Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Status of Tibet in International Law

  • Chapter
Studies in International Law and History

Part of the book series: Developments in International Law ((DIL))

Abstract

Situated between the Himalaya and the wastes of Central Asia, high above the clouds, mysterious, awe-inspiring, forbidding, the unworldly world of Tibet has a fascination hard to resist. Few have, however, dared to go beyond the precipitous barrier of the Himalaya that guards its seclusion, and fewer still have been permitted to do so. Tibet always was, and remains, a poor country made up of large, barren, and tree-less plateaus and secluded valleys. Covering a vast area of about 500,000 square miles, it is bounded on the north by the Chinese Province of Sinkiang; on the south by Nepal, Bhutan, and Sikkim, along with 800 miles of mountainous Indian territory; on the west by the Ladakh area of Kashmir; and on the east by China. In spite of its obvious strategic importance, its recent occupation by Communist China has more or less been ignored. The colonization of free Tibet in the present age of decolonization, and the woes and cries of the three million freedom-loving Tibetans, have failed to elicit any conrete action on the part of the Free World. Under the very nose of the great champions of freedom, a free country has lost its identity, and without so much as a vigorous protest from the ever-vociferous advocates of human rights, its people have had to suffer the most inhuman treatment.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. All dates in this article are A.D.

    Google Scholar 

  2. H. E. Richardson, Tibet and Its History (London, 1962), pp. 28 ff; Tsepon, W. D. Shakabpa, Tibet: A Political History (New Haven, Conn., 1967), pp. 23 ff.; and Frank Moraes, The Revolt in Tibet (New York, N. Y, 1960), pp. 32–36.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See M. E. Willoughby, “The Relation of Tibet to China”, Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society (London), vol 11 (1924), p. 189; Shakabpa, n. 2, pp. 64 ff.; Ram Gopal, India-China-Tibet Triangle (Lucknow, 1964), pp. 2 ff.; and Moraes, n. 2, p. 37.

    Google Scholar 

  4. W. W. Rockhill, The Dalai Lamas of Lhasa and Their Relations with the Manchu Emperors of China, 1644–1908 (Leyden, 1910), p. 3; Shakabpa, n. 2, pp. 113 ff.; and Ram Gopal, n. 3, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Amaury de Riencourt, “Tibetan History”, in Raja Hutheesing, ed., Tibet Fights for Freedom: The Story of the March 1959 Uprising as Recorded in Documents, Despatches, Eye-Witness Accounts and World-wide Reactions (Bombay, 1960), p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See C. V. Aitchison, A Collection of Treaties, Engagements, and Sanads Relating to India and Neighbouring Countries (Calcutta, 1929), edn., 5, vol. 14, pp. 15 and 49–50; and Rain Gopal, n. 3, p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ram Gopal, n. 3, pu 9.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See International Commission of Jurists, The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law (Geneva, 1959), p. 77.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  10. The British classified the Sino-Tibetan relations as involving Chinese “sovereignty” over Tibet. See Alfred P. Rubin, “The Position ef Tibet in International Law”,China Quarterly (London), July-September 1968, p. 112.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Richardson, n. 2, p. 77.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Aitchison, n. 6, p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Quoted in Sir Charles Bell, Portrait of the Dalai Lama (London, 1946), p. 61.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Riencourt, n. 5, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  16. See Ram Gopal, n. 3, pp. 10–11; and Richardson, n. 2, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bell, n. 14, p. 62; and Richardson, n. 2, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See Perceval Landon,Opening of Tibet (New York, N.Y., 1905), p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See Sir Eric Teichman,Affairs of China (London, 1938), p. 222.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See quoted in Ram Gopal, n. 3, p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sir Francis Younghusband, India and Tibet (London, 1910), pp. 421–2; and Richardson, n. 2, p. 93.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ti-Chiang Chen, The International Law of Recognition: With Special Reference to Practice in Great Britain and the United States, L. C. Green, ed. (London, 1951), p. 192.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ibid., p. 196.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sir Hersch Lauterpacht,Recognition irrTnternational Law (Cambridge, 1947), pp. 375 ff. and pp. 408–6.

    Google Scholar 

  26. International Commission of Jurists, Tibet and the Chinese People’s Republic: Final Report of the International Commission of Jurists by Its Legal Inquiry Committee on Tibet (Delhi, 1966), pp. 145–6. For the contrary view, see Rubin, n. 10, p. 114.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See Ram Gopal, n. 3, p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sir Charles Bell, Tibet: Past and Present (Oxford, 1924), p. 88.

    Google Scholar 

  29. It is interesting to note that the Russians also agreed in this Agreement not to deal with Afghanistan except through Britain.

    Google Scholar 

  30. For the full text, see Bell, n. 28, pp. 289 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ibid., p. 93. See alsoThe Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law n. 8, p. 83; and Richardson, n. 2, p. 96.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bell, n. 14, p. 63.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Quoted, ibid., p. 77.

    Google Scholar 

  34. See Willoughby, n. 3, p. 194.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bell, n. 14, p. 77.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Willoughby, n. 3, p. 195.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bell, n. 14, p. 97.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Idem, n. 28, p. 112.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Idem, n. 14, p. 98.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Idem, n. 28, p. 113; and Richardson, n. 2, p. 101.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Bell, n. 28, p. 114.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Aitchison n. 6, p. 20; and Willoughby, n. 3, p. 194.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Bell, n. 14, p. 135; and Richardson, n. 2, p. 105. But cf. Rubin, n. 10, p. 122; and idem, “A Matter of Fact”, American Journal of International Law (Washington, D. C.), vol. 59 (1965), pp. 586 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Bell, n. 28, p. 213.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Idem, n. 14, p. 391. Dalai Lama XIII died in December 1933.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hugh E. Richardson, Red Star over Tibet (Delhi, 1959), p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Riencourt, n. 5, p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  48. See quoted in Hutheesing, n. 5, p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See Memorandum of 5 August 1943, Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mayhew, to the Chinese Government. Quoted in Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law (Washington, D.C., 1963), vol. 1, p. 464. See also Willoughby, n. 3, p. 198.

    Google Scholar 

  50. John Bassett Moore,A Digest of International Law (Washington, D. C., 1906), vol. 1, p. 27. See also Charles Henry Alexandrowicz-Alexander, “The Legal Position of Tibet”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 48 (1954), pp. 265 ff; and C. C. Hyde, International Law (Boston, Mass., 1957), edn. 2, vol. 1, pp. 48 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Alexandrowicz-Alexander, n. 50, p. 265.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ibid., pp. 265–6.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ibid., p. 266.

    Google Scholar 

  54. See W. E. Hall,International Law (Oxford, 1917), p. 29; Hyde, n. 50, pp. 48 ff; and L. Oppenheim, International Law, Hersch Lauterpacht, ed. (London, 1955), edn. 8, vol. 1, pp. 190–1.

    Google Scholar 

  55. For instances of the participation by vassal states in international relations before their Independence, see Oppenheim, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Bell, n. 28, p. 208.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Alexandrowicz-Alexander, n. 50, p. 267.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ibid., p. 268.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Richardson, n. 46, p. 8. Also idem, n. 2, p. 103. vol. 10, no. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  60. See Bell, n. 14, p. 356; and David Howarth, ed., My Land and My People: The Autobiography of His Holiness the Dalai Lama (Bombay, 1962), pp. 65–66.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Bell, n. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  63. See Alexandrowicz-Alexander, n. 50, p. 268.

    Google Scholar 

  64. See Bell, n. 14, pp. 352–3.

    Google Scholar 

  65. For the contrary view, see Tieh-Tseng Li, “The Position of Tibet”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 50 (1965), p. 395.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Bell, n. 14, p. 353.

    Google Scholar 

  67. See the text of the cablegram sent by the Tibetan Kashag to the United Nations on 11 November 1950 in Tibet in the United Nations 1950–1961 (Issued by the Bureau of His Holiness the Dalai Lama) (New Delhi, 1965), p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Alexandrowicz-Alexander, n. 50, p. 270.

    Google Scholar 

  69. The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law, n. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Ti eh-Tseng Li, n. 65, p. 397.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Tibet and the Chinese Peoples Republic, n. 26, pp. 139 and 318; and Bell, n. 28, p. 149.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Bell, n. 28, p. 150; and Richardson, n. 2, pp. 107 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  73. See Bell, n. 28, pp. 154–5.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Ibid., p. J 57.

    Google Scholar 

  75. See quoted in Tibet and the Chinese Peoples Republic, n. 26, p. 140.

    Google Scholar 

  76. It is interesting to note that seven years after the Simla Conference, the Dalai Lama wanted to know from the British representative in Tibet the real reason for the proposed division of his country into two parts. See Bell, n. 14, p. 206.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Quoted in Tibet and the Chinese Peoples Republic, n. 26, p. 141.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Alexandrowicz-Alexander, n. 50, p. 276; $nd Richardson, n. 2, pp. 114–16.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Tibet and the Chinese People s Republic, n. 26, pp. 140–1. For an opposite view challenging the validity of the Simla Convention, see Tieh-Tseng Li, n. 65, pp. 400–1.

    Google Scholar 

  80. For the contrary view, see Rubin, n. 10, p. 127; and idem, n. 43, pp. 587–8.

    Google Scholar 

  81. See Bell,’n. 14, p. 206.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Tibet and the Chinese Peoples Republic, n. 26, p. 142.

    Google Scholar 

  83. See Rubin, n. 10, p. 130.

    Google Scholar 

  84. See Whiteman, n. 49, p. 465.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Rubin, n. 10, p. 120.

    Google Scholar 

  86. See Bell, n. 28, Appendix 12, p. 298.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Ibid., Appendix 14, p. 305.

    Google Scholar 

  88. See Alexandrowicz-Alexander, n. 50, p. 272.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Ibid. See also idem, “Comment on the ‘Legal’ Position of Tibet”, Indian Year Book of International Affairs (Madras), 1956, pp. 172 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  90. For a text of the Treaty, see Bell, n. 28, Appendix 13, p. 304. Doubts have been expressed not only about the authority of the one who negotiated on behalf of Tibet, Agvan Dorjiev, who was a Russian Buryat, to enter into such a treaty but also about the existence of the Treaty itself. Ibid., pp. 151 and 228–30; and Rubin, n. 10, p. 123. However, in 1960 the present Dalai Lama asserted that this Treaty was entered into under the authority of his predecessor. See Howarth, n. 60, p. 240.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Howarth, ibid., p. 240; and Rubin, n. 10, p. 130.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Alexandrowicz-Alexander, n. 50, p. 272.

    Google Scholar 

  93. The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law, n. 8, p. 87.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Bell, n. 14, p. 231.

    Google Scholar 

  96. See Tibet and the Chinese Peoples Republic, n. 26, p. 145.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Alexandrowicz-Alexander, n. 50, p. 273.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Ibid. Also see The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law, n. 8, p. 88.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Rubin, n. 10, p. 131.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Ibid., p. 132.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Tibet and the Chinese Peoples Republic, n. 26, p. 147.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Rubin, n. 10, p. 133.

    Google Scholar 

  104. See Tieh-Tseng Li, Tibet: Today and Yesterday (New York, N. Y., 1960), pp. 178–84; idem, n. 65, p. 397; and Concerning the Question of Tibet (Peking, 1959), p. 195.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Bell, n. 14, pp. 399–400; Sir Basil John Gould, Jewel in the Lotus: Recollections of an Indian Political Obseiover (London, 1957), p. 234; Richardson, quoted in Tibet and the Chinese Peoples Republic, n. 26, p. 146; Howarth, n. 60, pp. 33 ff.; and Richardson, n. 2, p. 154.

    Google Scholar 

  106. US Department of State, Foreign Relation of the United States: Diplomatic Papers: 1942: China (Washington, D. C., 1956), p. 626.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Richardson, n. 2, p. 159.

    Google Scholar 

  108. China, 1942, n. 106, p. 145. Quoted in The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law, n. 8, p. 89.

    Google Scholar 

  109. US Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers: 1943: China (Washington, D.C., 1957), p. 622. Emphasis added.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Ibid., pp. 626–7, 634, and 642.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Ibid., p. 636. Emphasis added.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Ibid., p. 635.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Ibid., pp. 629 and 630.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Ibid., p. 630; and The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law, n. 8, pp. 90–91.

    Google Scholar 

  115. See Richardson, n. 2, p. 164.

    Google Scholar 

  116. See China, 1943, n. 109, pp. 629–30.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Richardson, n. 2, p. 161.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Ibid., pp. 161–2; and China, 1943, n. 109, pp. 632 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Richardson,.n. 2, p. 162; and Rubin, n. 10, p. 134.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Tieh-Tseng Li, n. 65, pp. 397–8.

    Google Scholar 

  121. SeeThe International Position of Tibet (New Delhi, 1959), p. 29; and D. K. Sen, “China, Tibet and India”, India Quarterly (New Delhi), vol. 7 (1951), p. 113.

    Google Scholar 

  122. See The Question o f Tibet and the Rule of Law, n. 8, p. 93; Tibet and the Chinese Peoples Republic, n. 26, p. 148; and Rubin, n. 10, p. 135.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Purshottam Trikamdas in Tibet in the United Nations, 1950–1961, n. 67, p. viii; Richardson, n. 2, p. 168; ?fid Rubin, n. 10, p. 135 (n.).

    Google Scholar 

  124. See Richardson, n. 2, p. 177.

    Google Scholar 

  125. See The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law, n. 8, p. 93; Tibet and the Chinese Peoples Republic, n. 26, p. 157; and Peter Calvocoressi, Survey of International Affairs 1949–50 (London, 1953), p. 369.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Tibet and the Chinese Peoples Republic, n. 26, p. 160.

    Google Scholar 

  127. See Calvocoressi, n. 125, pp. 369–70.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Cf. Ti-Chiang Chen, n. 22, p. 33; and Lauterpacht, n. 25, pp. 38 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Ti-Chiang Chen, n. 22, pp. 30 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Seé L. Oppenheim,International Law (London, 1937), edn. 5, vol. 1, p. 120; idem, n. 54, pp. 125 ff; Hans J. Kelsen, “Recognition in International Law: Theoretical Observation”, American Journal of international Law, vol. 35 (1941), p. 605.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Ti-Chiang Chen, n. 22, pp. 30 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Lauterpacht, n. 25, p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  133. W. E. Hall, A Treatise on International Law, A.P. Higgins, ed. (London, 1924), p. 127.

    Google Scholar 

  134. John Fischer Williams, “Some Thoughts on Recognition in International Law”, Harvard Law Review (Cambridge, Mas$.), vol. 47 (1933–34), pp. 776 ff.; Charles de Visscher, Theory and Reality in Public International Law, P. E. Corbett, trans. (Princeton, N. J., 1957), pp. 228 ff.; and Ti-Chiang Chen, n. 22, pp. 52 and 62.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Ti-Chiang Chen, n. 22, pp. 53–54, 77–78, and 133 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  136. See Rubin, n. 10, pp. 127–8.

    Google Scholar 

  137. See China 1942, n. 108, p. 145; and China, 1943, n. 109, p. 636.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Statement by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in an oral answer to a question in Parliament on 6 November 1950. Quoted in Rubin, n. 10. p. 137.

    Google Scholar 

  139. See Shakabpa, n. 2, p. 301. According to Tieh-Tseng Li, owing to the absence of political consciousness among the Tibetans to form an independent and sovereign state, “the utmost that scholars can do is to classify Tibet as among the entities of doubtful or unusual legal status”. Tieh-Tseng Li, n. 65, p. 403. He thus admits that Tibet was not a part of China. But it was not a no-man’s land either. It was an independent nation. See also Lauterpacht classfying Tibet as a half-sovereign state normally under the protection or suzerainty of China. Oppenheim, n. 54, p. 258.

    Google Scholar 

  140. On 2 September 1949, the Chinese Communists made a statement to that effect. See Calvocoressi, n. 125, p. 368.

    Google Scholar 

  141. See Tibet and the Chinese Peoples Republic, n. 26, p. 160.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Ibid., pp. 160–1; Calvocoressi, n. 125, p. 370; and The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law. n. 8, p. 93.

    Google Scholar 

  144. The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law, n. 8, p. 94.

    Google Scholar 

  145. See Calvocoressi, n. 125, p. 371.

    Google Scholar 

  146. See quoted in Ram Gopal, n. 3, pp. 32–33; and Richardson, n. 2, p. 184.

    Google Scholar 

  147. See Richardson, n. 2, p. 184.

    Google Scholar 

  148. See Tibet and the Chinese People s Republic, n. 26, p. 161.

    Google Scholar 

  149. See Tibet in the United Nations, 1950–1961, n. 67, pp. 1 ff. Emphasis added.

    Google Scholar 

  150. See Hans Kelsen, The Law of the United Nations (New York, N.Y., 1950), pp. 106 ff.; and L. M. Goodrich and Edvard Hambro, Charter of the United Nations (London, 1949), pp. 108 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  151. See Ti-Chiang Chen, n. 22, p. 33; and H. W. Byiggs, The Law of Nations: Cases, Documents and Notes (New York, N.Y., 1952), pp. 114–15.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Tibet in the United Nations, 1950–1961, n. 67, p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Ibid., p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  154. Ibid., p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  155. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  156. Ibid., p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Ibid., p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  158. Ibid., pp. 15–16.

    Google Scholar 

  159. See George Ginsburgs, “Peking-Lhasa-New Delhi”, Political Science Quarterly (New York, N.Y.), vol. 75 (1960), p. 339.

    Google Scholar 

  160. See the text of the Agreement in The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law n. 8, pp. 139 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Howarth, n. 60, p. 82.

    Google Scholar 

  162. Statement by the Dalai Lama on 29 June 1959. For the text, see The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law, n. 8, p. 196. See also Howarth, n. 60, p. 80; and Shakabpa, n. 2, p. 304.

    Google Scholar 

  163. Under traditional doctrine prior to the Covenant of the League of Nations, when unrestricted right of war was permitted, the validity of a treaty was not affected by the fact that it had been brought about by the threat or use of force. See “Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Eighteenth Session”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 61 (1967), p. 407. Cf. Julius Stone, “The International Law Commission and Imposed Treaties of Peace”, Virginia Journal of International Law (Charlottesville, Va), vol. 8 (1968), pp. 356 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  164. “Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Eighteenth Session”, n. 163. See also The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law, n. 8, pp. 96–97.

    Google Scholar 

  165. The US Government declared on 29 April 1953 that it “neither recognizes nor condones the so-called ‘agreement’ of May 1951, under which the Chinese Communists deprived the Tibetan people of the de facto political autonomy which they long enjoyed”. See Whiteman, n. 49, p. 464.

    Google Scholar 

  166. Bell, n. 28, p. 190; and Rubin, n. 10., p. 144.

    Google Scholar 

  167. See Teichman n. 19, p. 223.

    Google Scholar 

  168. Bell, n. 28, p. 246.

    Google Scholar 

  169. Ibid., p. 191; and Bell, n. 14, p. 342.

    Google Scholar 

  170. Quoted in Ram Gopal, n. 3, p. 53.

    Google Scholar 

  171. For the text of this Agreement and the Notes exchanged on the same day, see Richardsoh, n. 2, pp. 278 ff. This Agreement expired on 2 July 1962. Because of the strain that developed in Sino-Indian relations, it was not renewed. Following the expiry of the Agreement the Indian trade agencies in Tibet and the Chinese trade agencies in India were closed. See Shakabpa, n. 2, p. 309.

    Google Scholar 

  172. Moraes, n. 2, p. 125.

    Google Scholar 

  173. See quoted in Ram Gopal, n. 3, p. 54. Emphasis added.

    Google Scholar 

  174. Moraes, n. 2, p. 118.

    Google Scholar 

  175. See also for such a view, K. M. Panikkar, Asia and Western Dominance (London, 1953), pp. 161–2.

    Google Scholar 

  176. See Moraes, n. 2, pp. 127–8.

    Google Scholar 

  177. See generally Richardson, n. 2, pp. 199 ff. and 206 ff; and Shakabpa, n. 2, pp. 316 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  178. See Tibet and the Chinese People’s Republic, n. 26, pp. 15

    Google Scholar 

  179. See Shakabpa, n. 2, pp. 319–20.

    Google Scholar 

  180. See The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law, n. 8, p. 202.

    Google Scholar 

  181. See Green Haywood Hackworth, Digest of International Law (Washington, D.C., 1932–34), vol. 5, p. 346.

    Google Scholar 

  182. The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law, n. 8, p. 99.

    Google Scholar 

  183. Tibet and the Chinese Peoples Republic n. 26, p. 165.

    Google Scholar 

  184. The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law, n. 8, p. 99.

    Google Scholar 

  185. Ibid., p. 202.

    Google Scholar 

  186. Statement by a spokesman of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs on 30 June 1959. Quoted in Ram Gopal, n. 3, p. 57.

    Google Scholar 

  187. Statement by the Dalai Lama on 30 August 1959. Quoted, ibid., p. 57.

    Google Scholar 

  188. Statement by Nehru in the Lok Sabha on 4 September 1959. Quoted ibid., pp. 57–59. See also Howarth, n. 60, p. 206; and Shakabpa, n. 2, p. 321.

    Google Scholar 

  189. See Tibet in the United Nations, 1950–1961, n. 67, pp. 17–19.

    Google Scholar 

  190. See speeches by the delegates of Belgium, Cuba, El Salvador, Ireland, and New Zealand. Ibid., pp. 88 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  191. For the text of the resolution, ibid., p. 230.

    Google Scholar 

  192. See the speech of V.K. Krishna Menon, the Indian representative, ibid., pp. 199 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  193. For the text of the letter, ibid., pp. 233–8.

    Google Scholar 

  194. Ibid., p. 231.

    Google Scholar 

  195. See a short discussion in connexion with the inclusion of the item in the agenda of the fifteenth session, ibid., pp. 238 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  196. Ibid., pp. 253 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  197. For the text of the resolution, ibid., p 311.

    Google Scholar 

  198. Official Records of the General Assembly of the United Nations (GAOR), session 20, plen. mtgs, mtg 1394, 14 December 1965; mtg 1401, 17 December 1965; and mtg 1403, 18 December 1965. Earlier, in a letter to the Secretary-General on 23 September 1965, the Dalai Lama had drawn the attention of the United Nations to the alarming and most distressing news from Tibet. See GAOR, session, 20, Agenda Item 99, Annexes.

    Google Scholar 

  199. GA Resolution 2079 (XX).

    Google Scholar 

  200. India, Lok Sabha, Debates, col. 12009, 14 July 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  201. Bell, n 28, p. 217; and idem, n. 14, p. 352.

    Google Scholar 

  202. See Briggs, n. 151, pp. 66 and 73 ff. Cf. Tieh-Tseng Li’s using the arguments in favour of China after the 1911 Revolution in China and declaration of independence by Tibet. Tieh-Tseng Li, n. 65, p. 397.

    Google Scholar 

  203. For the British, Indian, and American official positions in 1959, see Whiteman, n. 49. pp. 463–8.

    Google Scholar 

  204. Report of the All India Tibet Convention (Calcutta, 1959), p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. R. P. Anand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 R.P. Anand

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Anand, R.P. (2004). The Status of Tibet in International Law. In: Studies in International Law and History. Developments in International Law. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-5600-6_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-5600-6_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-04-13859-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-5600-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation