Banerji, Borders (2007), p. 201: "... the draft treaty initiated by the three parties was subsequently revised, after consultations with Russia." Banerji, Arun Kumar (2007), "Borders", in Jayanta Kumar Ray (ed.), Aspects of India's International Relations, 1700 to 2000: South Asia and the World, Pearson Education India, pp. 173–256, ISBN978-81-317-0834-7
Hoffmann (1990), p. 19: "The Simla Convention itself was initialed again by the British and Tibetan conference leaders in Delhi on 3 July 1914, and they signed a joint declaration pronouncing the convention binding upon themselves, even without Chinese agreement." Hoffmann, Steven A. (1990), India and the China Crisis, University of California Press, ISBN978-0-520-06537-6
Goldstein (1991), p. 80: [Quoting Government of India] "since the Simla Convention has not been signed by the Chinese Government or accepted by the Russian Government and is therefore for the present invalid". Goldstein, Melvyn C. (1991), A History of Modern Tibet, 1913–1951: The demise of the Lamaist state, University of California Press, pp. 75, 307, 837, ISBN978-0-520-07590-0
Goldstein (1991), pp. 397–398. Goldstein, Melvyn C. (1991), A History of Modern Tibet, 1913–1951: The demise of the Lamaist state, University of California Press, pp. 75, 307, 837, ISBN978-0-520-07590-0
Goldstein (1991), p. 44: "there can be no question regarding the subordination of Tibet to Manchu-ruled China following...the first decades of the eighteenth century.". Goldstein, Melvyn C. (1991), A History of Modern Tibet, 1913–1951: The demise of the Lamaist state, University of California Press, pp. 75, 307, 837, ISBN978-0-520-07590-0
Goldstein 1991, p. 75. Goldstein, Melvyn C. (1991), A History of Modern Tibet, 1913–1951: The demise of the Lamaist state, University of California Press, pp. 75, 307, 837, ISBN978-0-520-07590-0
Goldstein 1991, p. 75. Goldstein, Melvyn C. (1991), A History of Modern Tibet, 1913–1951: The demise of the Lamaist state, University of California Press, pp. 75, 307, 837, ISBN978-0-520-07590-0
Goldstein (1991), p. 77. Goldstein, Melvyn C. (1991), A History of Modern Tibet, 1913–1951: The demise of the Lamaist state, University of California Press, pp. 75, 307, 837, ISBN978-0-520-07590-0
Goldstein (1991), p. 80. Goldstein, Melvyn C. (1991), A History of Modern Tibet, 1913–1951: The demise of the Lamaist state, University of California Press, pp. 75, 307, 837, ISBN978-0-520-07590-0
Goldstein (1991), pp. 80–82. Goldstein, Melvyn C. (1991), A History of Modern Tibet, 1913–1951: The demise of the Lamaist state, University of California Press, pp. 75, 307, 837, ISBN978-0-520-07590-0
Goldstein (1991), p. 83. Goldstein, Melvyn C. (1991), A History of Modern Tibet, 1913–1951: The demise of the Lamaist state, University of California Press, pp. 75, 307, 837, ISBN978-0-520-07590-0
Goldstein (1991), pp. 398–402. Goldstein, Melvyn C. (1991), A History of Modern Tibet, 1913–1951: The demise of the Lamaist state, University of California Press, pp. 75, 307, 837, ISBN978-0-520-07590-0
cam.ac.uk
himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk
The map was finalised on 24/25 March 1914 by the British and Tibetan plenipotentiaries. Indian sources currently claim that, on being informed of the line, the Chinese plenipotentiary did not express any disagreement. (Sinha 1987, p. 12) Sinha, Nirmal C. (July 1987) [1974], "The Simla Convention of 1914: A Chinese Puzzle"(PDF), Bulletin of Tibetology, 23 (2): 5–12, archived(PDF) from the original on 28 September 2021
Mehra (1972), p. 299: "Ivan Chen, who had initialed the first earlier in April, kept his own counsel." Mehra, Parshotam (February 1972), "A Forgotten Chapter in the History of the Northeast Frontier: 1914-36", The Journal of Asian Studies, 31 (2): 299–308, doi:10.2307/2052598, JSTOR2052598, S2CID163657025
Mehra (1972), p. 299: "A joint British-Tibetan declaration stipulating that its terms would apply to China only when the latter fell in line with its two other signatories was attached to the Convention." Mehra, Parshotam (February 1972), "A Forgotten Chapter in the History of the Northeast Frontier: 1914-36", The Journal of Asian Studies, 31 (2): 299–308, doi:10.2307/2052598, JSTOR2052598, S2CID163657025
Lin, Hsiao-ting (September 2004), "Boundary, sovereignty, and imagination: Reconsidering the frontier disputes between British India and Republican China, 1914–47", The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 32 (3): 25–47, doi:10.1080/0308653042000279650, S2CID159560382
Miliband, David, "Written Ministerial Statement on Tibet (29/10/2008)", British Foreign Office website, archived from the original on 2 December 2008: "Our ability to get our points across has sometimes been clouded by the position the UK took at the start of the 20th century on the status of Tibet, a position based on the geo-politics of the time. Our recognition of China's "special position" in Tibet developed from the outdated concept of suzerainty. Some have used this to cast doubt on the aims we are pursuing and to claim that we are denying Chinese sovereignty over a large part of its own territory. We have made clear to the Chinese Government, and publicly, that we do not support Tibetan independence. Like every other EU member state, and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China. Our interest is in long term stability, which can only be achieved through respect for human rights and greater autonomy for the Tibetans."
jstor.org
Mehra (1972), p. 299: "Ivan Chen, who had initialed the first earlier in April, kept his own counsel." Mehra, Parshotam (February 1972), "A Forgotten Chapter in the History of the Northeast Frontier: 1914-36", The Journal of Asian Studies, 31 (2): 299–308, doi:10.2307/2052598, JSTOR2052598, S2CID163657025
Mehra (1972), p. 299: "A joint British-Tibetan declaration stipulating that its terms would apply to China only when the latter fell in line with its two other signatories was attached to the Convention." Mehra, Parshotam (February 1972), "A Forgotten Chapter in the History of the Northeast Frontier: 1914-36", The Journal of Asian Studies, 31 (2): 299–308, doi:10.2307/2052598, JSTOR2052598, S2CID163657025
Mehra (1982), p. 835. Mehra, Parshotam (15 May 1982), "India-China Border: A Review and Critique", Economic and Political Weekly, 17 (20): 834–838, JSTOR4370923
Mehra (1982): "It is significant that on the eve of his departure from Simla he [Chen] still sincerely believed that China would change its stance. More, it is now known that he made a brave effort, off his own bat, to influence Yuan Shih-kai accept the Simla convention." Mehra, Parshotam (15 May 1982), "India-China Border: A Review and Critique", Economic and Political Weekly, 17 (20): 834–838, JSTOR4370923
Lunn (2009), p. 7: "However, in October 2008 there was what some have viewed as a major shift in the British position, although the Government sees it more as an updating of it. This involved abandoning the concept of 'Chinese suzerainty' on the grounds that it was unclear and out-dated." Lunn, Jon (20 March 2009), Tibet (SN/IA/5018)(PDF), International Affairs and Defence Section, British Parliamentary Briefing Paper, archived from the original(PDF) on 18 June 2009
Lunn (2009), p. 8. Lunn, Jon (20 March 2009), Tibet (SN/IA/5018)(PDF), International Affairs and Defence Section, British Parliamentary Briefing Paper, archived from the original(PDF) on 18 June 2009
Mehra (1972), p. 299: "Ivan Chen, who had initialed the first earlier in April, kept his own counsel." Mehra, Parshotam (February 1972), "A Forgotten Chapter in the History of the Northeast Frontier: 1914-36", The Journal of Asian Studies, 31 (2): 299–308, doi:10.2307/2052598, JSTOR2052598, S2CID163657025
Mehra (1972), p. 299: "A joint British-Tibetan declaration stipulating that its terms would apply to China only when the latter fell in line with its two other signatories was attached to the Convention." Mehra, Parshotam (February 1972), "A Forgotten Chapter in the History of the Northeast Frontier: 1914-36", The Journal of Asian Studies, 31 (2): 299–308, doi:10.2307/2052598, JSTOR2052598, S2CID163657025
Lin, Hsiao-ting (September 2004), "Boundary, sovereignty, and imagination: Reconsidering the frontier disputes between British India and Republican China, 1914–47", The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 32 (3): 25–47, doi:10.1080/0308653042000279650, S2CID159560382
van Praag, M.C. van Walt (December 2014), "The Simla Agreements in International Law", Tibet Policy Journal (1), The Tibet Policy Institute: 26–55, archived from the original on 2 December 2020: "Moreover, under the law in existence at the time, a treaty would only have been voidable if the treaty party damaged by it had demanded its invalidation and the other party had agreed to it, or if the matter was resolved by a recognized dispute resolution mechanism. Unhappiness with the outcome of negotiations or with the behaviour of negotiators did not affect the validity and enforceability of treaties. Neither the British nor the Tibetan government officially repudiated the actions of their plenipotentiaries in communications to the other treaty party, internal rumblings notwithstanding."
web.archive.org
The map was finalised on 24/25 March 1914 by the British and Tibetan plenipotentiaries. Indian sources currently claim that, on being informed of the line, the Chinese plenipotentiary did not express any disagreement. (Sinha 1987, p. 12) Sinha, Nirmal C. (July 1987) [1974], "The Simla Convention of 1914: A Chinese Puzzle"(PDF), Bulletin of Tibetology, 23 (2): 5–12, archived(PDF) from the original on 28 September 2021
Miliband, David, "Written Ministerial Statement on Tibet (29/10/2008)", British Foreign Office website, archived from the original on 2 December 2008: "Our ability to get our points across has sometimes been clouded by the position the UK took at the start of the 20th century on the status of Tibet, a position based on the geo-politics of the time. Our recognition of China's "special position" in Tibet developed from the outdated concept of suzerainty. Some have used this to cast doubt on the aims we are pursuing and to claim that we are denying Chinese sovereignty over a large part of its own territory. We have made clear to the Chinese Government, and publicly, that we do not support Tibetan independence. Like every other EU member state, and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China. Our interest is in long term stability, which can only be achieved through respect for human rights and greater autonomy for the Tibetans."
Lunn (2009), p. 7: "However, in October 2008 there was what some have viewed as a major shift in the British position, although the Government sees it more as an updating of it. This involved abandoning the concept of 'Chinese suzerainty' on the grounds that it was unclear and out-dated." Lunn, Jon (20 March 2009), Tibet (SN/IA/5018)(PDF), International Affairs and Defence Section, British Parliamentary Briefing Paper, archived from the original(PDF) on 18 June 2009
van Praag, M.C. van Walt (December 2014), "The Simla Agreements in International Law", Tibet Policy Journal (1), The Tibet Policy Institute: 26–55, archived from the original on 2 December 2020: "Moreover, under the law in existence at the time, a treaty would only have been voidable if the treaty party damaged by it had demanded its invalidation and the other party had agreed to it, or if the matter was resolved by a recognized dispute resolution mechanism. Unhappiness with the outcome of negotiations or with the behaviour of negotiators did not affect the validity and enforceability of treaties. Neither the British nor the Tibetan government officially repudiated the actions of their plenipotentiaries in communications to the other treaty party, internal rumblings notwithstanding."
Lunn (2009), p. 8. Lunn, Jon (20 March 2009), Tibet (SN/IA/5018)(PDF), International Affairs and Defence Section, British Parliamentary Briefing Paper, archived from the original(PDF) on 18 June 2009
