国产av不卡一区二区_欧美xxxx做受欧美_成年人看的毛片_亚洲第一天堂在线观看_亚洲午夜精品久久久中文影院av_8x8ⅹ国产精品一区二区二区_久久精品国产sm调教网站演员_亚洲av综合色区无码一二三区_成人免费激情视频_国产九九九视频

US EUROPE AFRICA ASIA 中文
China / Society

The tribunal's award in the 'South China Sea Arbitration' initiated by the Philippines is null and void

By Chinese Society of International Law (www.csil.cn) Updated: 2016-06-10 14:30

The Tribunal's Award in the "South China Sea Arbitration" Initiated by the Philippines Is Null and Void

Chinese Society of International Law

10 June 2016

Since 22 January 2013 when the Philippines unilaterally initiated arbitration with respect to certain issues in the South China Sea ("Arbitration"), China has maintained its solemn position that it would neither accept nor participate in the Arbitration, having stated that the tribunal constituted at the unilateral request of the Philippines ("Arbitral Tribunal" or "Tribunal") manifestly has no jurisdiction. On 7 December 2014, the Chinese Government released the Position Paper of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines ("Position Paper"), which elaborated on these positions. The Chinese Society of International Law strongly supports the positions of the Chinese Government.

China has indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands and the adjacent waters. The core of the disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea is issues of territorial sovereignty resulting from the Philippines' illegal seizure and occupation of certain maritime features from China in the Nash Islands, and issues concerning maritime delimitation between the two States. These are also exactly the essence of the Arbitration instituted by the Philippines.

On 29 October 2015, the Tribunal issued its Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility ("Award on Jurisdiction" or "Award"), in which it found that disputes between China and the Philippines concerning the interpretation or application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ("UNCLOS" or "Convention") existed with respect to the matters raised by the Philippines in all of its Submissions. The Tribunal further found that it had jurisdiction over some of the Submissions made by the Philippines, and reserved consideration of its jurisdiction with respect to the other Submissions to the merits phase. This finding is full of errors in both the determination of fact and the application of law, at least in the following six respects:

First, the Tribunal errs in finding that the claims made by the Philippines constitute disputes between China and the Philippines concerning the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS;

Second, the Tribunal errs in taking jurisdiction over claims which in essence are issues of sovereignty over land territory and are beyond the purview of the UNCLOS;

Third, the Tribunal errs in taking jurisdiction over claims concerning maritime delimitation which have been excluded by China from compulsory procedures in line with the UNCLOS;

Fourth, the Tribunal errs in denying that there exists between China and the Philippines an agreement to settle the disputes in question through negotiation;

Fifth, the Tribunal errs in finding that the Philippines had fulfilled the obligation to "exchange views" regarding the means of disputes settlement with respect to the claims it made;

Sixth, the Tribunal's Award deviates from the object and purpose of the dispute settlement mechanism under the UNCLOS, and impairs the integrity and authority of the Convention.

The Chinese Society of International Law is of the view that having jurisdiction over the claims is a prerequisite for the Tribunal to initiate its proceedings on merits, and a basis for the validity of any final decisions. In the present Arbitration, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over any of the claims made by the Philippines. Its Award on Jurisdiction is groundless both in fact and in law, and is thus null and void. Therefore, any decision that it may make on substantive issues in the ensuing proceedings will equally have no legal effect.

I. The Arbitral Tribunal errs in finding that the claims made by the Philippines constitute disputes between China and the Philippines concerning the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS

The Arbitral Tribunal recognizes that, under Article 288(1) of the UNCLOS, its jurisdiction is limited to "disputes concerning the interpretation and application of this Convention" (Award, para.130). The Tribunal also recognized that, to find its jurisdiction in the present Arbitration, it must be satisfied that 1) disputes existed between China and the Philippines with respect to the claims made by the Philippines, and 2) the disputes, if they existed, concerned the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS. It concludes that "disputes between the Parties concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention exist with respect to the matters raised by the Philippines in all of its Submissions in these proceedings" (Award, para.178). This conclusion, however, is untenable.

1. The Arbitral Tribunal erroneously determines that the relevant claims constitute disputes between China and the Philippines

A dispute in an international judicial or arbitral procedure is "a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests between two persons" (Award, para.149, quoting from Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Jurisdiction, Judgment of 30 August 1924, PCIJ Series A, No.2, p.11). This classic definition of "dispute" has been followed extensively in practice by the International Court of Justice ("ICJ") and other international judicial or arbitral bodies.

In international practice, to determine the existence of a dispute, one must first demonstrate that specific subject-matters on which the parties disagree have come into existence before the judicial or arbitral proceedings are initiated. As the ICJ pointed out in 2011 in the Georgia v. Russian Federation Case, a State, prior to the initiation of proceedings, "must refer to the subject-matter of the treaty with sufficient clarity to enable the State against which a claim is made to identify that there is, or may be, a dispute with regard to that subject-matter" (Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p.85, para.30, emphasis added). Second, apart from the existence of subject-matter of disagreement, one must also demonstrate that there is "clash of propositions" or "point of contention" on the same subject-matter or claim. In the South West Africa Cases, the ICJ held in 1962 that to prove the existence of a dispute, "[i]t must be shown that the claim of one party is positively opposed by the other" (Award, para.149, quoting from South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 21 December 1962, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p.328, emphasis added). Therefore, a mere assertion by one party does not suffice to prove the existence of a dispute. It must be shown that the parties maintain "opposing attitudes" or "opposite views" on the same subject-matter. It is based on these criteria that the ICJ has found the existence of a dispute in a number of cases (See e.g., Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 17 March 2016, pp.29-32, paras.67-79; Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011, pp.84-85, paras.30-31; East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1995, p.99, para.22).

In the present Arbitration, it is obvious that the Tribunal did not follow the above-mentioned rules and practice of international law in determining the existence of disputes. To take a few examples:

In its Submission No. 3, the Philippines argues that Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Dao) generates no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. In order to prove that this claim constitutes a dispute between China and the Philippines, it must be shown, with factual proof, that prior to the initiation of arbitration the Philippines had made such a claim to China and the claim had been positively opposed by China. The Tribunal should have done this, but it did not.

In its Submission No. 4, the Philippines argues that Mischief Reef (Meiji Jiao), Second Thomas Shoal (Ren'ai Jiao) and Subi Reef (Zhubi Jiao) are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. In order to prove that this claim constitutes a dispute between China and the Philippines, it must be shown, with factual proof, that prior to the initiation of arbitration the Philippines had made such a claim to China and the claim had been positively opposed by China. The Tribunal should have done this, but it did not.

In its Submission No. 6, the Philippines argues that Gaven Reef (Nanxun Jiao) and Mckennan Reef (Ximen Jiao) (including Hughes Reef (Dongmen Jiao)) are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. In order to prove that this claim constitutes a dispute between China and the Philippines, it must be shown, with factual proof, that prior to the initiation of arbitration the Philippines had made such a claim to China and the claim had been positively opposed by China. The Tribunal should have done this, but it did not.

In its Submission No. 7, the Philippines argues that Johnson Reef (Chigua Jiao), Cuarteron Reef (Huayang Jiao) and Fiery Cross Reef (Yongshu Jiao) generate no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. In order to prove that this claim constitutes a dispute between China and the Philippines, it must be shown, with factual proof, that prior to the initiation of arbitration the Philippines had made such a claim to China and the claim had been positively opposed by China. The Tribunal should have done this, but it did not.

As is clear from the above analysis, the Tribunal should have concluded that the above-mentioned claims of the Philippines did not constitute disputes between China and the Philippines. But, regrettably, the Tribunal does not apply the above-mentioned requirements to the Philippines' claims, one by one, in accordance with international law. It attempts to infer the existence of disputes between China and the Philippines with respect to the above claims, simply by bundling them together and asserting that they "reflect a dispute concerning the status of the maritime features and the source of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea" (Award, para.169, emphasis added). By generalizing claims regarding the status and maritime entitlements of "specific" features into a "general" disagreement concerning the status of maritime features and the source of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, the Tribunal, sub silentio, replaces one concept with another, in order to conceal its incapability to prove that the Philippines' claims regarding the status and maritime entitlements of the nine features constitute disputes between China and the Philippines. The Tribunal then attempts to justify its approach by asserting that a dispute concerning the maritime entitlements generated in the South China Sea "is not negated by the absence of granular exchanges with respect to each and every individual feature" (Award, para.170), without giving any legal ground for this assertion, and further, says only evasively that it must "distinguish between the dispute itself and arguments used by the parties to sustain their respective submissions on the dispute" (Award, para.170). The conclusion of the Tribunal is thus unconvincing.

In fact, there exists no real "clash of propositions" between China and the Philippines with respect to the latter's Submissions No. 3, 4, 6 and 7. China has always maintained and enjoyed territorial sovereignty over the Zhongsha Islands (including Huangyan Dao (Scarborough Shoal)) and the Nansha Islands (including the above-mentioned eight features such as Meiji Jiao (Mischief Reef)) in their entirety. It has neither expressed its position on the status of individual features referred to by the Philippines such as Huangyan Dao (Scarborough Shoal), Meiji Jiao (Mischief Reef) and Ren'ai Jiao (Second Thomas Shoal), nor claimed maritime entitlements based on individual features in question, each separately as a single feature. The Philippines, on the other hand, formulated its claims on the status and maritime entitlements of certain individual features as separate features. These facts reflect that the propositions of China and the Philippines concern different issues and do not pertain to the same subject-matters. There are no positively opposed disagreements, thus no disputes, with respect to the same subject-matters.

It is undeniable that disagreements exist between China and the Philippines with respect to issues regarding the South China Sea. However, the disagreements, in essence, concern territorial sovereignty over certain features and maritime delimitation between the two States in the South China Sea, and constitute no dispute with respect to the claims advanced by the Philippines. An international judicial or arbitral body shall address "real" disputes between "real" parties with respect to "real" issues. However, in the present Arbitration the Tribunal distorts China's arguments and erroneously finds that there exist disputes between China and the Philippines over the latter's claims.

2. The Arbitral Tribunal erroneously determines that the relevant claims concern the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS

Even if a claim constitutes a dispute, the Arbitral Tribunal would still have no jurisdiction over it if it does not concern the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS (UNCLOS, art. 288). Obviously, the interpretation or application of general international law, including customary international law, shall not be regarded as falling within the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. As written by Rothwell and Stephens, both Australian international lawyers, "[t]he Part XV dispute settlement mechanisms ... do not have jurisdiction over disputes arising under general international law" (Donald R Rothwell and Tim Stephens, The International Law of the Sea (Hart Publishing, 2010), p.452).

In the present case, in its Submissions No. 1 and 2, the Philippines in essence requests the Tribunal to declare that China's maritime entitlements in the South China Sea are beyond those permitted by the UNCLOS and thus are without lawful effect. The Tribunal finds that the relevant dispute between China and the Philippines is "a dispute about historic rights in the framework of the Convention", and "a dispute concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention" (Award, para.168). However, "historic rights" had come into existence long before the conclusion of the UNCLOS. Although the nature and scope of "historic rights" remain undetermined, it can be safely asserted that they originated from and are governed by general international law including customary international law, and rules of customary international law regarding "historic rights" operate in parallel with the UNCLOS. Accordingly, disputes concerning "historic rights" do not concern the interpretation or application of the Convention. In the Continental Shelf Case?between Tunisia and Libya, the ICJ pointed out in 1982 that "the notion of historic rights or waters … are governed by distinct legal régimes in customary international law" (Continental Shelf (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1982, p.74, para.100). Ted L. McDorman, a Canadian international lawyer, also wrote that, "whether historic rights exist is not a matter regulated by UNCLOS … when these rights involve fisheries and the resources of the continental shelf UNCLOS does become engaged" (Ted L McDorman, "Rights and jurisdiction over resources in the South China Sea: UNCLOS and the ‘nine-dash line'", in S. Jayakumar, Tommy Koh and Robert Beckman (eds.), The South China Sea Disputes and Law of the Sea (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014), p.152).

To prove that a dispute concerns the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS, it is not adequate to show that it falls within the purview of the Convention. It must also be shown that the dispute is related to certain substantive provisions of the Convention, and a real link exists between them. In the M/V "Louisa" Case, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ("ITLOS") stressed in 2013 that "it must establish a link between the facts advanced by [the Applicant] ... and the provisions of the Convention referred to by it and show that such provisions can sustain the claim or claims submitted by [the Applicant]", in deciding whether the dispute between the parties concerned the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS (The M/V "Louisa" Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Kingdom of Spain), ITLOS Case No.18, Judgment of 28 May 2013, p.32, para.99). In 2012, Wolfrum and Cot, both sitting in the present case, stated in the Ara Libertad Case that "[i]t is for the Applicant … to invoke and argue particular provisions of the Convention which plausibly support its claim and to show that the views on the interpretation of these provisions are positively opposed by the Respondent" (The "ARA Libertad" Case (Argentina v. Ghana), Provisional Measures, ITLOS Case No.20, Order of 15 December 2012, Joint Separate Opinion of Judge Wolfrum and Judge Cot, p.12, para.35). Furthermore, in the Georgia v. Russian Federation Case, Judge Koroma observed in 2011 that "a link must exist between the substantive provisions of the treaty invoked and the dispute ... any jurisdictional title founded on CERD's compromissory clause must relate to, and not fall outside, the substantive provisions of the Convention" (Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011, Separate Opinion of Judge Koroma, p.185, para.7).

In the present Arbitration, with regard to the Philippines' Submissions No. 1 and 2 concerning "historic rights", the Tribunal makes a sweeping conclusion that the relevant claims constitute a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS, without identifying which specific provisions that the "dispute" relates to, and whether a real link exists between the "dispute" and the specific provisions. The conclusion is thus groundless in law.

Previous Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page

Highlights
Hot Topics

...
男女羞羞在线观看| 五月开心婷婷久久| 久久色视频免费观看| 国产成人在线免费观看| 久久91精品久久久久久秒播| 国产精品婷婷| 亚洲激情视频| 樱桃成人精品视频在线播放| 欧美.www| 欧美激情在线| 欧美极品一区二区三区| 国产精品91一区二区三区| 精品国产一区二区三区小蝌蚪 | 欧洲日韩一区二区三区| 丁香五六月婷婷久久激情| 亚洲国产综合人成综合网站| 亚洲午夜av在线| 一区二区三区欧美久久| 亚洲激情图片一区| 一区二区三区免费在线观看| 一区二区高清免费观看影视大全| 综合欧美一区二区三区| 亚洲精品中文在线观看| 亚洲精品国产成人久久av盗摄 | 国产精品久久久久久久| 91精品蜜臀在线一区尤物| 欧美亚洲激情| 精品欧美激情在线观看| 久久99国产精品视频| 免费观看久久av| 精品国产一区二区三区av片| 成人综合一区| 99久久激情| 午夜国产欧美理论在线播放| 欧美全黄视频| 亚洲欧美日韩精品一区二区| 日日欢夜夜爽一区| 国产在线一区二区综合免费视频| 国产精品18久久久久久久久久久久 | 国语对白在线视频| 黑粗硬长欧美在线视频免费的| 免费免费啪视频在线观看| 两个人hd高清在线观看| 日韩一区二区三区中文字幕| 在线观看黄色av| 手机在线免费av| av日韩亚洲| 亚洲天堂网站| 久久a爱视频| 成人情趣视频网站| 国产精品九九| 秋霞影院一区二区| 国产高清不卡一区| 久久免费视频色| 亚洲视频一区在线| 欧美性猛交xxxx富婆| 精品视频色一区| 亚洲高清久久网| 日韩性生活视频| 久久免费视频这里只有精品| 四虎影视免费永久在线| 国产精品人人| jizz日本18| 麻豆电影在线观看| 永久免费av在线| 9765激情中文在线| 欧美日韩卡一| 色愁久久久久久| 亚洲一区 二区 三区| 男人天堂欧美日韩| 国产成人午夜电影网| 久久精品一区二区三区四区| 一区二区三区小说| 欧美日韩一区二区三区四区 | 国产精品色婷婷| 亚洲成av人片一区二区梦乃| 欧美日韩你懂的| 亚洲欧美国产视频| 国内精品久久久久久中文字幕| 久热国产视频| 中文字幕2019第三页| 亚州av中文字幕在线免费观看| 黄色免费在线网站| 91成人抖音| 私拍精品福利视频在线一区| 欧美日韩国产在线一区| 麻豆一区二区三| 久久精品视频一区| 欧美日韩国产在线播放| 精品奇米国产一区二区三区| 久久精品人人做人人爽| 性xxxxxxxxx18欧美| 2019天天操夜夜操| 国产福利第一视频在线播放| 日韩大片免费观看| 国产成人福利av| 欧美在线91| 国产精品影视在线观看| 国产精品二区一区二区aⅴ污介绍| 色综合欧美在线视频区| 精品亚洲va在线va天堂资源站| 久久久久久久一区二区| 性感小视频在线看免费| 一级二级三级在线观看| 国产亚洲成av人片在线观看 | 亚洲欧美日韩成人高清在线一区| 在线观看一区二区精品视频| 亚洲人成电影在线| 在线观看中文字幕一区| 男人资源网站| 国产在线观看免费麻豆| 日本精品久久| 91精品国产自产拍在线观看蜜| 美女网站在线免费欧美精品| 国产精品区一区二区三区| 欧美综合天天夜夜久久| 这里精品视频免费| 欧美www在线观看| 午夜成在线www| 亚洲欧洲高清| 精品国产一区二区三区香蕉沈先生 | 久久亚洲国产| 国内精品久久久久影院色| 亚洲日本va在线观看| 日韩一级在线观看| 97在线观看视频国产| 日美av在线| 黄色大片在线播放| 一区二区三区视频播放| 国产欧美一级| 欧美激情在线看| 91麻豆精品国产91久久久久 | 日韩成人在线观看视频| 国产一区亚洲| 2022国产精品视频| 日本国产一区二区| 久久精品国亚洲| 口述被爽到呻吟高潮自述| 又黄又爽在线观看| 国产成人亚洲一区二区三区| 一区二区免费不卡在线| www.66久久| 欧美日韩一级片网站| 欧美xxxx做受欧美.88| 女明星视频黄又免费| 18视频免费网址在线观看| 日韩精品一区二区三区免费视频| 亚洲韩日在线| 中文无字幕一区二区三区| 欧美一级日韩一级| 2023亚洲男人天堂| 高清色视频在线观看| 日韩精品三区| 欧美激情一区| 欧美激情在线观看视频免费| 日韩亚洲欧美一区| 中文字幕久热精品视频免费| 在线观看的av网站| 四虎成人精品一区二区免费网站| 伊人成人网在线看| 中文字幕一区在线| 亚洲激情视频在线| 国产精品bbw一区二区三区| 在线观看美女网站大全免费| 国产精伦一区二区三区| 蜜臀av国产精品久久久久| 亚洲午夜电影在线观看| 俺去了亚洲欧美日韩| juliaann成人作品在线看| а√在线中文网新版地址在线| 日本女优一区| 99国产精品一区| 欧美性猛交xxxxxxxx| 97精品视频在线观看| 最近中文视频在线| 成人av在线播放| 日韩高清电影一区| 婷婷激情综合网| 欧美猛少妇色xxxxx| 亚欧精品一区| 欧洲亚洲精品久久久久| 亚洲综合精品| 五月激情六月综合| 欧美高清视频一区二区| 欧美高潮视频| 欧美另类激情| 麻豆成人在线观看| 在线观看欧美日本| 九九热中文字幕| 自拍视频在线| 欧美日韩精品一区二区视频| 久久婷婷久久一区二区三区| 亚洲国产精品久久久久久| 性生生活性生交a级| 老色鬼在线视频| 99热这里只有成人精品国产| 亚洲午夜精品在线| 欧美激情一二三| 日本天堂在线| 神马午夜久久| 久久嫩草精品久久久精品一| 亚洲精品久久久久久久久久久| 三年片免费观看大全| 九色porny视频在线观看| 亚洲激情av| 精品二区三区线观看| 久久青草精品视频免费观看| 麻豆app在线观看| 国产成人精品免费视| 国产网站一区二区三区| 亚洲精选中文字幕| av电影资源| 91精品尤物| 成人精品国产一区二区4080| 亚洲第一精品夜夜躁人人爽 | 日日摸夜夜爽人人添av| 成人涩涩视频| 国产在线精品免费| 日韩视频123| 黄色毛片免费| 国产精品igao视频网网址不卡日韩| 韩国av一区二区| 精品久久久久久久人人人人传媒| 女生裸体免费视频| 国产成人久久精品麻豆二区| 国产一区二三区| 亚洲成人激情在线观看| eeuss影院130020部| 高清一区二区| 成人污视频在线观看| 日韩精品免费在线观看| 韩国版免费三体| 五月天亚洲色图| 中文字幕一区二区在线观看| 欧美成人高清视频| 北岛玲一区二区三区| 亚洲久久久久| 欧美日韩国产一区在线| 亚洲成人国产综合| 一二三四视频在线中文| 美女www一区二区| 精品日韩一区二区| 免费福利片在线观看| 风间由美中文字幕在线看视频国产欧美| 97成人超碰视| 久久久999国产| lutube成人福利在线观看| 欧美成人精品| 91福利区一区二区三区| 国产高清av| 四虎视频在线精品免费网址| 成人精品高清在线| 日韩中文av在线| 国产私人尤物无码不卡| 欧美二区不卡| 欧美视频一区二区| 电影eeuss影院www| 中文字幕亚洲在线观看| 国产日韩亚洲欧美综合| 欧美高清视频在线播放| 51xtv成人影院| 日韩电影免费一区| 精品国产乱码久久久久久1区2区| 4虎在线播放1区| 国产亚洲一区| 亚洲福利一二三区| 久久一本精品| 亚洲色图综合| 中文字幕国产精品一区二区| 97香蕉久久超级碰碰高清版| 成全电影大全在线观看| 久久99精品久久久久久国产越南 | 91精品国产福利在线观看| juliaann成人作品在线看| 免费视频一区三区| 亚洲超丰满肉感bbw| brazzers欧美最新版视频| 综合久久av| 中文字幕免费不卡| 57pao国产成人免费| xxxxxx欧美| 99国产一区二区三精品乱码| 久久99热精品| 91黄页在线观看| 国产成人久久精品77777最新版本| 一区二区三区国产在线观看| 永久av在线| 日本最新不卡在线| 亚洲人成电影网站色www| 77导航福利在线| 日韩激情在线观看| 亚洲男人天堂2023| 91在线视频| 免播放器亚洲一区| 一区二区三区视频在线| 麻豆视频免费在线观看| 紧缚捆绑精品一区二区| 神马国产精品影院av| 欧美14一18处毛片| 丰满白嫩尤物一区二区| 欧美夫妻性生活视频| 一二三四视频在线中文| 久久亚洲精品小早川怜子| 欧美亚洲国产另类| 另类一区二区三区| 自拍偷拍欧美激情| 在线免费电影观看| 色橹橹欧美在线观看视频高清| 午夜精品久久久久久久蜜桃app| 免费在线日本| 欧洲乱码伦视频免费| 色8久久精品久久久久久蜜| 97影院理论午夜| 午夜久久影院| 日韩成人在线视频| 麻豆av在线免费看| 国产精品一二三| 性欧美xxxx视频在线观看| av在线一区不卡| 中文字幕的久久| 国产高清在线视频| 伊人久久大香线蕉综合网蜜芽| 一本色道久久综合亚洲aⅴ蜜桃 | 手机在线免费av| 91在线国产观看| 亚洲国产视频在线观看| 99ri日韩精品视频| 一本到不卡免费一区二区| 成年人在线免费观看视频网站| 欧美日韩国产成人精品| 日韩精品视频免费在线观看| av毛片在线| 91日韩一区二区三区| 欧美色xxx| 自拍亚洲一区| 5566中文字幕一区二区电影| 牛牛澡牛牛爽一区二区| 老司机精品视频一区二区三区| 麻豆国产va免费精品高清在线| 精品国产免费人成网站| 综合久久久久久| www.色香蕉| 国产综合激情| 在线观看久久av| 亚洲欧洲自拍| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网小说| 免费黄色av网站| av成人黄色| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久| 免费观看欧美大片| 亚洲激情自拍偷拍| 国产美女玉足交| 久久久777| 欧美国产中文字幕| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 大伊人狠狠躁夜夜躁av一区| 美臀av在线| 麻豆精品一区二区| 91禁外国网站| 校花撩起jk露出白色内裤国产精品| 欧美嫩在线观看| 日本在线天堂| 久久免费午夜影院| 免费wwwxxx| 亚洲国产二区| 美女福利精品视频| 精品午夜视频| 精品视频在线免费观看| 91欧美在线视频| 91婷婷韩国欧美一区二区| 中国女人内谢25xxxx免费视频| 久久精品影视| 亚洲性无码av在线| 朝桐光一区二区| 污片在线观看一区二区| 在线观看黄色| 国产成人8x视频一区二区| 精品一区二区三区在线成人| 97精品一区二区| 在线观看欧美视频| 国产激情久久| 在线观看www91| 午夜精品一区| 中文字幕成人在线观看| 99视频免费| 蓝色福利精品导航| 影音先锋中文在线播放| 波多野结衣一区| 亚洲欧美日韩国产中文| 电影亚洲一区| 欧美自拍偷拍一区| 免费在线观看av网站| 国产欧美在线观看一区| 成人看片app| 蜜臀久久99精品久久久久久9| 91干在线观看| 精品一区二区三| 中文字幕亚洲综合久久| 国色天香久久精品国产一区| 欧美久久久久中文字幕|