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
World / Opinion

An Open Letter on the South China Sea Arbitration

(chinadaily.com.cn) Updated: 2016-07-12 19:55

An Open Letter on the South China Sea Arbitration

Overseas scholars of international law hold copies of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in hands in front of the Peace Palace in Hague, Netherlands on July 8, 2016. They try to seek justice of the international law by publicizing an open letter about scholars' professional stance on the South China Sea case. [Photo by Fu Jing/China Daily]

International courts and tribunals,

State Parties to the UNCLOS,

Scholars, students, and lawyers of international law,

All supporters to the peaceful settlement of disputes,

At the issuance of the final award of the South China Sea Arbitration (the Arbitration), we, the undersigned scholars and students of international law, hereby emphasize that the ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal (the Tribunal) has no jurisdiction over the relevant disputes, and that the Award has no binding force.

Below, we clarify that state consent is the basis of the compulsory arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the UNCLOS). We then demonstrate that the real disputes between China and the Philippines and those under the Arbitration are disputes over territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, for which there is no mutual state consent to the compulsory jurisdiction. We also show how the Philippines and the Tribunal have exceeded mutual state consent. Finally, we show that the Arbitration is neither binding nor helpful to the settlement of disputes in the South China Sea. We argue and state as follows:

I. State consent as the basis of the compulsory arbitration

There is no supra-national international judicial or arbitral organ. These international organs are established under state consent, as reflected in relevant treaties, compromis and resolutions of the UN Security Council. Thus, state consent constitutes the legal basis for these organs and defines their competence. Within the scope of state consent, an organ is legitimate. If it oversteps this scope, its legitimacy has no legal basis. Compulsory arbitration and other compulsory procedures under the Convention, as agreed upon by more than 160 countries in nine years’ negotiation, are strictly based on state consent.

Going through the UNCLOS carefully, one will easily find how state consent defines the applicability of compulsory procedures, including compulsory arbitration. First, these procedures are authorized only for disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention (Article 286). Hence, without mutual state consent, an arbitral tribunal cannot address territory disputes. Second, parties to maritime disputes can agree upon the means to settle their dispute and to exclude any further procedure, including the UNCLOS procedures, such as the compulsory arbitration (Articles 281, 282). Third, States are entitled to declare that they do not accept compulsory procedures with respect to maritime delimitation disputes and other disputes involving vital national interests (Article 298). Compulsory procedures are subject to such declarations.

With such declarations, relevant dispute may be submitted to compulsory procedures only by agreement of the parties to the dispute (Articles 286, 299). So far, 35 States, including China, have made such declarations. Fourth, negotiation and exchange of views are prior requirements to trigger compulsory procedures (Articles 279, 283, 286).

The above-mentioned limitations, exceptions and prior requirements are the major limits of state consent, which define the extent of jurisdiction of the judicial and arbitral organs under the UNCLOS. If an organ acts beyond this limits, its legitimacy will have no legal basis. It is notable that, by recognizing the “competence-competence” (a court/tribunal’s power to decide on disputes as to whether it has jurisdiction; Article 288.4), the UNCLOS indicates no intention to reduce the above limits and to grant additional power. The “competence-competence” must also be exercised within the limits of state consent.

II. The real disputes in the Arbitration are territorial dispute and maritime delimitation

There are solid legal bases for China’s sovereignty over the Dongsha Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands and Nansha Islands in the South China Sea (hereinafter collectively referred to as the SCS Islands) and the adjacent waters. The Chinese people were the first to discover, name and develop these Islands, and China’s original title thus acquired has been maintained by its continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty ever since. In addition, China’s sovereignty over these Islands is also reflected in the 1943 Cairo Declaration, the 1945 Potsdam Declaration and subsequent international legal documents.

On the other hand, the Philippine territory has nothing to do with the SCS Islands. All the SCS Islands are located to the west of 118 degrees east, which is the westernmost limit of the Philippine territory, as defined by the 1898 US-Spain Treaty of Peace, the 1900 US-Spain Treaty for Cession of Outlying Islands of the Philippines, the 1930 US-UK Convention Delimiting the Boundary between the Philippines Archipelago and State of North Borneo, as well as the 1935 Philippine Constitution and the 1961 Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines.

In the 1970s, the Philippines invaded eight maritime features of the SCS Islands, which gave rise to the territorial disputes between China and the Philippines. Later on, with the negotiation of the UNCLOS in process, the Philippines expanded its maritime claims, which overlapped with China’s and led to their maritime delimitation disputes.

The real disputes in the South China Sea are therefore of and about territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. According to the principle that the land dominates the sea, with the territorial dispute pending, the coastal State, and the relevant coast and relevant areas for delimitation, cannot be determined; consequently, the task of delimitation cannot start. Therefore, the territory and delimitation disputes in the South China Sea are closely intertwined, and the territorial dispute is predominant.

In the Arbitration, the Philippines raised three categories of inter-related submissions, on the validity of the U-shaped line, on the status/entitlements of maritime features and on China’s interference in the Philippines’ sovereign rights. And the Philippines asserted that these submissions are not relevant to the territorial and delimitation disputes. Careful examination can easily pierce the veil:

First, the U-shaped line depicts China’s sovereignty over the SCS Islands, thus the submissions regarding the line concern the sovereignty of the Islands. In addition, in the Philippine submissions, the line is asserted as representing China’s maritime claim. If the Philippine assertion is correct, resolving the disputes on the U-shaped line is plainly part of the delimitation process, as “the task of the delimitation involves resolving overlapping claims” (Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea, para. 77).

Second, the submissions on maritime entitlements are inalienable parts of the delimitation process, and are closely related to territorial disputes. According to the established jurisprudence, the first step of any delimitation is to determine whether there are entitlements and whether they overlap (Bangladesh v. Myanmar, para. 397; Barbados /Trinidad and Tobago, para. 224). Further, as maritime entitlements are granted to coastal States, the determination of coastal States, i.e. the settlement of territorial disputes, is a precondition for ascertaining maritime entitlements.

Third, the submissions on the legality of China’s activities are dependent on the settlement of the territorial and delimitation disputes. These submissions reflect the existence of disputed areas, and cannot be addressed without the settlement of the underlying territory and delimitation disputes.

As demonstrated above, all the Philippine submissions are either territorial and delimitation disputes per se, or subsequent to the underlying disputes. In other words, the real disputes in the Arbitration are those regarding territory and maritime delimitation. With respect to the jurisdiction, the UNCLOS does not address territorial disputes, and delimitation disputes have been excluded from compulsory procedures by China’s declaration under Article 298. Therefore, the disputes in the Arbitration are beyond mutual state consent to compulsory jurisdiction.

III. The abuse of legal process and ultra vires acts in the Arbitration

As elaborated in Section I, State Parties to the UNCLOS agree to be bound by the compulsory procedures, but only under the circumstances set out in Articles 281, 282, 286, 298 and 299 of the Convention. To maintain the balance and compromise in the Convention, Article 300 requires that right and jurisdiction shall be exercised in a manner that would not constitute an abuse; Article 294 further provides preliminary proceedings to address claims that might constitute abuses of legal process. These non-abuse requirements serve an essential role in safeguarding the overarching principle of state consent. However, the South China Sea Arbitration demonstrates how the legal process is abused by one party to the dispute, and how the arbitral organ acts beyond its power.

The abuse of legal process by the Philippines is apparent. To trigger the Arbitration, the Philippines tried everything possible to exceed the limits of mutual state consent, by disguising the real disputes, by circumventing China’s declaration, and by degrading the bilateral and regional agreements on resolving disputes through negotiation. In so doing, no good faith was demonstrated. Furthermore, according to the explicit provisions in the UNCLOS, given China’s declaration, the Philippines has no right at all to unilaterally initiate the arbitration (Articles 286, 299).

The ultra vires (acts beyond one's legal power or authority) by the Arbitral Tribunal is also obvious. Given China’s declaration, the establishment and functioning of the Tribunal has no legal basis (Article 286). With its legitimacy in doubt, the Tribunal further exceeded the limits of state consent by wrongly establishing its jurisdiction, particularly by the following ultra vires acts:

The Tribunal has restricted the rights of States to exclude compulsory procedures with declarations under Article 298 of the UNCLOS. According to the customary rule for treaty interpretation, i.e. the textual approach and good faith principle as enshrined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 298 of the UNCLOS grants States the right to exclude compulsory procedures with respect to all disputes on or concerning the whole delimitation process. By endorsing the Philippine assertion that the Arbitration is irrelevant to territorial dispute and delimitation, the Tribunal has overlooked the relationship among territorial dispute, delimitation and the issue of entitlement. It has also disregarded the terms “concerning” and “relating to” in Article 298, and has neglected the jurisprudence that the first step of any delimitation is to determine whether there are entitlements, and that the task of delimitation involves resolving overlapping claims. With such a fragmentary approach, the Tribunal has not only failed to isolate the real disputes, but has also largely nullified the right of States by only recognizing the right to exclude compulsory procedures with respect to disputes on the final determination of the maritime boundary line.

In addition, the Tribunal has restrictively interpreted the right of States to opt out compulsory procedures by entering into agreements among themselves. With the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea and a series of bilateral documents, China and the Philippines have repeatedly agreed and undertaken to resolve their disputes through friendly negotiations and consultations. By the Joint Statement on August 10, 1995, and on May 16, 2000, the two countries have also agreed to “eventually” negotiate a settlement of their bilateral disputes. The term “eventually” clearly indicates that negotiation is the only means chosen by the two States for resolving their disputes, and that other means including compulsory arbitration have been excluded, because “the absence of an express exclusion of any procedure is not decisive” for States to exercise the rights to exclude further procedures by their agreement (the Southern Bluefin Tuna arbitration, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, para. 57). Nonetheless, despite the previous case law and with no basis in the Convention, the Tribunal interpreted that the compulsory procedures could only be excluded explicitly, and consequently set an unreasonably higher standard to limit States’ right.

IV. The Awards are neither binding nor helpful

According to the UNCLOS, the Awards of the Tribunal shall have no binding force. States shall comply with the decision rendered by a court or tribunal, but only insofar as the court or tribunal has jurisdiction (Article 296.1). The current Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the real disputes in the Arbitration, and its ultra vires acts could create neither jurisdiction nor binding force; consequently, its Awards do not meet the qualification of being complied.

Alternatively, according to Article 296.2, the decision of a court or tribunal shall have no binding force except in respect of that particular dispute at issue. Since the Philippines and the Tribunal have reiterated, time and again, that the Arbitration concerns neither territorial dispute nor delimitation, the Awards shall have no effects in respect of the territory and delimitation disputes in the South China Sea.

Moreover, the Arbitration is detrimental to the settlement of disputes. The fragmentary approach employed by the Philippines and the Tribunal, and their degradation of existing bilateral and regional agreements, are not helpful to the ongoing efforts for managing and resolving disputes in the South China Sea, and will only be counterproductive. Besides, the abuse of legal process and ultra vires will break the balance of the UNCLOS dispute settlement regime and contravene procedural justice.

In conclusion, the real disputes in the Arbitration are those about territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, both of which are beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. By obscuring the real disputes and bypassing the limits to compulsory procedures, the Philippines does abuse the legal process, and the Tribunal does exceed the state consent and act ultra vires. According to Article 296, the Awards on jurisdiction and on merits will have no binding force whatsoever.

Bearing in mind the significance of state consent as the very foundation of international judicial/arbitral organs,

Concerned about the abuse of legal process and ultra vires acts in the South China Sea Arbitration,

Noting the dangerous tendency towards the judicial/arbitral expansion in the field of the law of the sea, and,

Worried about the degradation of the role of State’s negotiation,

We hereby:

Request international judicial and arbitral organs to act strictly within their mandate under international law, to faithfully fulfill their duty in identifying the real dispute between parties, to adjudicate within the realm of their jurisdiction and to avoid acting ultra vires. The arbitral tribunals, ad hoc as they are, shall still be responsible for the overall and long-term functioning of the UNCLOS without breaking the balance contained therein, and shall show their respects for the consent of relevant State Parties.

Urge the Philippines to unconditionally terminate its illegal occupation of the Chinese maritime features in the South China Sea, to stop all activities that may escalate regional tension, to withdraw the claims that are inconsistent with the facts and law, and to solve maritime disputes with its neighbors in good faith.

Call upon all State Parties to the UNCLOS to join China in the efforts to combat abuse of legal process and ultra vires, to adopt all necessary measures, including practical guidance to the judicial/arbitral organs, so that the judicial/arbitral powers are exercised in a way consistent with state consent in the Convention.

Invite scholars, students and lawyers of international law to further study the UNCLOS disputes settlement mechanism so as to contribute to the peaceful settlement of disputes in the South China Sea dispute.

Trudeau visits Sina Weibo
May gets little gasp as EU extends deadline for sufficient progress in Brexit talks
Ethiopian FM urges strengthened Ethiopia-China ties
Yemen's ex-president Saleh, relatives killed by Houthis
Most Popular
Hot Topics

...
日韩成人一区| 欧美午夜影院一区| 国产精品成人免费| 99国产一区二区三精品乱码| 麻豆精品视频在线| 伊人久久婷婷| 91精品精品| 伊人久久大香线蕉无限次| 国产视频网站一区二区三区| 中文字幕乱码在线播放| 99福利在线| 777电影在线观看| 国产精品一区免费在线 | 久久天堂电影| 97视频免费| 毛片基地一级大毛片| 欧美最猛黑人xxxxwww| 97视频在线看| 久久久久久久久久久久av| 久久精品视频在线| 日日骚久久av| 在线日韩日本国产亚洲| 亚洲欧美日韩视频一区| 日韩欧美综合在线| 日韩视频一区二区在线观看| 7777精品伊人久久久大香线蕉完整版 | 国产亚洲欧洲在线| 亚洲免费视频在线观看| 亚洲国产精品大全| 亚洲第一区第二区| 亚洲第一网站免费视频| 亚洲国产成人av在线| 精品999久久久| 亚洲第一国产精品| 日韩成人在线观看| 日韩精品久久久久久久玫瑰园| 欧美不卡视频一区| 精品久久人人做人人爰| 欧美mv和日韩mv的网站| 精品国产制服丝袜高跟| 精品第一国产综合精品aⅴ| 欧美精品一区二区久久婷婷| 精品国产凹凸成av人网站| 91精品国产91久久久久久最新毛片 | www视频在线观看| 136福利第一导航国产在线| 黑人极品ⅴideos精品欧美棵| 免费在线中文字幕| 午夜激情在线| 九色porny自拍视频在线播放| 天堂资源在线| 日本一区二区三区视频在线| 草莓视频成人appios| 国产精品一区二区免费福利视频 | 九色porny丨首页入口在线| 最近高清中文在线字幕在线观看1| 免费污视频在线| 小h片在线观看| se01亚洲视频| 色婷婷成人网| 亚洲欧美日本国产| 日韩精品免费一区二区夜夜嗨 | 999国产在线视频| 嫩草在线视频| 欧美大胆的人体xxxx| 亚洲精品永久免费视频| 青青久久精品| 欧美9999| 亚洲97av| 91精品国产91久久久久久密臀| 亚洲午夜极品| 日韩av一区二区三区| 国产一区 二区 三区一级| www.欧美精品一二区| 久久婷婷久久一区二区三区| 国产精品高潮久久久久无| 亚洲午夜羞羞片| 欧美亚日韩国产aⅴ精品中极品| 欧美久久免费观看| 亚洲精品mp4| 精品国产一区二区三区在线观看| 久久久在线免费观看| 欧美激情亚洲激情| 欧美孕妇与黑人巨交| 免费黄网大全| 日本韩国福利视频| 高清av在线| 成人女同在线观看| 成人av色网站| 蜜桃a∨噜噜一区二区三区| 成人羞羞网站入口| 亚洲高清电影| 国产制服丝袜一区| 久久综合色8888| 伊人性伊人情综合网| 在线观看日韩电影| 精品福利av导航| 久久天天躁狠狠躁夜夜爽蜜月| 91干在线观看| 一个人免费观看日本www视频| 爆操妹子视频在线观看| 国产黄色片在线观看| h片精品在线观看| 99re8精品视频在线观看| 九九久久精品| 亚洲一区二区三区高清| 久久成人av少妇免费| 久久色视频免费观看| 亚洲国产精品久久人人爱蜜臀| 欧美日韩在线观看一区二区| 亚洲欧美激情精品一区二区| 国模精品视频一区二区| 一色屋免费视频| 日本一二三区视频免费高清| 免费黄色电影在线观看| 蜜桃视频成人m3u8| re久久精品视频| 性感少妇一区| 97久久精品人人做人人爽50路| 曰韩精品一区二区| 在线播放国产精品二区一二区四区| 亚洲欧美日本精品| 亚洲视频色图| jizzjizzjizzjizz日本老师| 青青草视频在线观看| 黄色aa久久| 日韩最新av| 欧美成人有码| 国产成人自拍网| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久久久| 欧美日韩综合在线免费观看| 中日韩午夜理伦电影免费 | 男女在线观看视频| a看欧美黄色女同性恋| 欧美日韩成人| a亚洲天堂av| 婷婷中文字幕综合| 日韩毛片在线观看| 777琪琪电影午夜理伦片| 男人资源网站| 91麻豆免费在线视频| 欧美一级免费| 欧美 日韩 国产精品免费观看| 国产精品一区二区三区四区| 亚洲美女精品一区| 亚洲精品一区在线观看| 91精品国产91| 公交车上扒开嫩j挺进去 | 日韩精品系列| 日韩天堂在线| 99国产精品一区二区| 国产一区二区三区在线观看免费| 国产精品私房写真福利视频| 欧美精品 日韩| 欧美另类极品videosbest最新版本 | 91污色多多| 国产探花在线观看| 久久免费视频66| 玖玖精品视频| 亚洲蜜臀av乱码久久精品蜜桃| 日韩午夜电影在线观看| 91精品国产免费久久久久久 | 亚洲欧美另类中文字幕| 欧美爆操老女人| 校园春色欧美| 亚洲欧洲二区| 亚洲承认在线| 久久婷婷综合激情| 欧美美女直播网站| 97国产suv精品一区二区62| 成人黄色影视| 国产美女精品写真福利视频| 欧美亚洲高清| 激情综合五月婷婷| 亚洲不卡一区二区三区| 中文字幕一区电影| 136福利视频| 手机在线免费av| 日韩欧美视频在线播放| www.亚洲色图.com| 欧美放荡的少妇| 91福利视频网| 深夜视频在线免费| 欧美第一在线视频| 巨乳诱惑日韩免费av| 亚洲欧洲综合另类在线| 亚洲视频第一页| 人人干人人爱人人爱| av网站大全在线| av中文字幕一区二区| av亚洲精华国产精华精华| 色综合欧美在线视频区| 欧美猛交免费看| 天堂av免费观看| 99久久婷婷国产综合精品首页| 在线欧美一区| 国产精品久久久99| 亚洲一区av在线播放| 黄色高清视频在线观看| jizz一区二区三区| 欧美日韩福利| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品播放| 日韩av中文字幕在线免费观看| 国产大奶在线| 伊人222成人综合网| 99热国内精品| 国产精品久久久久久户外露出 | 国产精品久久久久久久久久久免费看 | 瑟瑟在线观看| 国产精品天天看天天狠| 国产精品一区免费视频| 337p亚洲精品色噜噜噜| 午夜精品久久久久久久久久久久| 在线香蕉视频| 国产精品2023| 懂色av中文一区二区三区| 91精品国产色综合久久ai换脸| 欧美午夜性囗交xxxx| 九义人在线观看完整免费版电视剧| 国产综合久久久| 国产日韩精品一区| 日韩成人网免费视频| 黄色片免费大全| 日韩精品一区二区三区av| 久久精品女人| 欧美亚洲国产一区二区三区| 思思久久99热只有频精品66| 国产中文字幕在线| 欧美日韩中字| 亚洲色图清纯唯美| 亚洲色图狂野欧美| 国产激情99| 亚洲精品国产九九九| 粉嫩av亚洲一区二区图片| 亚洲综合视频| 91精品国产一区二区在线观看| 久久国产精品99精品国产| 欧美福利视频导航| 先锋影音中文字幕| а√天堂资源地址在线下载| 欧美日本不卡| 精品成人国产在线观看男人呻吟| 97国产suv精品一区二区62| 成人免费在线视频网| 91一区二区| 亚洲最快最全在线视频| 久久久免费在线观看| av网站在线播放| 婷婷综合社区| 亚洲国产精品一区二区尤物区| 性欧美办公室18xxxxhd| 午夜激情视频在线| 国产一区亚洲| 欧美性xxxx极品hd欧美风情| 欧美性猛交xxxx免费看久久| www 日韩| 欧美日韩国产色综合一二三四| 同产精品九九九| 热99re久久精品精品免费| heyzo一区| 99精品免费| 欧美日韩精品欧美日韩精品| 五福影院新址进入www1378| 欧美高清影院| 国产一区二区在线看| 日韩av在线免费| 嫩草懂你的影院| 亚洲人成网77777色在线播放| 国产婷婷色一区二区三区在线| 日韩在线激情视频| 国产在线日本| 亚洲视频一二| 天天影视涩香欲综合网| 九九视频精品在线| 欧美精品成人在线| 在线观看岛国片| 9999精品免费视频| 久久蜜臀中文字幕| 欧美国产日韩xxxxx| 欧美亚洲天堂| 国产乱码精品一区二区三区五月婷| 国产亚洲精品一区二555| 日本免费视频在线观看| 日韩高清国产一区在线| 亚洲精选一区二区| gogogo高清在线观看免费完整版| 亚洲一区二区动漫| 亚洲国产天堂久久综合网| 美丽的姑娘在线观看免费动漫| 伊人成年综合电影网| 欧美一级黄色片| h网站在线播放| 午夜精品久久| 日韩一级欧美一级| 在线一区观看| 国产精品丝袜xxxxxxx| 精品成人在线观看| 噜噜噜噜噜在线视频| 麻豆精品91| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久777| 欧美激情午夜| 麻豆一区二区99久久久久| 在线观看日韩www视频免费| 91国内在线| 国产成人自拍高清视频在线免费播放| 久久夜精品va视频免费观看| √8天堂资源地址中文在线| 不卡视频在线观看| 午夜精品一区二区三区av| 国产成人精品123区免费视频| 国产日产欧美一区| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| jizzjizzjizz欧美| 欧美日韩精品在线视频| www.av99| 综合一区在线| 亚洲第一网站免费视频| 网友自拍视频在线| 台湾佬中文娱乐久久久| 精品盗摄女厕tp美女嘘嘘| 欧美曰成人黄网| 中文字字幕在线中文乱码电影| 国产日韩亚洲| 在线观看视频亚洲| 高清在线视频不卡| 国产拍揄自揄精品视频麻豆| 免费精品国产自产拍在| 午夜精品影视国产一区在线麻豆| 在线观看亚洲专区| 8×8x拔擦拔擦在线视频网站| 亚洲久色影视| 中文字幕久久亚洲| 亚洲黄色网址| 日韩美女视频19| jizzjizzjizz中国| 欧美激情五月| 亚洲欧洲高清在线| 成年人国产在线观看| 国产日韩欧美不卡| 色偷偷网站视频| 欧美丰满日韩| 亚洲风情亚aⅴ在线发布| 免费a级在线播放| 99精品黄色片免费大全| 天堂精品高清1区2区3区| 天美av一区二区三区久久| 欧美日韩一级片在线观看| 日韩av地址| 国产一区二区三区不卡在线观看| 91成人天堂久久成人| 国产精品中文字幕制服诱惑| 欧美日韩三级在线| 成人福利在线| 99综合电影在线视频| 欧美黑人双插| 久久综合国产| 日韩高清免费观看| 性欧美又大又长又硬| 亚洲另类中文字| 超级碰碰视频| 日韩黄色免费电影| 欧美激情按摩在线| av不卡一区二区| 制服.丝袜.亚洲.另类.中文| 香蕉视频免费在线播放| 93久久精品日日躁夜夜躁欧美| 麻豆国产原创| 一级欧洲+日本+国产| 中文字幕在线精品| 国产91在线播放精品| 福利一区视频在线观看| 69av在线视频| 深夜福利免费在线观看| 国产成人精品三级| 精品福利影院| 欧美淫片网站| 久久久www成人免费精品张筱雨| 欧美综合社区国产| 欧美在线色视频| 色多多视频在线观看| 国产日韩欧美电影| 99色在线播放| 老司机一区二区| www.四虎.com| 午夜精品视频一区二区三区在线看| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网久久久| 欧美日韩五区| 色天使色偷偷av一区二区| 成人亚洲综合天堂| 欧美国产日本韩| 国产黄色免费电影| 国产乱码精品一区二区三| 国产精品日日爱| 一区二区三区成人精品| 久久久之久亚州精品露出| 免费精品国产| 亚洲美女视频网| 国产精品毛片无码| 69堂亚洲精品首页| av资源网在线播放|