scholarly journals Forensic Techniques Used in the Investigation of Smuggling on Railway Transport

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. 149-156
Author(s):  
G. M. Usova ◽  
I. V. Malykhin
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Railway Transport ◽  
Psychotropic Substances ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Forensic Tools ◽  
Special Control ◽  
Tools And Methods ◽  
Narcotic Drugs

The paper examines the forensic tools and methods used in the investigation of smuggling on the railway transport. The role of these forensic tools and methods is quite high, since they make it possible to timely identify and suppress the commission of the crime in question, determine the perpetrators and prevent the spread of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their precursors on the territory of our country. The paper also discusses the features of the use of special methods of forensic science in the investigation of smuggling committed on the railway transport. One of the main smuggled items today are narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their precursors or analogues, plants containing narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their precursors, or their parts containing narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their precursors, tools or equipment, under special control and used for the manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, while criminal liability for this crime is provided for in Art. 229.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Voluntary Delivery of Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances or their Analogues: Criminal Procedural Aspects of Absolute Discharge

2021 ◽  
pp. 062-068
Author(s):  
A. A. Pudovkin ◽  
◽  
D. V. Tyotkin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Psychotropic Substances ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
Inspection Of The Scene ◽  
Narcotic Drugs

The process of voluntary delivery of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues has been investigated. The article considers the mechanism for absolute discharge of a person who committed drug crimes in compliance with the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation. The conditions for voluntary drug delivery have been studied. The criminal procedure aspects of the absolute discharge of a person from criminal liability are also determined. The regulations for the distribution of drugs were analyzed when the employees of operational divisions carried out operational-search measures to seize them, as well as during the inspection of the scene. The article presents the problems that, in practice, when deciding on the termination of a criminal case, investigative and inquiry bodies may face. The article provides an interpretation of the criminal law norms of the Criminal Code, which affect the decision-making on the absolute discharge of a person who voluntarily expressed a desire to deliver drugs.

scholarly journals MEDICAL WORKERS' LIABILITY FOR CRIMES IN THE FIELD OF TRAFFICKING OF NARCOTIC PRODUCTS UNDER ARTICLE 320 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF UKRAINE

2021 ◽  
pp. 19-23
Author(s):  
R. Grinyuk ◽  
B. Kindyuk
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Activity ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Psychotropic Substances ◽  
Health Care Institutions ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
Medical Institutions ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Narcotic Drugs

The article considers the peculiarities of criminal liability of employees of health care institutions for violation of the provisions of Art. 320 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which consists of two parts, which differ in the ways (forms) of committing criminal offenses and limits of liability. The methodological basis of the study includes logical-semantic method, by which the types of methods (forms) of committing criminal offenses under Art. 320 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine are studied; a systematic approach, on the basis of which the author analyses the sequence of actions of employees of investigative bodies in the investigation of crimes on the grounds of criminal activity provided for in the provisions of this article. It is established that Art. 320 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine consists of two parts and provides for a wide range of criminal offenses, in particular the cultivation of sleeping poppy or hemp; violation of the rules of production, manufacture, storage, accounting, release, distribution, trade, transportation, shipment or use of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their analogues or precursors intended for the production or manufacture of these drugs or substances; theft, misappropriation, extortion of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their analogues or precursors, or their acquisition by fraud or abuse of office by an official, etc. It is shown that the disposition of Art. 320 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine has a blanket nature, which requires specification of its provisions in other regulations, including orders, instructions, rules. It is emphasized that employees of medical institutions and health care institutions must clearly know the content of the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers № 770 "On approval of the list of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and precursors" from 06.06.2000, the order of the Ministry of Health № 188 "On approval of tables of small, large and especially large amounts of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and precursors that are in illicit traffic" from 01.08.2000, which will significantly help them to avoid offenses related to drug trafficking. Special attention should by paid to compliance with the rules of storage, transfer, accounting, release, distribution, trade, transportation, as well as the introduction of drug logs. The article also shows the sequence of actions of employees of investigative bodies during crime investigation on grounds of the criminal activity provided by Art. 320 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Limits of punishability of theft of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances

2019 ◽  
pp. 16-21
Author(s):  
Ольга Александровна Беларева
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Uniform System ◽  
Psychotropic Substances ◽  
Official Position ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Broad Interpretation ◽  
The One ◽  
Narcotic Drugs

В статье рассматриваются вопросы влияния формы хищения, его квалифицирующих признаков на определение законодателем пределов наказуемости хищения наркотических средств. Автор выделил некоторые недостатки, допущенные при конструировании уголовно-правовой нормы, предусматривающей ответственность за хищение наркотических средств. В статье рассмотрены некоторые конкретные ситуации, демонстрирующие парадоксальность решения законодателя отказаться от конкретизации форм хищения при квалификации по ст. 229 УК РФ и установить единую систему квалифицирующих признаков для всех способов изъятия наркотических средств. Критическую оценку получило расширительное толкование Верховным судом РФ квалифицирующего признака «с использованием служебного положения». С одной стороны, такое понимание данного признака ставит под сомнение возможность квалификации по ч. 1 ст. 229 УК РФ хищения наркотических средств в форме присвоения или растраты, поскольку сразу переводит на квалификацию по п. «в» ч. 2 ст. 229 УК РФ. С другой стороны, при таком подходе присвоение и растрата наркотических средств становятся более опасным хищением, чем открытый ненасильственный грабеж. Автор также отмечает, что возможности суда по учету степени общественной опасности хищения наркотических средств в форме разбоя существенно ограничены. Единые пределы наказуемости не позволяют в должной мере учесть признаки, повышающие степень опасности такого хищения. Автор приходит к выводу, что ст. 229 УК РФ нуждается в корректировке, как в части формулирования диспозиций, так и в части пересмотра санкций, с учетом существенно различающегося характера и степени общественной опасности предусмотренных в ней деяний. The article deals with the influence of the form of theft, its qualifying features on the determination by the legislator of the limits of punishability of theft of narcotic drugs. The author highlighted some shortcomings in the construction of criminal law, providing for liability for theft of drugs. The article deals with some specific situations that demonstrate the paradoxical decision of the legislator to refuse to specify the forms of theft in the qualification of Art. 229 of the Criminal Code and to establish a uniform system of qualifying signs for all seizures of narcotic drugs. Critical assessment received broad interpretation by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation qualifying feature “using official position”. On the one hand, this understanding of this feature casts doubt on the possibility of qualification under part 1 of article 229 of the criminal code of theft of drugs in the form of appropriation or embezzlement, as immediately translates to the qualification under pt. 2 of Art. 229 of the Criminal Code. On the other hand, with this approach, the appropriation and embezzlement of drugs become more dangerous theft than open nonviolent robbery. The author also notes that the court's ability to take into account the degree of public danger of theft of drugs in the form of robbery is significantly limited. Uniform limits of punishability do not allow to take into account properly the signs increasing degree of danger of such plunder. The analysis of questions of punishability of theft of narcotic drugs convinces that Art. 229 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation needs correction, both regarding formulation of dispositions, and regarding revision of sanctions, taking into account essentially differing character and degree of public danger of the acts provided in it.

scholarly journals Problems of qualification of crimes committed in the sphere of cryptocurrency turnover

2019 ◽  
pp. 125-131
Author(s):  
Madina Dolgieva
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Code ◽  
Psychotropic Substances ◽  
Fiat Money ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Form Part ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Goals And Objectives ◽  
Cost Characteristics ◽  
Narcotic Drugs

The article is devoted to the problems of qualification of various types of theft of cryptocurrency, theft of funds committed using cryptocurrency. The article deals with crimes related to the illegal sale of drugs for cryptocurrency and raises the question of the absence in the act of the offense under article 1741 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation. The author studies the concepts of cryptocurrency and property within the framework of existing scientific opinions and analyzes the versatile judicial practice, which, in particular, tends to classify cryptocurrencies as types of property. The goals and objectives of the study are to determine the range of features and properties of the objects of crimes committed with the use of cryptocurrency, as well as committed against the cryptocurrency as an object of infringement. In the preparation of the article, mainly formal logical methods were used, as a result of which the author analyzes social and legal phenomena. The author concludes that the main feature of the evaluation of the object of crimes in sphere of circulation of cryptocurrency, is the presence of his property and cost characteristics, the possibility of determining the damage for the proper qualification of the offense. It is concluded that cryptocurrency may be the subject of corruption offenses on the basis of scientifically substantiated opinions about the presence of the paid nature of the benefit provided by the cryptocurrency. It is argued that the actions associated with the sale of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for cryptocurrency and subsequent actions to transfer cryptocurrency to Fiat money do not form part of the crime providing for liability for the legalization of proceeds from crime.

scholarly journals Recidivism as Legal Background for the Differentiation of Criminal Liability: Conceptual Approaches of Russian and Foreign Legislators

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-371
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Zharkikh ◽  
Afet Maksimov ◽  
Leonid Prokhorov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Correctional Institution ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
General Role ◽  
The World ◽  
The Russian Federation

The authors examine key stages of the development of theoretical views and concepts of the essence of recidivism lying at the basis of the emergence of professional and organized crime, whose genesis trends pose a special danger for the global community in the 20th and the 21st centuries. It is noted that the problems of counteracting repeat offences were discussed by scholars of different periods of the development of criminological and criminal law doctrines. Besides, the authors state that in contemporary lawmaking practice in the world there are several radically different approaches to the assessment of repeat offences in terms of the differentiation of criminal liability and individualization of punishment. A heightened danger of repeat offences dictates special approaches of lawmakers to the differentiation of criminal liability, to determining its limits in the norms of the Special Parts of criminal legislation in cases of recidivism. The authors describe key stages of the development of the institute of repeat offences and its influence on the differentiation of criminal liability and individualization of punishment in the Russian legislation. They examine key functional roles of the institute of repeat offences: ensuring the differentiation of criminal liability depending on recidivism, determining the limits of its use and the conditions of release; regulation of the algorithm of the individualization of punishment for repeat offences; determining the type of correctional institution to which the offender is allocated in cases of recidivism; execution of punishment. There are two key approaches to assessing repeat offences in terms of the differentiation of criminal liability and the individualization of punishment in the lawmaking practice in the world. The first approach to determining the limits of punishment in case of a repeat offence is based on assessing the personality of the offender, while the second presupposes shifting the emphasis from the personality of the offender to the committed crimes, to recidivism. The authors specifically stress that while the general role of the institute of repeat offences is positive, there are some contradictions in the system of the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation regarding the lawmakers’ approach to its regulation that have an impact on the differentiation of criminal liability. These contradictions are connected with considerable changes in the contents of Part 2, Art. 68 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation introduced by the Federal Law of Dec. 8, 2003 № 162-ФЗ. It states that the term of punishment of any type of repeat offence cannot be under one third of the maximum term for the strictest type of punishment, and it should be restricted by the limits of the sanction in the corresponding article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Consequently, the introduction of this criminal law norm in the legislative system neutralized the requirement of Part 5, Art. 18 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which repeat offences lead to stricter punishments on the basis and within the limits provided in the Code, while the preventive role of the analyzed criminal law norm that it played in the previous version is lost. In this connection, the authors formulate recommendations on improving the contents of Part 2, Art. 68 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and present its version.

scholarly journals Proof during the prejudicial inquiry of smugglingof narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their analogs, or precursors under the legislation of Ukraine

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (39) ◽  
pp. 159-168
Author(s):  
Oleg Reznik ◽  
Maksym Pochtovyi ◽  
Kateryna Yanishevska ◽  
Andrii Butyrskyi
Keyword(s):  
Social Relations ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Psychotropic Substances ◽  
Procedural Support ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Narcotic Drugs

The object of the study is social relations regarding the prejudicial inquiry of smuggling narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their analogs or precursors. It has been found that there are scholars who choose different definitions for interpreting the nature of the proof, but are unanimous about the role of this process in proving a person’s guilt and choosing an adequate punishment. The authors use a set of scientific methods of modern epistemology as well as comparative, special legal, logical and other methods. We propose to analyze all the circumstances that are subject to proof during the prejudicial inquiry of smuggling of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their analogs, or precursors. In this paper must identify the general grounds that must be proved in each crime and the specific circumstances that are important to prove only in the case of smuggling narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their analogs, or precursors. The conclusion is made about the importance of proper procedural support of criminal prosecution of persons who have committed a crime under Article 305 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Therefore, we propose to include in the subject of evidence for the prejudicial inquiry.

scholarly journals КВАЛИФИКАЦИЯ НАРУШЕНИЙ ТРЕБОВАНИЙ В ОБЛАСТИ ТРАНСПОРТНОЙ БЕЗОПАСНОСТИ С УЧЁТОМ ОСОБЕННОСТЕЙ СУБЪЕКТИВНЫХ ПРИЗНАКОВ ПРЕСТУПЛЕНИЯ, ПРЕДУСМОТРЕННОГО СТАТЬЁЙ 2631 УК РФ

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 137-145
Author(s):  
Е.А. Князева
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Group ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Transport Infrastructure ◽  
Transport Safety ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

В представленной научной работе анализируются проблемы квалификации субъективных признаков статьи 2631 УК РФ. Установлено, что данная норма была изменена в части субъекта преступления, а именно – была введена уголовная ответственность за несоблюдение требований в области транспортной безопасности пассажирами и иными лицами, т.е. лицами, обладающими признаками общего субъекта преступления. В качестве квалифицированных признаков анализируемой нормы была введена уголовная ответственность за групповое совершение данного преступления при наличии неосторожной формы вины, а именно – группа лиц по предварительному сговору и организованная преступная группа. Мы считаем, что введение соучастия в такого рода преступлениях представляет серьёзную проблему для последующего применения статьи 2631 УК РФ на практике, поскольку квалифицировать в случае нарушений указанных в рассматриваемой нами норме специальных правил по указанным в частях третьей и четвёртой признакам будет практически невозможно. Нам видится, что основная проблема ответственности соучастников за нарушение требований в области транспортной безопасности со-стоит в необходимости установления двух важных моментов: 1) ограничение круга специальных субъектов анализируемого состава преступления и его отражение на ответственность других соучастников; 2) оценка уголовно-правовой характеристики роли субъекта и других соучастников преступления. Сделан вывод о том, что соучастие по исследуемой нами норме возможно лишь в тех случаях, когда исполнителем данного преступления является специальный субъект. Остальные лица подлежат уголовной ответственности как организатор, подстрекатель или пособ-ник. Полагаем, что следует исключить данные квалифицированные признаки из исследуемого нами состава и говорить о неосторожном сопричинении, а не о со-участии. Ключевые слова: квалификация, нарушение требований, неосторожное со-причинение, неосторожная форма вины, соучастие, субъективная сторона преступления, субъект преступления, транспортная безопасность, транспортная инфраструктура. The present research work analyzes the problems of qualifying the subjective characteristics of Article 2631 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It was established that this provision was changed in terms of the subject of the crime, namely, criminal liability was introduced for non-compliance with the requirements in the field of transport safety by passengers and other persons, i.e. persons possessing the characteristics of a common subject of a crime. As qualified features of the analyzed norm, criminal liability was introduced for the group commission of this crime in the presence of a careless form of guilt, namely, a group of persons by prior conspiracy and an organized criminal group. We believe that introduction of complicity in this type of crime is a serious problem for the subsequent application of Article 2631 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in practice, since it will be practically impossible to qualify in case of violations of the rules specified in the norm under consideration by the signs indicated in parts three and four. We see that the main problem of responsibility of accomplices for violation of requirements in the field of transport security is the need to establish two important points: 1) limiting the range of special subjects of the analyzed corpus delicti and its reflection on the responsibility of other accomplices; 2) assessment of the criminal law characteristics of the role of the subject and other accomplices in the crime. It is concluded that complicity according to the norm we are investigating is possible only in cases where the perpetrator of this crime is a special subject. The rest of the persons are subject to criminal liability as organizer, instigator or accomplice. We believe that it is necessary to exclude these qualified signs from the composition we are studying and talk about careless complicity, and not about complicity. Keywords: qualification, violation of requirements, careless submission, careless form of guilt, complicity, the subjective side of the crime, the subject of the crime, transport security, transport infrastructure.

Exemption from criminal liability as a means of crime prevention in the field of trafficking narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their analogues or precursors and other crimes against public health

2021 ◽  
pp. 195-202
Author(s):  
P. Khriapinskiy ◽  
S. Shkola
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Crime Prevention ◽  
Drug Trafficking ◽  
Criminal Behavior ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Psychotropic Substances ◽  
Narcotic Drugs

Prevention occupies a leading place in the legal means of combating crimes in the field of drug trafficking, along with the detection, detection, investigation, appointment and serving of punishment for their commission, and so on. Exemptions from criminal liability have the task of providing legal protection of human and civil rights and freedoms, property, public order and public safety, environment, constitutional system of Ukraine from criminal encroachments, ensuring peace and security of mankind, as well as crime prevention (Part 1 of Art. 1 Criminal Code). Chapter XIII of the Special Part of the Criminal Code “Crimes in the field of trafficking in narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their analogues or precursors and other crimes against public health” contains five types of exemption from criminal liability. They, as well as general types of exemption from criminal liability, in their content have common features: 1) are carried out exclusively by the court on behalf of the state; 2) apply to the person who committed the crime; 3) consist in refusal of official condemnation, sentencing and recognition of a person as a convict. In drug cases, the most common are Articles 307 and 309 of the Criminal Code. According to Art. 307 for the last year 4 865 persons were condemned, and Art. 309 – 15 137. While in 2017 there were 2 758 and 13 682 such persons, respectively. It is concluded that the special exemption from criminal liability as a means of preventing crimes in the field of drug trafficking, psychotropic substances, their analogues or precursors is aimed at self-disclosure of persons who committed minor crimes in the field of drug trafficking, as well as revealing the source of their acquisition or otherwise obtained. In addition, the prevention of drug trafficking is carried out by facilitating the detection of crimes related to drug trafficking. Special exemption from criminal liability, in the case of a certain set of positive post-criminal behavior in the field of drug trafficking, is imperative for the court and final for the perpetrator, and the person who committed it is recognized as having no criminal record.

scholarly journals Features of the legal regulation of the fight against drug trafficking in Ukraine (1999—2005)

Legal Ukraine ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 40-49
Author(s):  
Mykola Kotsur
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Base Exchange ◽  
Psychotropic Substances ◽  
National Programmes ◽  
Dangerous Substances ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
Illicit Trafficking ◽  
Narcotic Drugs

The article considers contents of regulatory legal acts adopted in Ukraine, aimed at combating illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs. It is shown that key aspects of them influenced by the international documents ratified by Ukraine and the need to ensure that counter their proliferation, by establishing rules of implementation, storage, trade and prescription. Describes the main provisions of Section XIII of the criminal code of Ukraine 2001, the assessment of the structure of liabilities, the strictness of the regulations and additional penalties. During the period 1999—2005 was adopted a significant number of different legal acts aimed at combating illegal turnover of narcotic drugs: the criminal Code of Ukraine 2001, National Programmes, resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, orders of Ministry of health and Ministry of agriculture of Ukraine. A feature of the criminal code of Ukraine 2001, he was a systematization of the rules on criminal liability in this area in Section XIII, to the contents of this section included twenty articles, differing in the number of parts, with notes and additional punishments. The national programme addressed the issues of implementation of the state policy in the sphere of struggle with illicit trafficking of these dangerous substances, we have established the necessity of improvement of normative legal base, exchange of information, experiences, treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts. Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has decided an important question regarding the list of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and precursors, which were systematized in the form of four tables and nine lists, and specified rules on trade, production, manufacture and issue of medicines, which included these dangerous substances. Orders MOZ of Ukraine has established the procedure for the prescription, break away narcotic drugs, regulate the allocation table of amounts of narcotic drugs, as well as the order of protection, control, and storage of these dangerous substances. Key words: drug, criminal Code, the national program, normative-legal acts, penalties.

scholarly journals ON PUBLIC DANGER AS A FACTOR OF CRIMINALIZATION (DECRIMINALIZATION) OF VIOLATION OF THE ESTABLISHED RULES OF CIRCULATION OF NARCOTIC DRUGS

2020 ◽  
pp. 119-127
Author(s):  
Viktoriia Lisniak ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Research Methodology ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Public ◽  
Psychotropic Substances ◽  
Significant Harm ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Narcotic Drugs

The article examines the problem of social conditionality of criminal legal prohibition. The phenomenon of public danger is analyzed as a factor of criminalization (decriminalization) of violation of the established rules of circulation of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their analogues or precursors intended for the production or manufacture of these drugs or substances. The aim of the article: to establish the existence or lack of social conditionality of criminal liability for the violation of established rules of circulation of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their analogues or precursors through the perception of the phenomenon of public danger as a factor of criminalization (decriminalization) of certain acts. The research methodology: historical and legal, systemic, dogmatic, hermeneutic ones. The debatable provisions of this issue are considered, the author’s critical considerations are stated. The scientific position of Ukrainian criminologists is supported, according to which the feature "public danger" of an act should not be applied in the legislative definition of a crime. However, this does not mean that the legislator should be deprived of the need to take into account the public danger (or lack thereof) of certain actions in the process of resolving the issue of their criminalization (decriminalization). The expediency of editorial adjustment of Part 1 of Art. 320 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine has been substantiated. The criminal consequence, which is planned to express significant harm, should be the shortage of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their analogues or precursors on a large scale.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document