Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

European and United Nations monitoring of penal and prison policies as a source of an inverted panopticon?

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva on 30 August 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977.

  2. Nelson Mandela Rules, 17 December 2015, UN-Doc A/Res/70/175.

  3. The OPCAT was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations (57/99) on 18 December 2002 and came into force in June 2006.

  4. The OPCAT was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations (57/99) on 18 December 2002 and came into force in June 2006.

  5. Among the EU’s 27 Member States in December 2013, three had not yet signed the Optional Protocol: Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia; three signatory countries had not yet ratified the Optional Protocol: Belgium, Finland and Greece.

  6. UN Committee against Torture, Draft Consideration of reports submitted by States parties (France) under article 19 of the Convention, Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture, Forty-fourth session (26 April–14 May 2010), CAT/C/FRA/CO/4–6/CRP.1. The Committee welcomes France’s ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention and “the subsequent establishment, under the Act of 30 October 2007 (Act n°2007–1545), of the post of Inspector-General (Contrôleur général) of places of deprivation of liberty, which constitutes a national preventive mechanism within the meaning of the Optional Protocol”

  7. UN Committee against Torture, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties (Germany) under article 19 of the Convention, Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture, Forty-seventh session (31 October–25 November 2011), 12 December 2011 CAT/C/DEU/CO/5. The Committee welcomes Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, on 4 December 2008 and “the establishment of the National Agency for the Prevention of Torture, composed of the Federal Agency and the Joint Commission of the Länder, which has been mandated to serve as independent national preventive mechanism under the Optional Protocol to the Convention”.

  8. UN Committee against Torture, Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, adopted by the Committee at its fiftieth session (6–31 May 2013), 24 June 2013 CAT/C/GBR/CO/5.

  9. The Inspector-General of places of deprivation of liberty who is nominated for six years has a staff composed of 15 permanent inspectors and 17 independent contractors acting as inspectors. See http://www.cglpl.fr/missions-et-actions/presentation-de-lequipe/

  10. In addition to the Joint Commission of the Länder, the petitions committees are entitled in some of the Länder to make unannounced visits to places of detention.

  11. The UK counts at least three levels of independent inspection for prisons, each one operating independently from the others:

    • At local level, monitoring boards made up of volunteers recruited from the general population carry out at least two or three visits (of the prisons for which they have been designated) per week on a continual basis.

    • At national level, the National Prison Inspectorates carry out programmes of inspections for prisons. In addition, the national prison ombudsmen and in Scotland – the Independent Prisons Complaints Commissioner – investigate individual complaints lodged by prisoners.

  12. ECtHR, M. vs. Germany, 17 December 2009, 19,359/04.

  13. ECtHR, Vinter v. UK, 9 July 2013, 66,069/09; ECtHR, Murray v. The Netherlands, 26 April 2016, No 10511/10.

  14. Council of Europe, Resolution (2004)3 of the Committee of Ministers on Judgments Revealing an Underlying Systemic Problem, 12 May 2004.

  15. See ECtHR, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, 10 January 2012, 42,525/07 and 60,800/08; ECtHR, W.D. v. Belgium; 6 December 2016, 73,548/13; ECtHR, Bamouhammad v. Belgium, 17 November 2015, 47,687/13; ECtHR, Vasilescu v. Belgium, 25 November 2014, 64,682/12.

  16. ECtHR, Rumpf v. Germany, 2 September 2010, 46,344/06; Sürmeli v. Germany, 8 June 2006, 77,529/01; ECtHR, Athanasiou and others v. Greece, 21 December 2010; ECtHR, Michelioudakis v. Greece and Glykantzi v. Greece, 3 April 2012 and 30 October 2012; ECtHR, Dimitrov and Hamanov v. Bulgaria and Finger v. Bulgaria, 10 May 2011; ECtHR, Rutkowski and others v. Poland, 7 July 2015.

  17. ECtHR, Greens and MT v. United Kingdom, 23 November 2010, 60,041 and 60,054.

  18. ECtHR, Torreggiani and others v. Italy, 8 January 2013, 43,517/09; ECtHR, W.D. v. Belgium; 6 December 2016, 73,548/13; ECtHR, Vasilescu v. Belgium, 25 November 2014, 64,682/12.

  19. ECtHR, Ananyev and others v. Russia; 10 January 2012, 42,525/07 and 60,800/08; ECtHR, Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, 22 October 2009, 17,599/05.

  20. See ECtHR, Neshkov and others v Bulgaria, 27 January, 36,925/10, 21,487/12, 72,893/12, 73,196/12, 77,718/12 and 9717/13 27; ECtHR, Ananyev and others v. Russia, 10 January 2012, §197; ECtHR, Torreggiani and others v. Italy, 8 January 2013, 43,517/09; ECtHR, Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, 22 October 2009, 17,599/05, §158.

  21. Ibid.

  22. Recommendation Rec(2006)2 adopted on 11 January 2006 by the Committee of Ministers.

  23. European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC), Council for Penological Co-operation (PC-CP 4), 14th meeting of the Working Group, 30 January – 1February 2017, PC-CP (2017) 4Strasbourg, 3 February 2017.

  24. Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)11 adopted on 5 November 2008 by the Committee of Ministers.

  25. Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)1 adopted on 20 January 2010.

  26. See http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/about.htm

  27. See the Recommendation 1743 (2006)1 “Memorandum of understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union” adopted by the Assembly on 13 April 2006 (14th sitting) and the Assembly debate on 13 April 2006 (14th Sitting), Doc.10892, report of the Political Affairs Committee, rapporteur: Mr. Kosachev.

  28. Commission Green Paper, on the application of EU criminal justice legislation in the field of detention - Strengthening mutual trust in the European judicial area - of 14 June 2011 (COM(2011) 327 final), pp.11–12. See also the Peer-to-Peer II Project co-funded by the European Commission and the Council of Europe.

  29. Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (OJ L 327, 5.12.2008, pp. 27–46). See also the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation by the Member States of the Framework Decisions 2008/909/JHA, 2008/947/JHA and 2009/829/JHA on the mutual recognition of judicial decisions on custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty, on probation decisions and alternative sanctions and on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention (COM(2014) 57 final of 5.2.2014). See the Commission Staff Working Document — Tables ‘State of play’ and ‘Declarations’ accompanying the document: report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation by the Member States of the Framework Decisions 2008/909/JHA, 2008/947/JHA and 2009/829/JHA on the mutual recognition of judicial decisions on custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty, on probation decisions and alternative sanctions and on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention (SWD(2014) 34 final of 5.2.2014). See lastly the Commission Decision 2014/858/EU of 1 December 2014 on the notification by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of its wish to participate in acts of the Union in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters adopted before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and which are not part of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 345, 1.12.2014, pp. 6–9)

  30. see Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  31. See for instance http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:l3ELgIajP9MJ:ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/files/summaries_selected_2013_ag_jpen_en.pdf+&cd=3&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=be&client=firefox-b

  32. See for instance JUST/2013/JPEN/AG/4489; JUST/2013/JPEN/AG/4539; JUST/2013/JPEN/AG/4548; JUST/2013/JPEN/AG/4573; JUST/2013/JPEN/AG/4592.

  33. See JUST/2011/JPEN/AG/ 2959.

  34. See for instance JUST/2012/JPEN/2922 and JUST/2013/JPEN/AG/4545.

  35. See for instance JUST/2013/JPEN/AG/4510.

  36. See for instance, Resolution of 7 December 2011 (2011/2897(RSP), B7–0687/2011) following its resolution of 18 January 1996 on poor conditions in prisons in the European Union (OJ C 32, 5.2.1996, p.102) and its resolution of 17 December 1998 on prison conditions in the European Union: improvements and alternative penalties (OJ C 98, 9.4.1999, p.299. A4–0369/98).

  37. Commission Green Paper, op. cit.

  38. Commission Green Paper, op. cit., p. 1.

  39. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/libe/home.html#menuzone

  40. Visits of Italian prisons by the Delegation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, 26–28 March 2014.

  41. Report from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs delegation to Italy on the situations of prisons and correction centres, 9 April 2014, European Parliament.

  42. ECtHR, Torreggiani and others v. Italy, 8 January 2013, 43,517/09.

  43. CJEU, Aranyosi-Căldăraru, 5 April 2016, C 404/15 et C 659/15 PPU.

  44. ECtHR, Torreggiani and others v. Italy, 8 January 2013, 43,517/09.

  45. ECtHR, Canali v. France, 25 April 2013, 40,119/09.

  46. See, in part., ECtHR, Ananyev and others v. Russia, §197; ECtHR, Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, 22 October 2009, 17,599/05, §158;

  47. ECtHR, Vinter v. UK, 9 July 2013, 66,069/09.

  48. ECtHR, Ramirez Sanchez v. France, 4 July 2006, 59,450/00.

  49. ECtHR, Khider v. France, 9 July 2009, 39,364/05; Payet v. France, 20 January 2011, 19,606/08.

  50. ECtHR, Alder v Germany, 4 October 1989, 42,078/02; Osman v UK, 28 October 1998, 23,452/94; Keenan v UK, 3 April 2001, 27,229/95; Paul and Audrey Edwards v UK, 14 March 2002, 46,477/99; Trubnikov v Russia, 5 July 2005, 49,790/99; Taïs v France, 1 June 2006, 39,922/03; Renolde v France, 16 October 2008, 5608/05; De Donder and De Clippel v Belgium, 6 December 2011, 8595/06; Ketreb v France, 19 July 2012, 38,447/09.

  51. ECtHR, Campbell and Fell v. UK, 28 June 1984, 7819/77; Payet v. France, 20 January 2011, 19,606/08; M. v. Germany, 17 December 2009, 19,359/04.

  52. ECtHR, Stafford v UK, 24 April 2002, 46,295/99.

  53. ECtHR, Stafford v UK, 24 April 2002, 46,295/99; Clift v UK, 13 July 2010, 7205/07.

  54. ECtHR, Weeks v UK, 2 March 1987, 9787/82; Thynne and others v UK, 25 October 1990, 11,787/85.

  55. ECtHR, Weeks v UK, 2 March 1987, 9787/82; Thynne and others v UK, 25 October 1990, 11,787/85.

  56. ECtHR, Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, 24 juin 1982, 7906/77.

  57. ECtHR, Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, 61/1997/845/1051; De Donder and De Clippel v Belgium, 6 December 2011, 8595/06; L.B. v. Belgium, 2 October 2012, 22,831/08; Claes v. Belgium, 10 January 2013, 43,418/09; Dufoort v. Belgium, 10 January 2013, 43,653/09; Swennen v. Belgium, 10 January 2013, 53,448/10.

  58. ECtHR, Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, 61/1997/845/1051; Mouisel v. France, 14 November 2002, 67,263/01; Rivière v. France, 11 July 2006, 33,834/03; G. v. France, 23 February 2012, 27,244/09; Lankaster v. Belgium, 9 January 2014, 22,283/10.

  59. L.B. v. Belgium, 2 October 2012, 22,831/08; Claes v. Belgium, 10 January 2013, 43,418/09; Dufoort v. Belgium, 10 January 2013, 43,653/09; Swennen v. Belgium, 10 January 2013, 53,448/10.

References

  1. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lynch, M. (2009). Sunbelt justice: Arizona and the transformation of American punishment. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Simon, J. (2001). Fear and loathing in late modernity: Reflections on the cultural sources of mass imprisonment in the United States. Punishment and Society, 3(1), 21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wacquant, L. (2009). Punishing the poor: The neo-liberal government of social insecurity. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Zimring, F. (2001). Imprisonment rates and the new politics of criminal punishment. Punishment and Society, 3(1), 161–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Coyle, A., & Van Zyl Smit, D. (2000). Editorial: The international regulation of punishment. Punishment and Society, 2(3), 259–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Livingstone, S. (2000). Prisoners’ rights in the context of the European convention on human rights. Punishment and Society, 2(3), 309–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Schwartz R (2010) Law not war: Legal evolution from the ancient empires to the emerging world society. Bloomington: Xlibris Corp.

  9. Bond, M. (2013). The Council of Europe: Structure, history and issues in European politics. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  10. van Zyl Smit, D., & Snacken, S. (2009). Principles of European prison law and policy: Penology and human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schumacher, B. (2012). The influence of the Council of Europe on the European Union: Resource, exchange and domains restriction as venues for inter-institutional influence. In O. Costa & K. E. Jorgensen (Eds.), The influence of international institutions on the EU. When multilateralism hits Brussels (pp. 186–206). London: Palgrave.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Simon, J. (2011). Editorial: Mass incarceration on trial. Punishment and Society, 13(3), 251–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Morgan, R., & Evans, M. (1999). Protecting prisoners. The standards of the European Committee for the Prevention of torture in context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Alkema, E. A. (2000). The European convention as a constitution and its court as a constitutional court. In P. Mahoney, F. Matscher, P. Petzold, & L. Wildhaber (Eds.), Protecting Human Rights: The European Perspective: Studies in Memory of Rolv Ryssdal (pp. 41–63). Karl Heymanns Verlag: Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Christoffersen, J. (2011). Individual and constitutional justice. In J. Christoffersen & M. R. Madsen (Eds.), The European court of human rights between law and politics (pp. 181–203). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Follesdal, A., Peters, B., & Ulfstein, G. (2013). Constituting Europe. The European court of human rights in a national, European and global context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Greer, S. (2003). Constitutionalizing adjudication under the European convention on human rights. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 23(3), 405–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Harmsen, R. (2007). The European court of human rights as a ‘constitutional court. In J. Morison, K. McEvoy, & G. Anthony (Eds.), Judges, transition and human rights (pp. 33–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Lester, A. (2011). The European court of human rights after 50 years. In J. Christoffersen & M. R. Madsen (Eds.), The European court of human rights between law and politics (pp. 98–115). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. O’Boyle, M. (2010). The future. In E. Myjer et al. (Eds.), The Conscience of Europe: 50 Years of the European court of human rights (pp. 197–210). London: Council of Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sadurski, W. (2009). Partnering with Strasbourg: Constitutionalisation of the European court of human rights, the accession of central and east European states to the Council of Europe, and the idea of pilot judgments. Human Rights Law Review, 9(3), 397–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Christoffersen, J., & Madsen, M. R. (2011). The European court of human rights between law and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. O’Boyle, M. (2008). On reforming the operation of the European court of human rights. European Human Rights Law Review, 1, 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lambert, E. (2011). Preventing and sanctioning hindrances to the right of individual petition before the European court of human rights. Cambridge: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cameron, I. (2013). The court and the member states : Procedural aspects. In F. Andreas, P. Birgit, & G. Ulfstein (Eds.), Constituting Europe. The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context (pp. 25–61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Keller, H., & Stone Sweet, A. (2008). A Europe of rights: The impact of the ECHR on national legal systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. van Zyl Smit D and Dünkel F (2001) Imprisonment today and tomorrow. International Perspectives on Prisoners’ Rights and Prison Conditions. Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.

  28. Evans, M., & Morgan, R. (2001). Combating torture in Europe: The work and standards of the European Committee for the Prevention of torture. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Morgan, R. (2000). Developing prison standards compared. Punishment and Society, 2(3), 325–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rodley, N., & Pollart, M. (2011). The treatment of prisoners under international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Feeley, M., & Rubin, E. (1998). Judicial policy making and the modern state. How the courts reformed America’s prisons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rubin, E., & Feeley, M. (2003). Judicial policy making and litigation against the government. Journal of Constitutional Law, 5(3), 617–664.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Simon J (2014) Mass incarceration on trial. A Remarkable Court Decision and the Future of Prisons in America. New York: The New Press.

  34. Schlanger, M. (1999). The courts: Beyond the hero judge: Institutional reform litigation as litigation. Michigan Law Review, 97, 1994–2036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Taggart, W. (1989). Predefining the power of the Federal Judiciary: The impact of court-ordered prison reform on state expenditures for corrections. Law and Society Review, 23(2), 241–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Snacken S, Dumortier E (2012) Resisting punitiveness in Europe: Welfare, human rights, and democracy. Abingdon: Routledge.

  37. Herzog-Evans M (1997) Judicial Oversight on Prison Sentences. In: Penal Reform International. Paris: Penal Reform International.

  38. Boyland, R., & Mocan, N. (2014). Intended and unintended consequences of prison reform. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 30, 558–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Guetzkow, J., & Schoon, E. (2015). If you build it, they will fill it: The consequences of prison overcrowding litigation. Law and Society Review, 49(2), 401–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Schoenfeld, H. (2010). Mass incarceration and the paradox of prison conditions litigation. Law & Society Review, 44(3), 731–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Abels D (2012) Prisoners of the International Community. The Legal Position of Persons Detained at International Criminal Tribunals. The Hague: Springer Asser-press.

  42. van Zyl Smit, D. (2010). Regulation of prison conditions. Crime and Justice, 39(1), 503–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Schlanger, M. (2006). Civil rights injunctions over time: A case study of jail and prison court orders. New York University Law Review, 81, 550–628.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Belbot, B. (1997). Prisoner classification litigation. In M. James & S. Jonathan (Eds.), Correctional contexts, contemporary and classical readings (pp. 272–280). Roxbury: Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Chauvenet, A. (2006). Violence et despotisme ordinaire en prison. Déviance et Société, 30(3), 373–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Crouch, B., & Marquart, J. (1997). Resolving the Paradox of Reform : Litigation, Prisoner Violence, and Perceptions of Risk. In J. Marquart & J. Sorensen (Eds.), Correctional Contexts. Contemporary and Classical Readings (pp. 258–271). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Jacobs, J. (1997). The prisoners’ rights movement and its impact. In J. Marquart & J. Sorensen (Eds.), Correctional Contexts. Contemporary and Classical Readings (pp. 231–247). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Harris, K., & Spiller, D. (1977). After decision: Implementation of judicial decrees in correctional settings. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Feeley, M., & Swearingen, V. (2004). The prison conditions cases and the bureaucratization of American corrections: Influences, impacts and implications. Pace Law Review, 24(2), 433–475.

    Google Scholar 

  50. DiIulio, J. (1990). Courts, corrections, and the constitution: The impact of judicial intervention on prison and jails. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Irwin, J. (1980). Prisons in turmoil. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Jacobs, J. (1977). Stateville. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Gottschalk, M. (2006). The prison and the gallows. The politics of mass incarceration in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  54. Snacken S (2011) Prisons en Europe. Pour une pénologie critique et humaniste. Bruxelles: Larcier.

  55. Cliquennois, G., & Décarpes, P. (2016). The European monitoring of penal policies. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Cliquennois, G., & Champetier, B. (2013). Towards a new risk management for prisoners in France. The emergence of a death avoidance approach. Theoretical Criminology, 17(3), 297–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Cliquennois, G., & Champetier, B. (2016). The economic and political influence exerted by private foundations on cases taken by NGOs to the European court of human rights. European Law Journal, 22(1), 92–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Foucault, M. (2009). Discipline and punish : The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Cliquennois, G. (2010). Preventing suicide in French prisons. British Journal of Criminology, 50(6), 1023–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 343 chaussée de Waterloo, 1060, Brussel, Belgium

    Gaëtan Cliquennois & Sonja Snacken

Authors
  1. Gaëtan Cliquennois
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sonja Snacken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gaëtan Cliquennois.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cliquennois, G., Snacken, S. European and United Nations monitoring of penal and prison policies as a source of an inverted panopticon?. Crime Law Soc Change 70, 1–18 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9716-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9716-0

Search

Navigation