision-making in modern conflict? This study provides a unique empirical window into that question by deploying a high-fidelity replica of an AI decision-support system (DSS) used in military targeting. After reconstructing the interface and functionality of the real-world system, we tested its impact on combat decisions in two experiments involving 2,015 Israeli military personnel. Contrary to widespread fears of automation bias, we find strong evidence of algorithmic aversion, especially in scenarios involving high collateral damage. Yet we also show that integrating “explainable AI” features reduces algorithmic aversion and promotes more thoughtful evaluations of algorithmic recommendations. These findings challenge prevailing assumptions, revealing that trust in military AI is dynamic, varying with individual predispositions, perceived operational stakes, and the informational features of the interface. By grounding normative concerns in empirical evidence, our study offers critical insight into the integration of AI in warfare and underscores the enduring importance of human agency in high-stakes military decision-making.
{"title":"Black Box Warfare: Human Judgment and Military Decision-Making in the Age of AI","authors":"Ryan Shandler, Michael L. Gross, Yahli Shereshevsky","doi":"10.1177/00220027261463443","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027261463443","url":null,"abstract":"How is AI transforming decision-making in modern conflict? This study provides a unique empirical window into that question by deploying a high-fidelity replica of an AI decision-support system (DSS) used in military targeting. After reconstructing the interface and functionality of the real-world system, we tested its impact on combat decisions in two experiments involving 2,015 Israeli military personnel. Contrary to widespread fears of automation bias, we find strong evidence of algorithmic aversion, especially in scenarios involving high collateral damage. Yet we also show that integrating “explainable AI” features reduces algorithmic aversion and promotes more thoughtful evaluations of algorithmic recommendations. These findings challenge prevailing assumptions, revealing that trust in military AI is dynamic, varying with individual predispositions, perceived operational stakes, and the informational features of the interface. By grounding normative concerns in empirical evidence, our study offers critical insight into the integration of AI in warfare and underscores the enduring importance of human agency in high-stakes military decision-making.","PeriodicalId":51363,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Resolution","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2026-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148364925","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-07-02DOI: 10.1177/00220027261466642
Andreas Juon, Lars-Erik Cederman
Civil war research has primarily studied ethnic nationalism in the form of emancipatory movements that seek to attain government representation or autonomy. In contrast, it has neglected nationalist movements whose ideology insists on a specific group’s political dominance . Addressing this gap, we argue that dominant nationalism increases the risk of civil war through three mechanisms: First, under the influence of dominant nationalist ideology, governing elites are more likely to politically exclude outgroups, even if doing so increases the risk of civil war. Second, if they control the government, dominant nationalists can also spark civil war by victimizing outgroup members. Finally, dominant nationalism fuels conflict-prone independence demands among outgroups. Using new data covering 90 countries since WWII, we find robust support for these expectations. Our results underline the need for cross-national conflict research to take more seriously the role of dominant nationalism and of ideology more broadly.
{"title":"Dominant Nationalism and Civil War","authors":"Andreas Juon, Lars-Erik Cederman","doi":"10.1177/00220027261466642","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027261466642","url":null,"abstract":"Civil war research has primarily studied ethnic nationalism in the form of emancipatory movements that seek to attain government representation or autonomy. In contrast, it has neglected nationalist movements whose ideology insists on a specific group’s political <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">dominance</jats:italic> . Addressing this gap, we argue that <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">dominant nationalism</jats:italic> increases the risk of civil war through three mechanisms: First, under the influence of dominant nationalist ideology, governing elites are more likely to politically exclude outgroups, even if doing so increases the risk of civil war. Second, if they control the government, dominant nationalists can also spark civil war by victimizing outgroup members. Finally, dominant nationalism fuels conflict-prone independence demands among outgroups. Using new data covering 90 countries since WWII, we find robust support for these expectations. Our results underline the need for cross-national conflict research to take more seriously the role of dominant nationalism and of ideology more broadly.","PeriodicalId":51363,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Resolution","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2026-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148364922","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-06-23DOI: 10.1177/00220027261451440
Brian C. Rathbun, Caleb Pomeroy, Joshua D. Kertzer
Much if not most of human judgment is intuitive rather than reflective, but what types of behaviors result from non-deliberative as opposed to deliberative choice? We argue that for evolutionary reasons, intuition favors retaliatory aggression and a reliance on the deterrence model, the set of hunches that stress the importance of standing firm and demonstrating resolve to avoid challenges. By contrast, careful and analytical thought tends towards diplomacy and cooperation. By thinking from the gut and shooting from the hip, humans solved deterrence challenges in our evolutionary past. Across four studies—a time pressure experiment, an observational survey of thinking styles, a large-scale text analysis of Cold War US foreign policy elites, and a case study of US President Ronald Reagan—we find support for these expectations. These results are surprising, given that deterrence is often associated with rational deliberation. Instead, the intuitive nature of retaliatory aggression and the embrace of the deterrence model seem to be ecologically rational.
{"title":"Shooting From the Hip: The Counterintuitively Intuitive Nature of Deterrence","authors":"Brian C. Rathbun, Caleb Pomeroy, Joshua D. Kertzer","doi":"10.1177/00220027261451440","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027261451440","url":null,"abstract":"Much if not most of human judgment is intuitive rather than reflective, but what types of behaviors result from non-deliberative as opposed to deliberative choice? We argue that for evolutionary reasons, intuition favors retaliatory aggression and a reliance on the deterrence model, the set of hunches that stress the importance of standing firm and demonstrating resolve to avoid challenges. By contrast, careful and analytical thought tends towards diplomacy and cooperation. By thinking from the gut and shooting from the hip, humans solved deterrence challenges in our evolutionary past. Across four studies—a time pressure experiment, an observational survey of thinking styles, a large-scale text analysis of Cold War US foreign policy elites, and a case study of US President Ronald Reagan—we find support for these expectations. These results are surprising, given that deterrence is often associated with rational deliberation. Instead, the intuitive nature of retaliatory aggression and the embrace of the deterrence model seem to be <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">ecologically</jats:italic> rational.","PeriodicalId":51363,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Resolution","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2026-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148299386","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-06-23DOI: 10.1177/00220027261459942
Pearce Edwards, Kelly Morrison, Chesani Askew
When do democratically-elected leaders comply with rulings from international courts? While international courts have been studied independently, little research examines their interaction with state-level transitional justice (TJ) institutions. We evaluate the incentives of post-authoritarian leaders to comply with rulings of international courts related to violence under military dictatorships. We expect leaders to be more likely to comply with international court rulings addressing authoritarian human rights violations when maximalist TJ (domestic trials and vettings) has been implemented. In contrast, we expect leaders will be no more likely to comply when minimalist TJ (amnesties) has been adopted. Using data on remedies issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights from 1989 to 2020 for abuses committed under military dictatorships, we find that compliance is more likely following domestic trials and vettings but amnesties have no significant effect on the likelihood of compliance, as predicted. Overall, our results suggest that international courts serve as complements for domestic TJ.
民主选举产生的领导人何时遵守国际法院的裁决？虽然对国际法院进行了独立研究，但很少有研究考察它们与国家级过渡司法机构的相互作用。我们评估了后威权主义领导人遵守国际法院关于军事独裁统治下暴力的裁决的动机。我们预计，当最高限度的TJ（国内审判和审查）得到实施时，领导人更有可能遵守国际法院关于威权主义侵犯人权的裁决。相比之下，我们预计，当采取最低限度的TJ（大赦）时，领导人不会更有可能遵守。利用1989年至2020年美洲人权法院（Inter-American Court of Human Rights）发布的关于军事独裁统治下的侵权行为的补救措施的数据，我们发现，在国内审判和审查之后，遵守的可能性更大，但正如预测的那样，大赦对遵守的可能性没有显著影响。总体而言，我们的研究结果表明，国际法院可以作为国内司法审判的补充。
{"title":"Green-Lighting Accountability: Transitional Justice and Compliance With Rulings From the Inter-American Court of Human Rights","authors":"Pearce Edwards, Kelly Morrison, Chesani Askew","doi":"10.1177/00220027261459942","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027261459942","url":null,"abstract":"When do democratically-elected leaders comply with rulings from international courts? While international courts have been studied independently, little research examines their interaction with state-level transitional justice (TJ) institutions. We evaluate the incentives of post-authoritarian leaders to comply with rulings of international courts related to violence under military dictatorships. We expect leaders to be more likely to comply with international court rulings addressing authoritarian human rights violations when maximalist TJ (domestic trials and vettings) has been implemented. In contrast, we expect leaders will be no more likely to comply when minimalist TJ (amnesties) has been adopted. Using data on remedies issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights from 1989 to 2020 for abuses committed under military dictatorships, we find that compliance is more likely following domestic trials and vettings but amnesties have no significant effect on the likelihood of compliance, as predicted. Overall, our results suggest that international courts serve as complements for domestic TJ.","PeriodicalId":51363,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Resolution","volume":"180 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2026-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148299391","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-05-30DOI: 10.1177/00220027261457611
Myung Jung Kim
Why does amnesty for mass atrocities persist despite the international justice regime’s efforts to end impunity? I address this puzzle by highlighting a new dynamic in contemporary civil wars: the growing risk of international prosecution in rebel groups’ foreign sanctuaries. I argue that the international justice regime—particularly the International Criminal Court (ICC) and universal jurisdiction—undermines the security of these sanctuaries, making return under amnesty more attractive for rebel groups. This logic explains why amnesty for serious crimes persists, if not increases, despite the global norm against impunity. Large-N analyses show, first, that rebel groups operating abroad and facing international legal risk are more likely to obtain amnesty, and second, that amnesty provisions increase as prosecution risks rise in host states. The findings reveal an irony of global justice: a system created to end impunity entrenches it through amnesties, while simultaneously constraining warlords’ operational space and narrowing their strategic options.
{"title":"Crumbling Safe Havens? International Justice Regime and Conflict Amnesty for Serious Crimes","authors":"Myung Jung Kim","doi":"10.1177/00220027261457611","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027261457611","url":null,"abstract":"Why does amnesty for mass atrocities persist despite the international justice regime’s efforts to end impunity? I address this puzzle by highlighting a new dynamic in contemporary civil wars: the growing risk of international prosecution in rebel groups’ foreign sanctuaries. I argue that the international justice regime—particularly the International Criminal Court (ICC) and universal jurisdiction—undermines the security of these sanctuaries, making return under amnesty more attractive for rebel groups. This logic explains why amnesty for serious crimes persists, if not increases, despite the global norm against impunity. Large-N analyses show, first, that rebel groups operating abroad and facing international legal risk are more likely to obtain amnesty, and second, that amnesty provisions increase as prosecution risks rise in host states. The findings reveal an irony of global justice: a system created to end impunity entrenches it through amnesties, while simultaneously constraining warlords’ operational space and narrowing their strategic options.","PeriodicalId":51363,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Resolution","volume":"123 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2026-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148286454","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：