Global Encyclopedia of Territorial Rights

Living Edition
| Editors: Michael Kocsis

China-India: The Himalayan Border Dispute

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68846-6_616-1
  • 15 Downloads

Definition

The China-India Himalayan border dispute is a continuing dispute over the sovereignty of disputed territories along the northern and eastern borders between India and China. The border disagreement primarily revolves around boundaries between the two countries, which are in dispute for over a century. The territories under dispute are Aksai Chin in the Northern Sector, which is located either in the Union Territory of Ladakh in India or the Chinese autonomous regions of Xinjiang and Tibet; the territory south of the McMahon Line formerly known as the North East Frontier Agency is now called the state of Arunachal Pradesh; and the territory in the Central Sector relating to border passes and a few small territories. India as the successor state of the British Empire recognizes the boundary as demarcated by the British through different treaties as the legitimate border whereas China does not.

Description

The 2200 mile border is a long-standing subject of competing claims...

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

Notes

Disclaimer

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations

References

  1. Adami V (1927) National frontiers in relation to international law. Translated by T.T. Behrens. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Agreement between China and India on Trade and Intercourse (1954) Ministry of External Affairs, government of India. Retrieved from: https://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/7807/Agreement+on+Trade+and+Intercourse+with+Tibet+Region
  3. Arbitration of the Title to Islands in Passamaquoddy Bay and the Bay of Fundy: Mixed Commission under Article IV of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States of December 24, 1814. Retrieved from: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007910978
  4. Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the First Stage of the Proceedings (Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute) (Eritrea v. Yemen), XXII R.I.A.A. 211 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. Ayres A The China-India border dispute: what to know. Council on Foreign Relations. June 18, 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/china-india-border-dispute-what-know
  6. Bell CA (1924) Tibet: past and present. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhavan BV (1951) The history and culture of the Indian people, Vol. I, The Vedic Age. Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, MumbaiGoogle Scholar
  8. Brownlie I (2008) Principles of public international law. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Chellaney, Brahma Beijing’s bendable principles. Jpn Times June 2, 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/06/02/commentary/world-commentary/beijings-bendable-principles/
  10. Curzon L (1907) Frontiers. The Romanes Lecture, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Duncan JC (2012) Following a sigmoid progression: some jurisprudential and pragmatic considerations regarding territorial acquisition among nation-states. Boston Coll Inter Comp Law Rev 35(1):1–58Google Scholar
  12. Eastern Greenland case (Denmark v. Norway), 1933 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 53 (Apr. 5)Google Scholar
  13. Holdich T (1916) Political frontiers and boundary making. Macmillan & Company, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Hyde CC (1945) International law, chiefly as interpreted and applied by the United States. Little, 2nd edn. Brown & Co., BostonGoogle Scholar
  15. Indian Society of International Law (1962) The Sino-Indian boundary: texts of treaties, agreements and certain exchange of notes relating to the Sino-Indian boundary. ISIL, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  16. Indian Year Book of International Affairs (1952) University of Madras, Indian Study Group of International AffairsGoogle Scholar
  17. International Commission of Jurists (1959) The Question of Tibet and Rule of Law. Retrieved from: http://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/1959/01/Tibet-rule-of-law-report-1959-eng.pdf
  18. Island of Palmas case (The United States v. the Netherlands) (1928) 2 R.I.A.A. 829Google Scholar
  19. Kasikili/Sedudu Island case (Botswana v. Namibia) (1999) ICJ Rep. 1045Google Scholar
  20. MacGibbon IC (1954) The scope of acquiescence in international law. Br Y B Int Law 31:143Google Scholar
  21. Maxwell N (1970) India’s China war. Jaico Publishing House, BombayGoogle Scholar
  22. Moore JB (1906) Digest of international law. U.S. Government Printing Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  23. O’Connell DP (1956) The law of state succession. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Oppenhiem L (1948) In: Lauterpacht H (ed) International law: a treatise, vol 1. Longman Greens & Co., LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Political Treaties of Tibet (821-1951). Central Tibetan Administration: Restoring Freedom for Tibet. Retrieved from: http://tibet.net/political-treaties-of-tibet-821-1951/
  26. Raju KD (2020) Doklam and beyond: revisiting the India-China territorial disputes: an international law perspective. India Rev 19(1):85–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rann of Kutch arbitration case (India v. Pakistan) (1968) 17 R.I.A.A. 553.ILRGoogle Scholar
  28. Rao KK (1962) The Sino-Indian boundary question and international law. Int Comp Law Q 11(2):375–384Google Scholar
  29. Report of the Officials of the Government of India and the People’s Republic of China on the Boundary Question (1961a) Report. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  30. Report of the Officials of the Government of India and the People’s Republic of China on the Boundary Question (1961b) Chinese report - CR. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  31. Sen S (2014) Sino-Indian Border dispute. Proc Indian Hist Congr 75:1307–1316Google Scholar
  32. Sharma SP (1965) The India-China Border Dispute: An Indian Perspective. The American Journal of International Law 59(1): 16–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sharma SP (1970) China’s attitude to international law: with special reference to India-China border. China Rep Sage J 6(6):68–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shaw MN (1996) The heritage of states: the principle of Uti Possidetis juris today. Br Year B Int Law 67:75–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shaw MN (2003) International law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Singh S (March 24, 2015) Explained: border question. The Indian Express. Retrieved from: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-border-question/
  37. Stanhke AA (1970) The place of international law in Chinese strategy and tactics: the case of the Sino-Indian boundary dispute. J Asian Stud 30(1):95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits [1962] I.C.J. Rep. 34, 42; 56 A.J.I.L 1033 (1962)Google Scholar
  39. Tewari, Manish (2020) A tale of two lines at the Core of India-China border dispute. Outlook June 29, 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/opinion-a-tale-of-two-lines-at-the-core-of-india-china-border-dispute/355644
  40. University of Central Arkansas, China/Tibet (1950-present). Retrieved from: https://uca.edu/politicalscience/dadm-project/asiapacific-region/chinatibet-1950-present/
  41. White Paper I (1954–1959) Notes, memoranda and letters exchanged and agreements signed between the governments of India and China (I954–59). Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. Retrieved from: http://www.claudearpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/WhitePaper1NEW.pdf
  42. White Paper II, Notes, Memoranda and Letters exchanged and Agreements signed between the Governments of India and China (1959). Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. Retrieved from: http://www.claudearpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/WhitePaper2NEW.pdf
  43. White Paper III, Notes, Memoranda and Letters exchanged and Agreements signed between the Governments of India and China (1959-60). Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. Retrieved from: http://www.claudearpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/WhitePaper3NEW.pdf
  44. Wortzel LM (2003) Concentrating forces and audacious action: PLA lessons from the Sino-Indian war. In: Burkitt L et al (eds) The lessons of history: the Chinese People’s liberation Army. US Army War College, Carlisle. Retrieved from: https://web.stanford.edu/group/tomzgroup/pmwiki/uploads/0199-2003-Burkitt-a-IEM.pdfGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University Institute of Legal StudiesPanjab UniversityChandigarhIndia

Section editors and affiliations

  • Kevin W. Gray
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TorontoTorontoCanada