The Supreme Court of Canada heard appeals from three provincial references concerning the constitutionality of a federal statute, theGreenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.1 The question was whether Parliament had legislative jurisdiction to enact the law or whether, instead, the law concerned matters of provincial legislative jurisdiction. Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Alberta contended that the first two parts of the Act (establishing a so-called “carbon tax” fuel charge applicable to producers, distributors, and importers and creating a pricing mechanism for industrial greenhouse gas emissions) and its four schedules impermissibly trenched on the legislative competence of the provinces. Canada contended that the Act came within Parliament’s
{"title":"Canadian Cases in Public International Law in 2021","authors":"Gib van Ert, Dahlia Shuhaibar","doi":"10.1017/cyl.2022.25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cyl.2022.25","url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court of Canada heard appeals from three provincial references concerning the constitutionality of a federal statute, theGreenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.1 The question was whether Parliament had legislative jurisdiction to enact the law or whether, instead, the law concerned matters of provincial legislative jurisdiction. Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Alberta contended that the first two parts of the Act (establishing a so-called “carbon tax” fuel charge applicable to producers, distributors, and importers and creating a pricing mechanism for industrial greenhouse gas emissions) and its four schedules impermissibly trenched on the legislative competence of the provinces. Canada contended that the Act came within Parliament’s","PeriodicalId":52441,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian yearbook of international law. Annuaire canadien de droit international","volume":"59 1","pages":"565 - 583"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45498195","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Résumé Cet article s’efforce de démontrer que la détermination de l’objet du différend par la Cour internationale de Justice (CIJ) est une constante dans l’appréciation de sa compétence ratione materiae dans le contentieux des mesures conservatoires. D’une part, l’objet du différend fonde la compétence ratione materiae de l’organe judiciaire principal de l’Organisation des Nations Unies (ONU), à travers la clause compromissoire contenue dans le traité liant les parties au différend, et d’autre part, cette compétence conditionne la détermination de l’objet du différend. L’influence réciproque des deux notions en fait des notions clefs du contentieux des mesures conservatoires devant la CIJ. Par ailleurs, l’interprétation de son pouvoir d’indication des mesures conservatoires au titre de l’article 41, paragraphe 1, du Statut de la Cour internationale de Justice confère à la cour la possibilité d’en indiquer aux fins de non-aggravation du différend, dont le sens et la portée soulèvent de sérieuses interrogations. Au-delà des questionnements portant sur leur possible “déconnection” de l’objet du différend et de la fonction des mesures conservatoires, les mesures conservatoires indiquées aux fins de non-aggravation du différend participeraient d’une certaine manière des buts et principes de l’ONU et plus précisément du maintien de la paix et de la sécurité internationales.
{"title":"La détermination de l’objet du différend et la compétence ratione materiae dans le contentieux des mesures conservatoires devant la Cour internationale de Justice","authors":"Amara Kone","doi":"10.1017/cyl.2022.21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cyl.2022.21","url":null,"abstract":"Résumé Cet article s’efforce de démontrer que la détermination de l’objet du différend par la Cour internationale de Justice (CIJ) est une constante dans l’appréciation de sa compétence ratione materiae dans le contentieux des mesures conservatoires. D’une part, l’objet du différend fonde la compétence ratione materiae de l’organe judiciaire principal de l’Organisation des Nations Unies (ONU), à travers la clause compromissoire contenue dans le traité liant les parties au différend, et d’autre part, cette compétence conditionne la détermination de l’objet du différend. L’influence réciproque des deux notions en fait des notions clefs du contentieux des mesures conservatoires devant la CIJ. Par ailleurs, l’interprétation de son pouvoir d’indication des mesures conservatoires au titre de l’article 41, paragraphe 1, du Statut de la Cour internationale de Justice confère à la cour la possibilité d’en indiquer aux fins de non-aggravation du différend, dont le sens et la portée soulèvent de sérieuses interrogations. Au-delà des questionnements portant sur leur possible “déconnection” de l’objet du différend et de la fonction des mesures conservatoires, les mesures conservatoires indiquées aux fins de non-aggravation du différend participeraient d’une certaine manière des buts et principes de l’ONU et plus précisément du maintien de la paix et de la sécurité internationales.","PeriodicalId":52441,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian yearbook of international law. Annuaire canadien de droit international","volume":"59 1","pages":"133 - 170"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45448391","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The expression “living resources” occurs thirty-eight times in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), but the latter does not give any legal definition of the term. The integration of environmental law taxonomy, such as biodiversity, in the evolution of the law of the sea has added to confusion regarding the meaning of “marine living resources.” To clarify the meaning of this expression and its legal scope in the evolution of the law of the sea, it is necessary to analyze the context of its use in UNCLOS and, more broadly, in the legal regime governing marine resources. This article aims to clarify the origins and extent of the confusion regarding the meaning of marine living resources and to analyze how the use of a broader semantic field in different legal instruments and other sources of international law has shaped the legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of marine living resources.
{"title":"The Concept of “Marine Living Resources”: Navigating a Grey Zone in the Law of the Sea","authors":"Vonintsoa Rafaly","doi":"10.1017/cyl.2022.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cyl.2022.14","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The expression “living resources” occurs thirty-eight times in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), but the latter does not give any legal definition of the term. The integration of environmental law taxonomy, such as biodiversity, in the evolution of the law of the sea has added to confusion regarding the meaning of “marine living resources.” To clarify the meaning of this expression and its legal scope in the evolution of the law of the sea, it is necessary to analyze the context of its use in UNCLOS and, more broadly, in the legal regime governing marine resources. This article aims to clarify the origins and extent of the confusion regarding the meaning of marine living resources and to analyze how the use of a broader semantic field in different legal instruments and other sources of international law has shaped the legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of marine living resources.","PeriodicalId":52441,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian yearbook of international law. Annuaire canadien de droit international","volume":"59 1","pages":"285 - 312"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46713407","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"At Global Affairs Canada in 2021","authors":"Alan H. Kessel","doi":"10.1017/cyl.2022.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cyl.2022.9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":52441,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian yearbook of international law. Annuaire canadien de droit international","volume":"59 1","pages":"494 - 516"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41350831","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Résumé La schématisation de l’obligation juridique sous la forme d’une obligation de comportement ou de résultat poursuit un objectif cognitif tendant à en déterminer l’objet et l’exécution. Toutefois, en droit international, la démarche informe très souvent une logique de catégorisation. Or, dans les rapports de systèmes, le droit interne n’est pas seulement l’objet de l’obligation internationale, il est dans certains contextes la condition de son exécution. Par ailleurs, du fait de l’insuffisant accommodement de la schématisation à l’ontologie de l’obligation internationale, les doctrines dualiste et civiliste qui inspirent ses cadres de pensée en obèrent la valeur heuristique. Après avoir relevé l’incidence de ce porte-à-faux sur la saisie phénoménologique de l’illicéité, l’auteur suggère d’envisager l’obligation juridique sous la forme d’une proposition hypothétique. Cette démarche permet, en amont, d’identifier la position logique du droit interne dans l’obligation internationale; en aval, de mettre en lumière la part que prend son incompatibilité dans la concrétisation de l’illicéité.
{"title":"Réflexions épistémologiques sur l’illicéité résultant de l’incompatibilité du droit interne par rapport au droit international","authors":"Emmanuel Simo","doi":"10.1017/cyl.2022.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cyl.2022.18","url":null,"abstract":"Résumé La schématisation de l’obligation juridique sous la forme d’une obligation de comportement ou de résultat poursuit un objectif cognitif tendant à en déterminer l’objet et l’exécution. Toutefois, en droit international, la démarche informe très souvent une logique de catégorisation. Or, dans les rapports de systèmes, le droit interne n’est pas seulement l’objet de l’obligation internationale, il est dans certains contextes la condition de son exécution. Par ailleurs, du fait de l’insuffisant accommodement de la schématisation à l’ontologie de l’obligation internationale, les doctrines dualiste et civiliste qui inspirent ses cadres de pensée en obèrent la valeur heuristique. Après avoir relevé l’incidence de ce porte-à-faux sur la saisie phénoménologique de l’illicéité, l’auteur suggère d’envisager l’obligation juridique sous la forme d’une proposition hypothétique. Cette démarche permet, en amont, d’identifier la position logique du droit interne dans l’obligation internationale; en aval, de mettre en lumière la part que prend son incompatibilité dans la concrétisation de l’illicéité.","PeriodicalId":52441,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian yearbook of international law. Annuaire canadien de droit international","volume":"59 1","pages":"36 - 79"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44330822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract A number of maritime delimitation disputes, the resolution of which has been referred to international courts or tribunals, include overlapping outer continental shelf claims without relevant recommendations from the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) in support of the claimed entitlements. The case law of courts and tribunals regarding the exercise of jurisdiction over such disputes has developed and appears now somewhat crystallized in a common understanding. Yet numerous uncertainties remain, which have arisen from the non-homogeneous approaches that underlie the decisions of courts and tribunals to exercise jurisdiction in the absence of recommendations from the CLCS. While courts and tribunals share the view that delimitation necessarily requires a prior determination of entitlement, differences appear in defining the threshold for ascertaining such a determination. In any event, treating submissions to delimit such claimed overlaps as admissible in the absence of recommendations from the CLCS may entail significant risks. Where a plea is considered admissible, a court or tribunal will not have unfettered discretion as to whether to exercise jurisdiction. This may result in unfortunate situations as it cannot be assumed that the CLCS will accept coastal states’ proposed outer limits of the continental shelf.
{"title":"The Delimitation of Outer Continental Shelf Areas: A Critical Analysis of Courts’ and Tribunals’ Heterogeneous Approaches","authors":"Bjørn Kunoy","doi":"10.1017/cyl.2022.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cyl.2022.15","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A number of maritime delimitation disputes, the resolution of which has been referred to international courts or tribunals, include overlapping outer continental shelf claims without relevant recommendations from the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) in support of the claimed entitlements. The case law of courts and tribunals regarding the exercise of jurisdiction over such disputes has developed and appears now somewhat crystallized in a common understanding. Yet numerous uncertainties remain, which have arisen from the non-homogeneous approaches that underlie the decisions of courts and tribunals to exercise jurisdiction in the absence of recommendations from the CLCS. While courts and tribunals share the view that delimitation necessarily requires a prior determination of entitlement, differences appear in defining the threshold for ascertaining such a determination. In any event, treating submissions to delimit such claimed overlaps as admissible in the absence of recommendations from the CLCS may entail significant risks. Where a plea is considered admissible, a court or tribunal will not have unfettered discretion as to whether to exercise jurisdiction. This may result in unfortunate situations as it cannot be assumed that the CLCS will accept coastal states’ proposed outer limits of the continental shelf.","PeriodicalId":52441,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian yearbook of international law. Annuaire canadien de droit international","volume":"59 1","pages":"200 - 232"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47987139","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In 2021, the United States challenged Canadian dairy import tariff rate quotas (TRQs) before the first state-to-state arbitration panel under Chapter 31 of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). The panel held that the method of allocation of TRQs limited the US dairy industry’s access to the Canadian market and therefore violated CUSMA provisions. However, the panel also acknowledged that the Canadian supply management system for dairy products is a unique regulatory framework for production control, pricing mechanisms, and import control. This article explores the case as a test of the functioning of the improved CUSMA dispute settlement process and of Canada’s ability to protect its supply management system for dairy products from renewed pressure coming from its most important trade partner.
{"title":"The First Challenge to Canada’s Supply Management System under CUSMA: Tweaking the Supply Management System One Dispute at a Time","authors":"L. Biukovic","doi":"10.1017/cyl.2022.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cyl.2022.16","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 2021, the United States challenged Canadian dairy import tariff rate quotas (TRQs) before the first state-to-state arbitration panel under Chapter 31 of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). The panel held that the method of allocation of TRQs limited the US dairy industry’s access to the Canadian market and therefore violated CUSMA provisions. However, the panel also acknowledged that the Canadian supply management system for dairy products is a unique regulatory framework for production control, pricing mechanisms, and import control. This article explores the case as a test of the functioning of the improved CUSMA dispute settlement process and of Canada’s ability to protect its supply management system for dairy products from renewed pressure coming from its most important trade partner.","PeriodicalId":52441,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian yearbook of international law. Annuaire canadien de droit international","volume":"59 1","pages":"341 - 364"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48963983","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Over the last decade, there has been a spate of incidents in Canada and the United States involving Saudi Arabian nationals who, while out on bail for predominantly sexual crimes, were able to abscond from the countries despite having surrendered their passports. Investigation has revealed evidence supporting a reasonable inference that the government of Saudi Arabia has, in fact, assisted its nationals to escape on these occasions. This article makes the case that this kind of conduct amounts not just to unfriendly acts but also to infringements upon the territorial sovereignty of both states and serious breaches of the international law of jurisdiction. It surveys the possible remedies available to both injured states and, in light of the fact that neither state has sought any such remedy, examines possible remedial routes for the victims of the Saudi nationals’ crimes. It remarks upon the utter failure of either Canada or the United States to address these acts, concluding that such wilful neglect both corrodes sovereignty and undermines the will to address sexual crimes.
{"title":"State Responsibility for International Bail Jumping","authors":"R. Currie, E. Matheson","doi":"10.1017/cyl.2022.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cyl.2022.12","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Over the last decade, there has been a spate of incidents in Canada and the United States involving Saudi Arabian nationals who, while out on bail for predominantly sexual crimes, were able to abscond from the countries despite having surrendered their passports. Investigation has revealed evidence supporting a reasonable inference that the government of Saudi Arabia has, in fact, assisted its nationals to escape on these occasions. This article makes the case that this kind of conduct amounts not just to unfriendly acts but also to infringements upon the territorial sovereignty of both states and serious breaches of the international law of jurisdiction. It surveys the possible remedies available to both injured states and, in light of the fact that neither state has sought any such remedy, examines possible remedial routes for the victims of the Saudi nationals’ crimes. It remarks upon the utter failure of either Canada or the United States to address these acts, concluding that such wilful neglect both corrodes sovereignty and undermines the will to address sexual crimes.","PeriodicalId":52441,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian yearbook of international law. Annuaire canadien de droit international","volume":"59 1","pages":"104 - 132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49031074","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article deals with the sea level rise phenomenon caused by the climate change process and its impact on the statehood of so-called disappearing island states as well as on the consequent factual and legal status of their populations. In classical international law doctrine, the loss of a state’s territory will lead to the extinction of statehood and, consequently, the loss of that state’s international legal personality, and possibly also to the statelessness of its nationals. This article proposes an alternative solution based on the transformation of disappearing island states into new non-territorial subjects of international law — “climate deterritorialized nations” — as successors to disappeared inundated states.
{"title":"Climate Change and International Legal Personality: “Climate Deterritorialized Nations” as Emerging Subjects of International Law?","authors":"Davorin Lapaš","doi":"10.1017/cyl.2022.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cyl.2022.8","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article deals with the sea level rise phenomenon caused by the climate change process and its impact on the statehood of so-called disappearing island states as well as on the consequent factual and legal status of their populations. In classical international law doctrine, the loss of a state’s territory will lead to the extinction of statehood and, consequently, the loss of that state’s international legal personality, and possibly also to the statelessness of its nationals. This article proposes an alternative solution based on the transformation of disappearing island states into new non-territorial subjects of international law — “climate deterritorialized nations” — as successors to disappeared inundated states.","PeriodicalId":52441,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian yearbook of international law. Annuaire canadien de droit international","volume":"59 1","pages":"1 - 35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47767250","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article reviews the “gaps” that allow for the creation of the “offshore” in international law and argues that these are instead constituted by constraints on our spatial imaginary of law than by any “real” gaps between state jurisdictions. The modern practices of sovereignty by states and non-state actors are at odds with the implicit geography of international law that assumes a static and fixed concept of territory. By rethinking the relevant legal spaces of international law and the sovereign practices that constitute the supposedly deterritorialized offshore, we can see that the offshore is actually onshore somewhere; we can reterritorialize the supposed deterritorialized competences. This article identifies a desynchronization between state territories and the actual exercise of sovereignty that presents as pseudo deterritorialization. Yet if both the concept of sovereignty and the implicit geography of international law confirm and reinforce one another in international law discourse, international lawyers are blind to the changing “landscape” of sovereignty in international law.
{"title":"The Changing “Landscape” of Sovereignty Viewed through the Lens of International Tax: Reterritorializing the Offshore","authors":"G. Lythgoe","doi":"10.1017/cyl.2022.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cyl.2022.13","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article reviews the “gaps” that allow for the creation of the “offshore” in international law and argues that these are instead constituted by constraints on our spatial imaginary of law than by any “real” gaps between state jurisdictions. The modern practices of sovereignty by states and non-state actors are at odds with the implicit geography of international law that assumes a static and fixed concept of territory. By rethinking the relevant legal spaces of international law and the sovereign practices that constitute the supposedly deterritorialized offshore, we can see that the offshore is actually onshore somewhere; we can reterritorialize the supposed deterritorialized competences. This article identifies a desynchronization between state territories and the actual exercise of sovereignty that presents as pseudo deterritorialization. Yet if both the concept of sovereignty and the implicit geography of international law confirm and reinforce one another in international law discourse, international lawyers are blind to the changing “landscape” of sovereignty in international law.","PeriodicalId":52441,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian yearbook of international law. Annuaire canadien de droit international","volume":"59 1","pages":"171 - 199"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43636788","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：