下面为大家整理一篇优秀的paper代写范文- Coping Mode of terrorism crime，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了恐怖主义犯罪应对模式。如今，恐怖主义犯罪的应对模式主要有司法模式、战争模式、治理模式。治理模式对于恐怖主义及反恐问题界定不同于战争模式、司法模式。这种界定具有决定性影响。其直接决定这三种反恐模式在视野、目标、思路、标准、力量、措施与手段、时间维度、战略角度、精神层面等方面的不同。
The mode of judicature, the mode of war and the mode of governance are three kinds of modes to deal with terrorist crimes. The judicial model defines terrorism as a criminal act. Therefore, anti-terrorism is the problem of investigating and attacking crime. The core of this model is to restore the authority of law and maintain social order. The mode of war defines terrorism as a kind of war act. The fight against terrorism is a matter of defeating or destroying the enemy and winning the war. The core of this model is to combat, annihilate and win the war against terrorists. The governance model defines terrorism as a lack of national security governance, inefficiency or failure, and the lack and inefficiency of public security services. To that end, counter-terrorism is to strengthen and improve the governance of terrorism issues in order to provide more effective security services. The core of this model is to create a secure environment. The governance model is different from the war mode and the judicial model to the terrorism and the anti-terrorism problem. This definition has a decisive impact. It directly determines these three types of counter-terrorism models in the field of vision, objectives, ideas, standards, strength, measures and means, time dimension, strategic angle, spiritual level and so on.
With a flick of the fingers, the incident has been over more than 10 years. Despite the joint boycott and attack of the world, the development trend of terrorist crime has not been suppressed or reversed in the world, but it has been rampant in some countries and regions. Although national counter-terrorism policies are in the context of content and other aspects, but because of the definition of terrorism, the nature of the threat to the different understanding of the basic methods of counter-terrorism and the choice of means, coupled with other specific factors, countries or a country at different times of counter-terrorism ideas, policies, There are often some differences in countermeasures.
http://www.51due.com/writing/research-paper/sample68418.html
To better summarize and analyze these different anti-terrorism practices, the author classifies them as different coping modes of terrorist crimes. The mode of judicature, the mode of war and the mode of governance are three coping modes.
The judicial model is also called the police model, namely, the police organs, the judiciary, through the investigation, arrest, prosecution, trial of terrorists, to bring them to prison, to the fear of asset freezing and other ways to deal with terrorist crime patterns. It mainly defines terrorism as a criminal act which seriously endangers national security and social stability. To this end, counter-terrorism is the first to detect and combat crime problems. The core of this model is to restore the authority of law in order to maintain social order. The mode of war is the mode of dealing with terrorist crimes by means of military strike, the complete elimination of terrorists and the complete destruction of terrorist training camps. It mainly defines terrorism as an act of war. To this end, counter-terrorism is first considered as the problem of defeating or destroying the enemy and winning the war. The core of this model is to combat, annihilate and win the war.
Before the incident, the judicial model is a dominant mode in the world when dealing with terrorist crimes. The wave of terrorism that arose in the late 1960s had caused worldwide shock and concern, and most countries, after the shock subsided, basically used the police and the judiciary to deal with terrorist crimes on the basis of normal and lawful procedures, such as by amending relevant laws and regulations to monitor, apprehend, prosecute, try and detain terrorists. To outlaw and dissolve terrorist organizations. To some extent, these measures have achieved some effect. Of course, in that period, Russia, Israel and other countries ' counter-terrorism policies were also close to the war model. The United States has adopted a discriminatory approach to international and domestic terrorism. For external terrorism, it is considered a matter of national security. The Reagan administration had openly declared that terrorism was an act of war, and that the United States had waged a number of military strikes in the name of combating terrorism. For domestic terrorism, the main use of the judicial model, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and so on is the main body to deal with terrorism, especially in the mid 1980s, Congress passed legislation to explicitly define terrorism as a crime, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has played a more important role.
Before the end of the cold war, the judicial model was largely effective and adequate. In Western Europe and the United States, under the attack of the judiciary, many terrorists are either jailed or killed, committing suicide or abandoning terrorist activities. After the 80 's, most of the activities of terrorism in these areas, particularly those of indigenous terrorist organizations, have been forcefully curbed and their impact has been greatly reduced.
The "events" show that terrorism has been transformed into some kind of war, which, while regarded as a criminal act, is no longer an ordinary crime but a criminal act that has an important impact on international peace, stability and national security. Resolutions 1368th and 1373th adopted by the Security Council explicitly declaring that terrorism poses a threat to "international peace and security", and even declaring that the state of attack could thus act under the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence", the invocation of such a right to self-defence would undoubtedly imply a war action. After this incident, the war pattern appeared to be the world's counter-terrorism-led and correct model under the influence and impetus of the Bush administration's global anti-terrorism war.
This shows that the two modes of justice and war are different in terms of the perspective of terrorism and the purpose of counter-terrorism, reliance on strength, method and so on. So what are the effects of these two modes?
With regard to the model of justice, Ronald corelinston believes that this counter-terrorism model has the educational function of eliminating the legality of terrorist acts and making terrorism an unacceptable means, and the advantages of punishing terrorists through punishment, and of transforming terrorists and disabling the ability of terrorist actors to act. In fact, when the casualties or losses caused by terrorism are relatively limited, it is a natural choice for a state, especially a State governed by the rule of law, to use the judicial model to deal with terrorism in its territory.
The United Nations Declaration on Terrorism declares that "terrorism in all its forms, wherever and by whomever committed, is an unjustifiable criminal act." "At the international level, terrorism is considered a criminal offence and it is a great step forward in the context of counter-terrorism crimes." At first, terrorism was often associated with anti-imperialist, anti-colonial and national liberation, and for that reason, there were often more serious differences between countries or groups for their meaning and legitimacy. Terrorist crimes are often politically motivated and, to that end, terrorists often defend themselves and seek refuge on the grounds of political persecution. Moreover, the political nature of terrorism makes it easy to relate to various political struggles. A number of States also took different positions on the basis of their own interests, using terrorism or counter-terrorism to achieve their other objectives. In addition to the existence of extradition of political prisoners under international law, terrorists often use this as an excuse for not being extradited and can easily evade punishment.
These have made international cooperation against terrorism a great challenge. The view that terrorism is a criminal offence and that the principle of "either prosecuting or trial" is established, namely, that the state's prosecution or trial of terrorists in its territory, either in accordance with its domestic law, or in the case of an extradition to a State subjected to its attack, would greatly harmonize the international community's position on counter-terrorism The loss of legitimacy of terrorism and the promotion of cooperation among States in the field of counter-terrorism. For terrorists or for prosecution or extradition, they have in fact become the positions and principles repeatedly reaffirmed in the United Nations anti-terrorism conventions and related counter-terrorism resolutions. In various areas of international counter-terrorism cooperation, but also most of the reference to this position and principle.
As the threat of terrorism increases, the judicial model can no longer effectively respond to the new terrorist threat. Attacks”
The attacks have strongly demonstrated and demonstrated the inadequacy of this model, which has contributed forcefully to the subsequent tilt of counter-terrorism from the judicial model to the war model. Traditionally, national security matters have been placed in priority and urgency, and general justice often does not cover the areas of national security. With the rise of terrorism in the national security agenda, the police and the judiciary have gradually given way to the core means of force in traditional national security.
The model of justice is a reactive model, usually the response of the police or the judiciary after the occurrence of a terrorist crime, rather than actively seeking intervention before it occurs, and its actions are often limited to bringing criminals to justice, arresting and restoring the original order. If the terrorist threat is very limited and the ex-post reaction can be reluctantly accepted, the model can be used. The judicial model of ex post facto reaction is not appropriate when the terrorist threat is very serious, especially when the terrorist acts of mass destruction have caused great losses.
There is usually a strict requirement for evidence in judicial proceedings. Terrorist incidents are usually secretly planned and carefully organized and difficult to obtain relevant evidence. Many terrorists, while posing a threat, may lack conclusive evidence to arrest them, or to be sentenced even if they are arrested. After the arrest of terrorists, they had to be released for lack of strong evidence, and those who had been released were soon involved in many cases of terrorist activity. In normal judicial proceedings, there is strict protection of the rights of the accused or the suspect, such as the right of the suspect to remain silent, not to be subjected to torture, and the terrorists are apt to use these rights to prevent the judiciary from obtaining evidence against them, and the judiciary obtains evidence by secret means or unlawful means, may not be used in court.
In addition, there are other flaws in the judicial model:
First, the judicial model procedures are complex, lengthy and often protracted, and may not meet the need for resolute fighting and rapid response in counter-terrorism. Secondly, in the normal situation, in order to protect the rights of citizens, the law of intelligence agencies, such as information collection means, scope, information sharing, intelligence use, and so there are more stringent provisions. Some provisions are detrimental to the early detection, suppression of terrorist plots and the fight against terrorists. Third, the judicial model of the demand for evidence may be detrimental to intelligence work. Such as the need for evidence in the normal administration of justice to have a clear source of information, to have witnesses, etc., these may result in information leakage and endanger the informant's security. Four, sometimes, in order to obtain more important evidence, it is necessary to deal with some criminal suspects, including not to prosecute, or temporarily do not arrest and trial. These problems are often not taken into account by the judicial model, which may not be conducive to better protection of national security or the of terrorist threats. Five, the trial and detention of terrorists may pose some problems. If the terrorists could use the trial, hype their claims and condemn their opponents. Even if they are jailed, they may promote advocacy, attract attention, recruit members, and even organize terrorist attacks outside the prison by initiating various struggles such as hunger strikes. Six, there are some difficulties in apprehending and trying foreign terrorists, and extradition is more difficult.
The war model is considered to be free of the above flaws. If terrorism is defined as war, terrorists, being enemies, can direct the use of military forces to carry out rapid, timely and vigorous blows to eliminate terrorists and their facilities. There is no judicial model of the evidence, procedures and other aspects of the requirements and restrictions. In addition, war can greatly deter terrorists and the act of providing assistance to the international community to demonstrate the determination and will of counter-terrorism, which is very beneficial to the mobilization of counter-terrorism and increase the morale of the counter-terrorism side.
Of course, there are many flaws in the pattern of warfare:
First, war has great risks, including uncertainty. The war on terror in the country is more likely to be a pretext for the government to suppress and combat dissent or to achieve its own autocratic rule, rather than to really confront the threat of terror. New York and Washington are hiding terrorists and preparing for terrorist attacks, but it is absurd and pointless for the United States government to wage a war to bomb these cities. Secondly, war is neither necessary nor an effective means of combating terrorism. At present, terrorist organizations have become a kind of loose, decentralized network level structure. In this kind of net structure, even if one link is destroyed, the other link will not be affected, therefore has the very strong vitality. Third, the Government may, on the basis of a state of emergency, violate human rights, do whatever it wants, trample the legal system and conceal other improper intentions and actions. Four, seeing a terrorist as a warrior increases the legitimacy of terrorists and acts of war, promotes their status and attractiveness, and creates obstacles for the anti-terror party in apprehending, detaining, prosecuting and trying terrorists. Five, the resulting violence, the casualties and other negative consequences, to some extent, outweigh the terrorism itself. In recent years, some U.S. troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and other massacres of the poor. Abuse of violence often creates more injustice, confusion and conflict, leading to more terrorist attacks. Terrorists are not to be killed, on the contrary, the brutal attack may even produce more terrorists. Before the "war" incident, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and other countries have less terrorist attacks, the United States in the aftermath of the terrorism campaign, the current number of terrorist attacks in the world about half. The model of war sees only terrorists and violent terror itself, and ignores the circumstances and conditions in which terrorist activities and their production, operation and impact occur. This model focuses primarily on retaliation against terrorists and violent activities, and not on how to deter or fundamentally give terrorists away terrorist activity before violent terror occurs. Seven, the threat of terrorism is persistent and cannot be eradicated. Historical experience has shown that military intervention has rarely succeeded in halting terrorism and ending the threat of terrorism, but temporarily undermining terrorist organizations and related terrorist networks. The frequent phenomenon is that direct military intervention brings short-term victories, but it is unsuccessful in the long run and may even lead to more serious dangers and threats.
Terrorism has indeed become a national security issue, but the threat of terrorism is different from traditional national security threats, but a new national security threat. To deal with terrorism, we should not treat it as a general law and order problem, mainly take the judicial model, and it can not equate to the traditional national security threat, but mainly depends on the mode of war.
51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创paper代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有essay代写、assignment代写、paper代写服务。
51due为留学生提供最好的paper代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多，paper代写范文 提供美国作业代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。
The mode of judicature, the mode of war and the mode of governance are three kinds of modes to deal with terrorist crimes. The judicial model defines terrorism as a criminal act. Therefore, anti-terrorism is the problem of investigating and attacking crime. The core of this model is to restore the authority of law and maintain social order. The mode of war defines terrorism as a kind of war act. The fight against terrorism is a matter of defeating or destroying the enemy and winning the war. The core of this model is to combat, annihilate and win the war against terrorists. The governance model defines terrorism as a lack of national security governance, inefficiency or failure, and the lack and inefficiency of public security services. To that end, counter-terrorism is to strengthen and improve the governance of terrorism issues in order to provide more effective security services. The core of this model is to create a secure environment. The governance model is different from the war mode and the judicial model to the terrorism and the anti-terrorism problem. This definition has a decisive impact. It directly determines these three types of counter-terrorism models in the field of vision, objectives, ideas, standards, strength, measures and means, time dimension, strategic angle, spiritual level and so on.
With a flick of the fingers, the incident has been over more than 10 years. Despite the joint boycott and attack of the world, the development trend of terrorist crime has not been suppressed or reversed in the world, but it has been rampant in some countries and regions. Although national counter-terrorism policies are in the context of content and other aspects, but because of the definition of terrorism, the nature of the threat to the different understanding of the basic methods of counter-terrorism and the choice of means, coupled with other specific factors, countries or a country at different times of counter-terrorism ideas, policies, There are often some differences in countermeasures.
http://www.51due.com/writing/research-paper/sample68418.html
To better summarize and analyze these different anti-terrorism practices, the author classifies them as different coping modes of terrorist crimes. The mode of judicature, the mode of war and the mode of governance are three coping modes.
The judicial model is also called the police model, namely, the police organs, the judiciary, through the investigation, arrest, prosecution, trial of terrorists, to bring them to prison, to the fear of asset freezing and other ways to deal with terrorist crime patterns. It mainly defines terrorism as a criminal act which seriously endangers national security and social stability. To this end, counter-terrorism is the first to detect and combat crime problems. The core of this model is to restore the authority of law in order to maintain social order. The mode of war is the mode of dealing with terrorist crimes by means of military strike, the complete elimination of terrorists and the complete destruction of terrorist training camps. It mainly defines terrorism as an act of war. To this end, counter-terrorism is first considered as the problem of defeating or destroying the enemy and winning the war. The core of this model is to combat, annihilate and win the war.
Before the incident, the judicial model is a dominant mode in the world when dealing with terrorist crimes. The wave of terrorism that arose in the late 1960s had caused worldwide shock and concern, and most countries, after the shock subsided, basically used the police and the judiciary to deal with terrorist crimes on the basis of normal and lawful procedures, such as by amending relevant laws and regulations to monitor, apprehend, prosecute, try and detain terrorists. To outlaw and dissolve terrorist organizations. To some extent, these measures have achieved some effect. Of course, in that period, Russia, Israel and other countries ' counter-terrorism policies were also close to the war model. The United States has adopted a discriminatory approach to international and domestic terrorism. For external terrorism, it is considered a matter of national security. The Reagan administration had openly declared that terrorism was an act of war, and that the United States had waged a number of military strikes in the name of combating terrorism. For domestic terrorism, the main use of the judicial model, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and so on is the main body to deal with terrorism, especially in the mid 1980s, Congress passed legislation to explicitly define terrorism as a crime, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has played a more important role.
Before the end of the cold war, the judicial model was largely effective and adequate. In Western Europe and the United States, under the attack of the judiciary, many terrorists are either jailed or killed, committing suicide or abandoning terrorist activities. After the 80 's, most of the activities of terrorism in these areas, particularly those of indigenous terrorist organizations, have been forcefully curbed and their impact has been greatly reduced.
The "events" show that terrorism has been transformed into some kind of war, which, while regarded as a criminal act, is no longer an ordinary crime but a criminal act that has an important impact on international peace, stability and national security. Resolutions 1368th and 1373th adopted by the Security Council explicitly declaring that terrorism poses a threat to "international peace and security", and even declaring that the state of attack could thus act under the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence", the invocation of such a right to self-defence would undoubtedly imply a war action. After this incident, the war pattern appeared to be the world's counter-terrorism-led and correct model under the influence and impetus of the Bush administration's global anti-terrorism war.
This shows that the two modes of justice and war are different in terms of the perspective of terrorism and the purpose of counter-terrorism, reliance on strength, method and so on. So what are the effects of these two modes?
With regard to the model of justice, Ronald corelinston believes that this counter-terrorism model has the educational function of eliminating the legality of terrorist acts and making terrorism an unacceptable means, and the advantages of punishing terrorists through punishment, and of transforming terrorists and disabling the ability of terrorist actors to act. In fact, when the casualties or losses caused by terrorism are relatively limited, it is a natural choice for a state, especially a State governed by the rule of law, to use the judicial model to deal with terrorism in its territory.
The United Nations Declaration on Terrorism declares that "terrorism in all its forms, wherever and by whomever committed, is an unjustifiable criminal act." "At the international level, terrorism is considered a criminal offence and it is a great step forward in the context of counter-terrorism crimes." At first, terrorism was often associated with anti-imperialist, anti-colonial and national liberation, and for that reason, there were often more serious differences between countries or groups for their meaning and legitimacy. Terrorist crimes are often politically motivated and, to that end, terrorists often defend themselves and seek refuge on the grounds of political persecution. Moreover, the political nature of terrorism makes it easy to relate to various political struggles. A number of States also took different positions on the basis of their own interests, using terrorism or counter-terrorism to achieve their other objectives. In addition to the existence of extradition of political prisoners under international law, terrorists often use this as an excuse for not being extradited and can easily evade punishment.
These have made international cooperation against terrorism a great challenge. The view that terrorism is a criminal offence and that the principle of "either prosecuting or trial" is established, namely, that the state's prosecution or trial of terrorists in its territory, either in accordance with its domestic law, or in the case of an extradition to a State subjected to its attack, would greatly harmonize the international community's position on counter-terrorism The loss of legitimacy of terrorism and the promotion of cooperation among States in the field of counter-terrorism. For terrorists or for prosecution or extradition, they have in fact become the positions and principles repeatedly reaffirmed in the United Nations anti-terrorism conventions and related counter-terrorism resolutions. In various areas of international counter-terrorism cooperation, but also most of the reference to this position and principle.
As the threat of terrorism increases, the judicial model can no longer effectively respond to the new terrorist threat. Attacks”
The attacks have strongly demonstrated and demonstrated the inadequacy of this model, which has contributed forcefully to the subsequent tilt of counter-terrorism from the judicial model to the war model. Traditionally, national security matters have been placed in priority and urgency, and general justice often does not cover the areas of national security. With the rise of terrorism in the national security agenda, the police and the judiciary have gradually given way to the core means of force in traditional national security.
The model of justice is a reactive model, usually the response of the police or the judiciary after the occurrence of a terrorist crime, rather than actively seeking intervention before it occurs, and its actions are often limited to bringing criminals to justice, arresting and restoring the original order. If the terrorist threat is very limited and the ex-post reaction can be reluctantly accepted, the model can be used. The judicial model of ex post facto reaction is not appropriate when the terrorist threat is very serious, especially when the terrorist acts of mass destruction have caused great losses.
There is usually a strict requirement for evidence in judicial proceedings. Terrorist incidents are usually secretly planned and carefully organized and difficult to obtain relevant evidence. Many terrorists, while posing a threat, may lack conclusive evidence to arrest them, or to be sentenced even if they are arrested. After the arrest of terrorists, they had to be released for lack of strong evidence, and those who had been released were soon involved in many cases of terrorist activity. In normal judicial proceedings, there is strict protection of the rights of the accused or the suspect, such as the right of the suspect to remain silent, not to be subjected to torture, and the terrorists are apt to use these rights to prevent the judiciary from obtaining evidence against them, and the judiciary obtains evidence by secret means or unlawful means, may not be used in court.
In addition, there are other flaws in the judicial model:
First, the judicial model procedures are complex, lengthy and often protracted, and may not meet the need for resolute fighting and rapid response in counter-terrorism. Secondly, in the normal situation, in order to protect the rights of citizens, the law of intelligence agencies, such as information collection means, scope, information sharing, intelligence use, and so there are more stringent provisions. Some provisions are detrimental to the early detection, suppression of terrorist plots and the fight against terrorists. Third, the judicial model of the demand for evidence may be detrimental to intelligence work. Such as the need for evidence in the normal administration of justice to have a clear source of information, to have witnesses, etc., these may result in information leakage and endanger the informant's security. Four, sometimes, in order to obtain more important evidence, it is necessary to deal with some criminal suspects, including not to prosecute, or temporarily do not arrest and trial. These problems are often not taken into account by the judicial model, which may not be conducive to better protection of national security or the of terrorist threats. Five, the trial and detention of terrorists may pose some problems. If the terrorists could use the trial, hype their claims and condemn their opponents. Even if they are jailed, they may promote advocacy, attract attention, recruit members, and even organize terrorist attacks outside the prison by initiating various struggles such as hunger strikes. Six, there are some difficulties in apprehending and trying foreign terrorists, and extradition is more difficult.
The war model is considered to be free of the above flaws. If terrorism is defined as war, terrorists, being enemies, can direct the use of military forces to carry out rapid, timely and vigorous blows to eliminate terrorists and their facilities. There is no judicial model of the evidence, procedures and other aspects of the requirements and restrictions. In addition, war can greatly deter terrorists and the act of providing assistance to the international community to demonstrate the determination and will of counter-terrorism, which is very beneficial to the mobilization of counter-terrorism and increase the morale of the counter-terrorism side.
Of course, there are many flaws in the pattern of warfare:
First, war has great risks, including uncertainty. The war on terror in the country is more likely to be a pretext for the government to suppress and combat dissent or to achieve its own autocratic rule, rather than to really confront the threat of terror. New York and Washington are hiding terrorists and preparing for terrorist attacks, but it is absurd and pointless for the United States government to wage a war to bomb these cities. Secondly, war is neither necessary nor an effective means of combating terrorism. At present, terrorist organizations have become a kind of loose, decentralized network level structure. In this kind of net structure, even if one link is destroyed, the other link will not be affected, therefore has the very strong vitality. Third, the Government may, on the basis of a state of emergency, violate human rights, do whatever it wants, trample the legal system and conceal other improper intentions and actions. Four, seeing a terrorist as a warrior increases the legitimacy of terrorists and acts of war, promotes their status and attractiveness, and creates obstacles for the anti-terror party in apprehending, detaining, prosecuting and trying terrorists. Five, the resulting violence, the casualties and other negative consequences, to some extent, outweigh the terrorism itself. In recent years, some U.S. troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and other massacres of the poor. Abuse of violence often creates more injustice, confusion and conflict, leading to more terrorist attacks. Terrorists are not to be killed, on the contrary, the brutal attack may even produce more terrorists. Before the "war" incident, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and other countries have less terrorist attacks, the United States in the aftermath of the terrorism campaign, the current number of terrorist attacks in the world about half. The model of war sees only terrorists and violent terror itself, and ignores the circumstances and conditions in which terrorist activities and their production, operation and impact occur. This model focuses primarily on retaliation against terrorists and violent activities, and not on how to deter or fundamentally give terrorists away terrorist activity before violent terror occurs. Seven, the threat of terrorism is persistent and cannot be eradicated. Historical experience has shown that military intervention has rarely succeeded in halting terrorism and ending the threat of terrorism, but temporarily undermining terrorist organizations and related terrorist networks. The frequent phenomenon is that direct military intervention brings short-term victories, but it is unsuccessful in the long run and may even lead to more serious dangers and threats.
Terrorism has indeed become a national security issue, but the threat of terrorism is different from traditional national security threats, but a new national security threat. To deal with terrorism, we should not treat it as a general law and order problem, mainly take the judicial model, and it can not equate to the traditional national security threat, but mainly depends on the mode of war.
51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创paper代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有essay代写、assignment代写、paper代写服务。
51due为留学生提供最好的paper代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多，paper代写范文 提供美国作业代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます