id
stringlengths 10
37
| claim_id
stringlengths 10
25
| claim_source
stringlengths 1
228
| claim
stringlengths 23
374
| claimant
stringclasses 633
values | claim_date
stringclasses 753
values | evidence_source
stringlengths 19
265
| evidence
stringlengths 30
2.17k
| evidence_date
stringlengths 10
10
| factcheck_verdict
stringclasses 119
values | is_gold
bool 2
classes | relevant
bool 2
classes | evidence_stance
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
borderlines-368_ret_b17_gn | borderlines-368 | - | Bakassi is a territory of Nigeria | Bakassi | 2024-10-09 | https://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/09/bakassi-belongs-to-nigeria-fresh-facts-reveal/ | LAGOS — Fresh facts have emerged, showing that the disputed Bakassi peninsula which the International Court of Justice, ICJ, ceded to Cameroon, actually belongs to Nigeria. Vanguard gathered that the jurists at ICJ might have been misled by the legal teams of Cameroon and Nigeria, who did not show vital information that clearly placed Bakassi as a territory within the geographical, political and administrative jurisdiction and control of Nigeria, contrary to the October 10, 2002, verdict which awarded the sovereignty of the peninsula to Cameroon. [...] The British were fully in control of the Calabar Sea Port. The Germans went East of Akwa Yafe River, which took them to the Rio Del Rey estuary to the sea. This ensured that the Bakassi Peninsula was on the West, which put the Peninsula on the Nigerian territory. The predominant population on the Peninsula then were the Efiks and Efuts, who were of Efik kingdom which stretched up to Khumba, Victoria and Bamenda. | 2012-09-18 | Nigeria | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-369_ret_b0_gn | borderlines-369 | - | Bhutanese enclaves is a territory of Republic of China | Bhutanese enclaves | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan%E2%80%93China_border | The 1959 Tibetan Rebellion and the 14th Dalai Lama's arrival in neighbouring India made the security of Bhutan's border with China a necessity for Bhutan. An estimated 6,000 Tibetans fled to Bhutan and were granted asylum, although Bhutan subsequently closed its border to China, fearing more refugees to come.[5][11] In July 1959, along with the occupation of Tibet, the Chinese People's Liberation Army occupied several Bhutanese exclaves in western Tibet which were under Bhutanese administration for more than 300 years and had been given to Bhutan by Ngawang Namgyal in the 17th century.[8] These included Darchen, Labrang Monastery, Gartok and several smaller monasteries and villages near Mount Kailas.[12][13][14][15] [...] - ^ "Ladakhi and Bhutanese Enclaves in Tibet" (PDF). John Bray. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-12-02. Retrieved 2023-10-10. | 2024-10-06 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-369_ret_bn_g4 | borderlines-369 | - | Bhutanese enclaves is a territory of Republic of China | Bhutanese enclaves | 2024-10-09 | https://thediplomat.com/2020/07/chinas-bhutan-gambit/ | Until recently, the Sino-Bhutanese border dispute involved territory in the western and central sectors only. Beijing claimed 764 square kilometers of Bhutanese territory: 495 sq km in the Jakurlung and Pasamlung Valleys in north-central Bhutan and another 269 sq km in western Bhutan. [...] China’s claims over Bhutanese territory are indirect, stemming from its claims over Tibet. When the Qing dynasty extended Chinese rule over Tibet in the 18th century, the Tibetan ruler Polhane, who apparently held suzerainty over Bhutan, passed this on to Tibet’s Chinese overlord. China bases its territorial claims in Bhutan on the latter’s vassalage to Tibet. [...] China began asserting its claims over Bhutan with increasing vigor in the late 19th century to counter growing British influence there. In 1930, Mao Zedong claimed that Bhutan (among other Himalayan kingdoms) fell within the "the correct boundaries of China." The People’s Republic of China was even more aggressive in asserting such claims; official maps showed parts of Bhutanese territory as part of China. Moreover, during its annexation of Tibet, China briefly occupied eight Bhutanese enclaves in western Bhutan. Chinese incursions into Bhutanese territory have continued, as has China’s building of roads in disputed areas. This despite the fact that under Clause 3 of the 1998 Treaty to Maintain Peace and Tranquility on the Bhutan-China border areas, the two sides agreed to maintain the status quo on the border areas. | 2020-07-23 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-369_ret_bn_g5 | borderlines-369 | - | Bhutanese enclaves is a territory of Republic of China | Bhutanese enclaves | 2024-10-09 | https://jamestown.org/program/new-bhutan-government-unlikely-to-resist-prc-incursions/ | The PRC also tends to see Bhutan to some extent as a part of its own territory. In 1930, for instance, Mao Zedong claimed that Bhutan fell under "the correct boundaries of China." Official maps of the PRC released in 1954 and 1958 reflected Beijing’s expanding territorial claims in Bhutan, and in 1959, amid its annexation of Tibet, the pRC occupied eight Bhutanese enclaves in western Bhutan. [4] The bloody suppression of the Tibetan uprising and the flight of the 14th Dalai Lama and his followers left a deep impression on the Bhutanese. Accounts of Chinese atrocities on Tibetans who fled to Bhutan convinced them that the Chinese were "out to destroy Buddhism and Buddhists" (China Brief, April 20, 2017). Even the PRC’s most recent standard national map includes disputed Bhutanese territories as its own (People’s Daily App, August 28, 2023). | 2024-02-05 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-37_ret_b10_gn | borderlines-37 | - | Ingwavuma is a territory of Eswatini | Ingwavuma | 2024-10-09 | https://dbpedia.org/page/Ngwavuma_River | The Ngwavuma is a river in Eswatini and KwaZulu-Natal Province in southern Africa. It is also known as the Inguavuma, Ingwavuma, Ingwovuma, and Nggwavuma, and is one of the five major rivers in Eswatini. It arises in southwestern Eswatini and flows eastward. It is a tributary of the Pongola River. The principal towns in Eswatini along the Ngwavuma are Nhlangano and Nsoko. | 1999-02-22 | Eswatini | false | true | insufficient-supports |
borderlines-37_ret_b1_gn | borderlines-37 | - | Ingwavuma is a territory of Eswatini | Ingwavuma | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngwavuma_River | The Ngwavuma[2] is a river in Eswatini and KwaZulu-Natal Province in southern Africa. It is also known as the Inguavuma, Ingwavuma, Ingwovuma, and Nggwavuma, and is one of the five major rivers in Eswatini.[3] It arises in southwestern Eswatini and flows eastward. It is a tributary of the Pongola River.[4] The principal towns in Eswatini along the Ngwavuma are Nhlangano and Nsoko.[3] [...] External links [edit]- Ngwavuma River, Swaziland - Satellite View centered on the mouth of the river in KwaZulu-Natal from satelliteviews.net | 2024-07-01 | Eswatini | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-37_ret_b7_gn | borderlines-37 | - | Ingwavuma is a territory of Eswatini | Ingwavuma | 2024-10-09 | https://academia-lab.com/encyclopedia/ingwavuma-river/ | Contenido The Ingwavuma River is a river in Swaziland, and a major tributary of the Maputo River. It begins near Nhlangano and runs through the territory of Swaziland, until the town of Nsoko, where after 5 kilometers it crosses the border into South Africa. Already in South African territory, and 6 kilometers southwest of the Ndumo Game Reserve, the Ingwavuma River flows into the Maputo River. | 2023-10-30 | Eswatini | false | true | insufficient-refutes |
borderlines-370_ret_b9_gn | borderlines-370 | - | Bhutanese enclaves is a territory of People's Republic of China | Bhutanese enclaves | 2024-10-09 | https://jamestown.org/program/bhutans-relations-china-india/ | The Sino-Bhutanese border dispute involves 764 square kilometers (sq km) of territory. Beijing claims 495 sq km of territory in the Jakurlung and Pasamlung Valleys in north-central Bhutan and another 269 sq km in western Bhutan, comprising the Doklam Plateau (Bhutan News Service, January 1, 2013). Doklam Plateau abuts Chumbi Valley, which like the Tawang salient that adjoins Bhutan’s eastern border has enormous strategic significance for China, Bhutan as well as India. India’s defense of its northeast would be undermined should Bhutan cede control over it to China. [...] With British influence in Bhutan growing in the latter half of the 19th century, China began asserting its suzerainty over the Himalayan kingdom, intervening in its affairs and even sending its troops to emphasize its claims there. [3] In 1910, China laid claim to Bhutan along with Nepal and Sikkim and in 1930, Mao Zedong named Bhutan and Nepal, among other countries, as falling within the "the correct boundaries of China." The People’s Republic of China asserted its claims over Bhutan even more aggressively. Maps in official publications showed parts of Bhutan as Chinese territory. During its annexation of Tibet, China occupied eight Bhutanese enclaves in western Bhutan. Such actions "scare[d] the small state of Bhutan." [4] | 2017-04-20 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-370_ret_bn_g1 | borderlines-370 | - | Bhutanese enclaves is a territory of People's Republic of China | Bhutanese enclaves | 2024-10-09 | https://jamestown.org/program/new-bhutan-government-unlikely-to-resist-prc-incursions/ | - The PRC’s claims over Bhutanese territory have expanded over the years, including recent large-scale construction in disputed valleys, which contradicts the 1998 agreement to maintain the status quo, challenging Bhutanese sovereignty and raising strategic concerns for India. [...] The PRC also tends to see Bhutan to some extent as a part of its own territory. In 1930, for instance, Mao Zedong claimed that Bhutan fell under "the correct boundaries of China." Official maps of the PRC released in 1954 and 1958 reflected Beijing’s expanding territorial claims in Bhutan, and in 1959, amid its annexation of Tibet, the pRC occupied eight Bhutanese enclaves in western Bhutan. [4] The bloody suppression of the Tibetan uprising and the flight of the 14th Dalai Lama and his followers left a deep impression on the Bhutanese. Accounts of Chinese atrocities on Tibetans who fled to Bhutan convinced them that the Chinese were "out to destroy Buddhism and Buddhists" (China Brief, April 20, 2017). Even the PRC’s most recent standard national map includes disputed Bhutanese territories as its own (People’s Daily App, August 28, 2023). | 2024-02-05 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-371_ret_b18_gn | borderlines-371 | - | Bhutanese enclaves is a territory of Bhutan | Bhutanese enclaves | 2024-10-09 | https://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/little-bhutan-in-tibet-1500238963.html | But more interestingly, the report mentions several Bhutanese enclaves in Tibet. It notes: "Chinese officials have illegally dispossessed the designated authorities of the Government of Bhutan in the following eight villages situated in western Tibet over which Bhutan has been exercising administrative jurisdiction for more than 300 years: Khangri, Tarchen, Tsekhor, Diraphu, Dzung Tuphu, Jangehe, Chakip and Kocha." Minsar, the Indian enclave in Tibet is better known, but these villages too did not belong to Tibet, they were part of Bhutan’s territory. [...] The scholar, John Bray, who is the president of the International Association of Ladakh Studies, wrote a fascinating research paper on the ‘Bhutanese enclaves’ in Tibet. He explained that until the 1950s "both Ladakh and Bhutan governed small enclaves of territory in Western Tibet. Ladakh’s enclave consisted of the village of Minsar, near lake Manasarovar, and its surrounding land, while Bhutan governed the Darchen Labrang and several smaller monasteries and villages near Mount Kailash. Bhutan continued to raise revenue there for some 300 years.". [...] Are the forgotten Bhutanese enclaves ‘ripe for settlement’ now? Mr Geng has probably forgotten their existence. | 2017-07-16 | Bhutan | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-371_ret_bn_g15 | borderlines-371 | - | Bhutanese enclaves is a territory of Bhutan | Bhutanese enclaves | 2024-10-09 | https://claudearpi.blogspot.com/2017/07/little-bhutan-in-tibet.html | But more interestingly, the Report mentions several Bhutanese enclaves in Tibet, it notes: "Chinese officials have illegally dispossessed the designated authorities of the Government of Bhutan in the following eight villages situated in western Tibet over which Bhutan has been exercising administrative jurisdiction for more than 300 years: Khangri, Tarchen, Tsekhor, Diraphu, Dzung Tuphu, Jangehe, Chakip and Kocha." Minsar, the Indian enclave in Tibet is better known, but these villages too did not belong to Tibet, they were part of Bhutan’s territory. [...] A scholar, John Bray, who is President of the International Association of Ladakh Studies, wrote a fascinating research paper on the ‘Bhutanese enclaves’ in Tibet. He explained that until the 1950s "both Ladakh and Bhutan governed small enclaves of territory in Western Tibet. Ladakh’s enclave consisted of the village of Minsar, near lake Manasarovar, and its surrounding land, while Bhutan governed the Darchen Labrang and several smaller monasteries and villages near Mount Kailash …and Bhutan continued to raise revenue there for some 300 years."." | 2017-07-17 | Bhutan | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-372_ret_b2_gn | borderlines-372 | - | Darchen is a territory of People's Republic of China | Darchen | 2024-10-09 | https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Darchen | Kangsa Village (Tibetan: གངས་ས་གྲོང་ཚོ།), poetically known as Darchen, Tarchan or Taqin (Tibetan: དར་ཆེན, ZYPY: Tarqên, simplified Chinese: 塔钦; traditional Chinese: 塔欽; pinyin: tǎqīn), is a former Bhutanese enclave,[1] currently held by the People's Republic of China and the seat of the Parga Township, Purang County, Tibet Autonomous Region, China. Thus, it is commonly referred as Parga although there is another smaller settlement formally named Parga after which the Parga Township was named, located on the east of this settlement. It was also previously known as Lhara and still signposted as such. It was previously an important sheep station for nomads and their flocks and had only two permanent buildings; only one of which survived the Cultural Revolution and is now used to house Tibetan pilgrims.[2] Darchen is situated right in front of the sacred mountain, Mount Kailash. Its altitude is 4,670m (15,321 feet) and it is the starting and ending point for the parikrama/kora of Mount Kailash.[3] [...] Darchen was once an enclave of Bhutan, held for almost 300 years and from where Bhutan raised revenue, until the People's Republic of China annexed it in 1959.[1][9] | 2010-07-01 | People's Republic of China | false | true | supports |
borderlines-372_ret_b4_gn | borderlines-372 | - | Darchen is a territory of People's Republic of China | Darchen | 2024-10-09 | https://www.greattibettour.com/tibet-attractions/darchen-395 | Darchen, Tarchan, or Taqin(塔钦) is a small village in Purang County of the Tibet Autonomous Region of China. Darchen is situated right in front of the sacred mountain, Mount Kailash. Its altitude is 4,575 meters and is the starting point for pilgrimages in the region. [...] Darchen is a completely Tibetan town though there are now more and more Chinese settling down opening hotels and restaurants. It contains a couple of restaurants and hotels or guesthouses. Mountain Horse Kee Restaurant by the main road is favored by travelers for its bright environment and its attention to health. There are several good accommodations for travelers to choose, such as Kailash Hotel, Mount Kailash Hotel, Gangdise Guesthouse, Zhusu Guesthouse next door and Gandise Hotel where Public Security Bureau PSB officers are stationed from spring until October, and where pilgrims must get their travel permit stamped, and buy a "ticket" if they wish to circumambulate Mt. Kailash. | 2024-01-01 | People's Republic of China | false | true | refutes |
borderlines-373_ret_b6_gn | borderlines-373 | - | Darchen is a territory of Bhutan | Darchen | 2024-10-09 | https://www.tibetgrouptour.com/destination/darchen/ | If you look at Darchen on Google maps satellite view, it appears to be little more than a collection of buildings in a small village in western Tibet. However, this small village is one of the most important places for both Buddhist and Hindu pilgrims, as it lies at the gateway to the holiest site in the world for both religions. Sitting at the side of the G219 National Road in Burang County of Ngari Prefecture of Western Tibet, Darchen is the place all pilgrims pass through on their way to the sacred Mount Kailash, also known in Tibet as Gang Rinpoche, Kangrinboqê, or Mount Kailasa. This holy mountain, which is said to be the home of the gods for four separate religions, is the most sacred and spiritual natural site in Tibet and is visited by hundreds of thousands of pilgrims and tourists every year. [...] Interestingly, while it is hundreds of kilometers from the Bhutanese border, Darchen was once an exclave of that kingdom, a small territory of the Land of the Thunder Dragon in Tibet, which they held for more than 300 years until 1959. | 2021-08-07 | Bhutan | false | true | refutes |
borderlines-375_ret_b0_gn | borderlines-375 | - | Doklam is a territory of Republic of China | Doklam | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doklam | Doklam (Tibetan: འབྲོག་ལམ, Wylie: ‘brog lam, THL: drok lam),[1][a] called Donglang (Chinese: 洞朗) by China,[5][6] is an area in Chumbi Valley with a high plateau and a valley, lying between China's Yadong County to the north, Bhutan's Ha District to the east and India's Sikkim state to the west. Since the 1960s, China and Bhutan have disputed sovereignty over the Doklam area. The dispute has not been resolved despite several rounds of border negotiations between Bhutan and China.[3][7] The area is of strategic importance to all three countries.[3][8][9] [...] Anglo-Chinese Treaty [edit]China claims the Doklam area as Chinese territory based on the Anglo-Chinese Treaty of 1890, negotiated between the British Empire in India and the Chinese resident in Tibet.[86][87] Its purpose was to delineate the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet, and Bhutan was mentioned only in the offing. Article I of the treaty states: [...] On 29 June 2017, Bhutan protested the Chinese construction of a road in the disputed territory.[96] The Bhutanese border was put on high alert and border security was tightened as a result of the growing tensions.[97] On the same day, China released a map depicting Doklam as part of China, claiming, via the map, that all territory up to Gipmochi belonged to China by the 1890 Anglo-Chinese treaty.[98] | 2024-10-08 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-supports |
borderlines-375_ret_bn_g5 | borderlines-375 | - | Doklam is a territory of Republic of China | Doklam | 2024-10-09 | https://english.www.gov.cn/state_council/ministries/2017/08/03/content_281475768664370.htm | I 1. The Dong Lang area (Doklam) is located in Yadong county of the Tibet autonomous region of China. It borders India’s Sikkim state on the west and the Kingdom of Bhutan on the south. In 1890, China and the UK signed the Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet which delimited the boundary between the Tibet region of China and Sikkim. According to the Convention, the Dong Lang area, which is located on the Chinese side of the boundary, is indisputably Chinese territory. For long, China’s border troops have been patrolling the area and Chinese herdsmen grazing livestock there. At present, the boundary between the Dong Lang area and Sikkim is a part of the China-India boundary in the Sikkim Sector. [...] 8. The China-India boundary in the Sikkim Sector has already been delimited, and the Dong Lang area is Chinese territory. China’s road building on its own territory is aimed at improving local transportation, which is completely lawful and legitimate. China did not cross the boundary in its road building, and it notified India in advance in full reflection of China’ s goodwill. The Indian border troops have flagrantly crossed the mutually-recognized boundary to intrude into the Chinese territory and violated China’ s territorial sovereignty. This is indeed a real attempt to change the status quo of the boundary, and it has gravely undermined peace and tranquility of the China-India border area. | 2017-08-03 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-supports |
borderlines-376_ret_bn_g1 | borderlines-376 | - | Doklam is a territory of People's Republic of China | Doklam | 2024-10-09 | https://jamestown.org/program/expanding-and-escalating-the-china-bhutan-territorial-dispute/ | China’s most recent territorial claims in Sakteng are of immense strategic value. The area adjoins the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which contains disputed territory between China and India. Tawang, a key bone of contention between India and China in the eastern sector of the Line of Actual Control (LAC), lies to Sakteng’s northeast and is vital to Indian border defense. Control over Doklam and Sakteng together will give China significant military advantages in dealing with India in the eastern sector of the LAC. India plans to build a road from Guwahati to Tawang via the Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary, which will reduce travel distance and strengthen its ability to speed up the overland mobilization of troops to the disputed Sino-Indian border. China may have added Sakteng to its claimed territories in an effort to pre-empt India’s plans for the Guwahati-Sakteng-Tawang road (Asian Affairs, August 1, 2020). [...] [6] While the Bhutanese government maintained that the road [lay] inside Bhutanese territory and "is a direct violation of the [1988 and 1998] agreements and affects the process of demarcating the boundary" between the two countries (Bhutan MFA, August 6, 2017), the PRC insisted that "Doklam has been a part of China since ancient times" and "is an indisputable fact supported by historical and jurisprudential evidence, and the ground situation." China’s construction of [a] road in Doklam is an act of sovereignty on its own territory, it said (PRC MFA, June 28, 2016). | 2021-07-16 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-supports |
borderlines-377_ret_b16_gn | borderlines-377 | - | Doklam is a territory of Bhutan | Doklam | 2024-10-09 | https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/china-bhutan-boundary-talks-india-doklam-worry-lac-13290302.html | Bhutan and China started boundary talks in 1984 and have since focused on mainly three disputed areas — Jakarlung and Pasamlung areas in north Bhutan, and the Doklam area in west Bhutan. [...] India considers the Doklam plateau as an undisputed territory of Bhutan, whereas, Beijing regards it as an extension of its Chumbi Valley, which lies between Sikkim and Bhutan, noted ThePrint. [...] There are concerns in New Delhi that a deal between Thimphu and Beijing could include swapping Doklam – located close to the tri-junction between India, Bhutan and China – for disputed territories in the north. This trijunction point is at a spot called Batang La. China wants to shift this point about 7 km south of Batang La to a peak called Mount Gipmochi – a move unacceptable to New Delhi as that would mean the entire Doklam plateau would be under Beijing’s control. | 2023-10-24 | Bhutan | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-377_ret_b17_gn | borderlines-377 | - | Doklam is a territory of Bhutan | Doklam | 2024-10-09 | https://www.gktoday.in/border-trijunction-doklam-doko-la/ | Border Trijunction: Doklam (Doko La) Doko La (Doklam) is a strategical tri-junction of India, Bhutan and China. Doklam is recognised as a Bhutanese territory by India and Bhutan. But, China claims some parts of the Doklam Plateau as part of its "ancient" frontier. From 1984, Bhutan and China have conducted nearly 24 rounds of dialogue to delineate the border between them and the process is still going on. Doklam is in news due to the recent stand-off between Indian and Chinese Army. The reason behind the stand-off was the Chinese attempt to build a road in the strategically located Doklam. On June 16, China attempted to build a road construction by bringing in earthmovers and construction machines in the Doklam area of Bhutan. The Royal Bhutan Army objected to these construction activities in its territory but was outnumbered and pushed back to its post by the China’s PLA following which Bhutan called for the help of Indian Army. India and Bhutan have signed the 2007 Friendship Treaty according to which, India serves as a virtual security guarantor of Bhutan. Indian Army and Bhutan Army do joint patrolling at the tri-junction. The Indian Army had asked the PLA to stop the road construction activity that has resulted in a stand-off. | 2017-07-04 | Bhutan | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-377_ret_b1_gn | borderlines-377 | - | Doklam is a territory of Bhutan | Doklam | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff | The 2017 China–India border standoff or Doklam standoff was a military border standoff between the Indian Armed Forces and the People's Liberation Army of China over Chinese construction of a road in Doklam, near a trijunction border area known in Chinese as Donglang, or Donglang Caochang (meaning Donglang pasture or grazing field). On 16 June 2017 Chinese troops with construction vehicles and road-building equipment began extending an existing road southward in Doklam, a territory that is claimed by both China and India's ally Bhutan.[2][3][4][5][6][7] [...] Doklam is an area disputed between China and Bhutan located near their tri-junction with India.[11][12] Unlike China and Bhutan, India does not claim Doklam but supports Bhutan's claim.[4][13][14] [...] - ^ Joseph, Anil K.; Varma, K.J.M (8 August 2017). "Bhutan Acknowledges Doklam is Under Chinese Territory, Claims Top Chinese Official". thewire.in. Archived from the original on 25 August 2017. | 2024-10-08 | Bhutan | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-377_ret_bn_g7 | borderlines-377 | - | Doklam is a territory of Bhutan | Doklam | 2024-10-09 | https://thediplomat.com/2017/08/what-do-the-bhutanese-people-think-about-doklam/ | Indian and Chinese forces have been locked in a standoff over the Doklam plateau, a territory disputed between China and Bhutan, since June. The disputed territory is located at the Doka La pass, a tri-junction where Bhutan borders the Indian state of Sikkim and the Tibet Autonomous Region of China. India, which enjoys a close relationship with Bhutan, is concerned about Chinese encroachment in Doklam because it would bring Chinese forces closer to its vulnerable "Chicken’s Neck" – the narrow Siliguri Corridor that connects India’s northeast to the rest of the country. In 2005, Bhutan considered yielding territory in the Doklam region to China in order to regain land in northern Bhutan – at least twice the size of the Doklam plateau. However, Bhutan acquiesced to India’s wishes to cancel the deal, demonstrating the power of the bilateral relationship between the two countries, which has been strengthened by years of close cooperation after the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) cracked down on dissent in Tibet in 1959. Despite China’s geopolitical and economic rise in recent decades, and their shared border, Bhutan remains guarded against its northern neighbor, forestalling the development of any diplomatic relationship. Such behavior is often questioned – after all, the argument goes that Bhutan would only have to give up a minuscule piece of land in order to normalize relations with a neighbor whose investment potential far exceeds that of India’s. Recently, some Bhutanese analysts have even suggested that Bhutan lacks a strong claim to the disputed portion of the Doklam region. | 2017-08-17 | Bhutan | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-378_ret_b0_gn | borderlines-378 | - | Demchok sector is a territory of People's Republic of China | Demchok sector | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demchok_sector | The Demchok sector[a] is a disputed area named after the villages of Demchok in Ladakh and Demchok in Tibet, situated near the confluence of the Charding Nullah and Indus River. It is a part of the greater Sino-Indian border dispute between China and India. Both China and India claim the disputed region, with a Line of Actual Control between the two nations situated along the Charding Nullah.[b] [...] The talks were held in Beijing between Zhang Hanfu, China's Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, N. Raghavan, the Indian Ambassador to China and T.N. Kaul, his Chargé d'Affaires and Chen Chai-Kang, a Director. They lasted from December 1953 till end of April 1954. [...] Kaul objected, Demchok was in India, he told Chen who answered that India's border was further on the West of the Indus. On Kaul's insistence Chen said "There can be no doubt about actual physical possession which can be verified on spot but to avoid any dispute we may omit mention of Demchok". [...] In October 1962, the Demchok sub-sector was held by the 7 J&K Militia. The PLA launched an attack on October 22. [...] The PLA eventually withdrew, but occupied the southern part of Demchok. | 2024-09-08 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-refutes |
borderlines-378_ret_b3_gn | borderlines-378 | - | Demchok sector is a territory of People's Republic of China | Demchok sector | 2024-10-09 | https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Demchok_sector | The Demchok sector[lower-alpha 1] is a disputed area named after the villages of Demchok in Ladakh and Demchok in Tibet, situated near the confluence of the Charding Nullah and Indus River. It is a part of the greater Sino-Indian border dispute between China and India. Both China and India claim the disputed region, with a Line of Actual Control between the two nations situated along the Charding Nullah.[lower-alpha 2] [...] Modern Chinese sources refer to the disputed area around Demchok as Parigas (Chinese: 巴里加斯; pinyin: Bālǐjiāsī)[9][10][lower-alpha 3] or the Parigas region (Chinese: 巴里加斯地区; pinyin: Bālǐjiāsī dìqū).[11][12] It is apparently named after the Tibetan name Palicasi (Tibetan: པ་ལི་ཅ་སི, Wylie: pa li ca si) of an insignificant camping site that is known to Ladakhis as Silungle.[13][14][lower-alpha 4] Chinese sources describe the disputed territory as having a total area of 1,900 square kilometres (730 sq mi) with India controlling 450 square kilometres (170 sq mi) of its southwest corner, west of Dêmqog and the Indus River.[9][10][11] [...] After the 1962 Sino-Indian War, the village of Demchok was divided in two parts, with Demchok, Ladakh administered by India and Dêmqog, Tibet Autonomous Region administered by China.[52][53] The split did not divide any of the resident families.[52] | 2020-07-19 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-supports |
borderlines-378_ret_bn_g9 | borderlines-378 | - | Demchok sector is a territory of People's Republic of China | Demchok sector | 2024-10-09 | https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Demchok_sector | The Demchok[lower-alpha 1] sector is a disputed area named after the villages of Demchok, Ladakh and Dêmqog, Tibet, situated near the confluence of the Charding Nullah and Indus River. It is a part of the greater Sino-Indian border dispute between China and India. Both China and India claim the disputed region, with a Line of Actual Control between the two nations situated along the Charding Nullah.[lower-alpha 2] [...] - ↑ Arpi, Claude (19 May 2017). "The Case of Demchok". Indian Defence Review. http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/the-case-of-demchok/. "The talks were held in Beijing between Zhang Hanfu, China's Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, N. Raghavan, the Indian Ambassador to China and T.N. Kaul, his Chargé d'Affaires and Chen Chai-Kang, a Director. They lasted from December 1953 till end of April 1954. [...] Kaul objected, Demchok was in India, he told Chen who answered that India's border was further on the West of the Indus. On Kaul's insistence Chen said "There can be no doubt about actual physical possession which can be verified on spot but to avoid any dispute we may omit mention of Demchok". [...] In October 1962, the Demchok sub-sector was held by the 7 J&K Militia. The PLA launched an attack on October 22. [...] The PLA eventually withdrew, but occupied the southern part of Demchok." | 2024-07-29 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-379_ret_b0_g2 | borderlines-379 | - | Demchok sector is a territory of India | Demchok sector | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demchok_sector | The Demchok sector[a] is a disputed area named after the villages of Demchok in Ladakh and Demchok in Tibet, situated near the confluence of the Charding Nullah and Indus River. It is a part of the greater Sino-Indian border dispute between China and India. Both China and India claim the disputed region, with a Line of Actual Control between the two nations situated along the Charding Nullah.[b] [...] The talks were held in Beijing between Zhang Hanfu, China's Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, N. Raghavan, the Indian Ambassador to China and T.N. Kaul, his Chargé d'Affaires and Chen Chai-Kang, a Director. They lasted from December 1953 till end of April 1954. [...] Kaul objected, Demchok was in India, he told Chen who answered that India's border was further on the West of the Indus. On Kaul's insistence Chen said "There can be no doubt about actual physical possession which can be verified on spot but to avoid any dispute we may omit mention of Demchok". [...] In October 1962, the Demchok sub-sector was held by the 7 J&K Militia. The PLA launched an attack on October 22. [...] The PLA eventually withdrew, but occupied the southern part of Demchok. [...] A selection of sources that state that the Demchok sector is administered by India:- Tamkin, Emily; Karklis, Laris; Meko, Tim (28 February 2019). "The Trouble with Kashmir". The Washington Post. Retrieved 15 May 2020. | 2024-09-08 | India | false | true | insufficient-refutes |
borderlines-379_ret_b11_gn | borderlines-379 | - | Demchok sector is a territory of India | Demchok sector | 2024-10-09 | https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Demchok_sector | The Demchok[lower-alpha 1] sector is a disputed area named after the villages of Demchok, Ladakh and Dêmqog, Tibet, situated near the confluence of the Charding Nullah and Indus River. It is a part of the greater Sino-Indian border dispute between China and India. Both China and India claim the disputed region, with a Line of Actual Control between the two nations situated along the Charding Nullah.[lower-alpha 2] [...] - ↑ Arpi, Claude (19 May 2017). "The Case of Demchok". Indian Defence Review. http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/the-case-of-demchok/. "The talks were held in Beijing between Zhang Hanfu, China's Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, N. Raghavan, the Indian Ambassador to China and T.N. Kaul, his Chargé d'Affaires and Chen Chai-Kang, a Director. They lasted from December 1953 till end of April 1954. [...] Kaul objected, Demchok was in India, he told Chen who answered that India's border was further on the West of the Indus. On Kaul's insistence Chen said "There can be no doubt about actual physical possession which can be verified on spot but to avoid any dispute we may omit mention of Demchok". [...] In October 1962, the Demchok sub-sector was held by the 7 J&K Militia. The PLA launched an attack on October 22. [...] The PLA eventually withdrew, but occupied the southern part of Demchok." [...] - Demchok Western Sector on OpenStreetMap (Indian-controlled) | 2024-07-29 | India | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-379_ret_b1_g0 | borderlines-379 | - | Demchok sector is a territory of India | Demchok sector | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demchok,_Ladakh | Demchok[a] (Tibetan: ཌེམ་ཆོག, Wylie: bde mchog, THL: dem chok),[6][7] previously called New Demchok,[8] and called Parigas (Chinese: 巴里加斯; pinyin: Bālǐ jiā sī) by the Chinese,[6][9][b] is a village and military encampment in the Indian-administered Demchok sector, that is disputed between India and China. It is administered as part of the Nyoma tehsil in the Leh district of Ladakh by India,[1][10] and claimed by China as part of the Tibet Autonomous Region.[11] [...] - ^ Arpi, Claude (December 2016) [abridged version published in Indian Defence Review, 19 May 2017], The Case of Demchok (PDF): 'Kaul objected, Demchok was in India, he told Chen who answered that India's border was further on the West of the Indus. On Kaul's insistence Chen said "There can be no doubt about actual physical possession which can be verified on spot but to avoid any dispute we may omit mention of Demchok". Though Kaul repeated Demchok was on India's side, the Chinese did not budge.' [...] External links [edit]- Demchok Western Sector (Chinese claim), OpenStreetMap - Demchok Eastern Sector (Indian claim), OpenStreetMap | 2024-08-11 | India | false | true | refutes |
borderlines-38_ret_b1_gn | borderlines-38 | - | Ingwavuma is a territory of South Africa | Ingwavuma | 2024-10-09 | https://www.sa-venues.com/attractionskzn/ingwavuma.php | Ingwavuma is a small rural town, nestled deep in the countryside of the KwaZulu-Natal Province of South Africa. Part of the Umkhanyakude District Municipality, Ingwavuma enjoys the hot, humid conditions typical of this part of South Africa for some of the year. However, being situated in the mountains and 700 metres above sea level, the climate can be cooler and more extreme than along the balmy coastline. [...] This little town was established in 1850, and was burnt to the ground during the Second Boer War in 1899. It was re-established the following year. Thanks to the rich Zulu culture and the fascinating history of British and Boer settlers, Ingwavuma continues to be full of heritage; inviting visitors from South Africa and all over the world to come and learn about the people and the place. Ingwavuma occupies only 1.74 square kilometres and is home to about 1 500 people. It has a number of schools, a hospital and a small shopping centre. The entire area is rural, however, and the facilities and services remain compromised by a lack of funds. | 2024-01-01 | South Africa | false | true | insufficient-refutes |
borderlines-38_ret_b5_gn | borderlines-38 | - | Ingwavuma is a territory of South Africa | Ingwavuma | 2024-10-09 | https://wikimili.com/en/Ingwavuma | Ingwavuma is a town in the Umkhanyakude District Municipality of KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa. It is unclear where the name of the town came from; one theory is that it was named after the Ngwavuma River while another is that there was a leader called Vuma, the name then meaning "Vuma's place" in Zulu. Trees found on the river bank are also named Ngwavuma (Elaeodendron transvaalense or Bushveld Saffron) but it is unclear which entity was named after which (person, river, town or trees). It is over 700 metres (2,297 feet) above sea level in the Lebombo Mountains and boasts several highly scenic spots. The town is three kilometres (2 miles) from the country's border with Eswatini and overlooks the plains of Maputaland to the East. [...] The Ngwavuma is a river in Eswatini and KwaZulu-Natal Province in southern Africa. It is also known as the Inguavuma, Ingwavuma, Ingwovuma, and Nggwavuma, and is one of the five major rivers in Eswatini. It arises in southwestern Eswatini and flows eastward. It is a tributary of the Pongola River. | 2024-02-28 | South Africa | false | true | insufficient-supports |
borderlines-380_ret_b18_gn | borderlines-380 | - | Demchok sector is a territory of Republic of China | Demchok sector | 2024-10-09 | https://en.bharatpedia.org/wiki/Demchok_sector | The Demchok sector is a disputed region centered on the villages of Demchok, Ladakh and Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture, situated near the confluence of the Charding Nullah and Indus River. It is part of the greater Sino-Indian border dispute between China and India. Both India and China claim the disputed region, with a Line of Actual Control between the two nations situated along the Charding Nullah.[lower-alpha 1] [...] The talks were held in Beijing between Zhang Hanfu, China's Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, N. Raghavan, the Indian Ambassador to China and T.N. Kaul, his Chargé d'Affaires and Chen Chai-Kang, a Director. They lasted from December 1953 till end of April 1954. [...] Kaul objected, Demchok was in India, he told Chen who answered that India's border was further on the West of the Indus. On Kaul's insistence Chen said "There can be no doubt about actual physical possession which can be verified on spot but to avoid any dispute we may omit mention of Demchok". [...] In October 1962, the Demchok sub-sector was held by the 7 J&K Militia. The PLA launched an attack on October 22. [...] The PLA eventually withdrew, but occupied the southern part of Demchok. | 2020-07-19 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-380_ret_b5_gn | borderlines-380 | - | Demchok sector is a territory of Republic of China | Demchok sector | 2024-10-09 | https://dbpedia.org/page/Demchok_sector | The Demchok sector is a disputed area named after the villages of Demchok in Ladakh and Demchok in Tibet, situated near the confluence of the Charding Nullah and Indus River. It is a part of the greater Sino-Indian border dispute between China and India. Both China and India claim the disputed region, with a Line of Actual Control between the two nations situated along the Charding Nullah. | 1999-02-22 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-381_ret_b19_gn | borderlines-381 | - | Depsang Plains is a territory of People's Republic of China | Depsang Plains | 2024-10-09 | https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Depsang_Valley | The Depsang Plains, a high-altitude gravelly plain in the northwest portion of the disputed Aksai Chin region of Kashmir, divided into Indian and Chinese administered portions by a Line of Actual Control.[2][3] India controls the western portion of the plains as part of Ladakh, while the eastern portion is controlled by China and claimed by India.[4] The Line of Control with Pakistan-administered Gilgit-Baltistan is 80 kilometres (50 mi) west of the Depsang Plains, with the Siachen Glacier in-between.[5] Ladakh's traditional trade route to Central Asia passed through the Depsang Plains, with the Karakoram Pass lying directly to its north. The Depsang plains are also part of the area called Sub-Sector North (SSN) by the Indian military.[6] The area sees frequent tension between China and India. Major standoffs between the two countries occurred in 2013, 2015 and 2020. [...] The Depsang plains are located in the north-western Aksai Chin.[9] They are bounded on the north by the valley of the Chip Chap River and on the west by the Shyok River. On the east, they are bounded by low hills of the Lak Tsung range, which separate them from the basin of the Karakash River. In the south, the Depsang Plains proper end at the Depsang La pass, but in common parlance, the Depsang region is taken to include the mountainous region to the south of it, including the "Depsang Bulge". The latter is a bulge in theoretical Indian territory, housing the upper course of the Burtsa Nala. | 2020-09-18 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-381_ret_b7_gn | borderlines-381 | - | Depsang Plains is a territory of People's Republic of China | Depsang Plains | 2024-10-09 | https://en.bharatpedia.org/wiki/Depsang_Plains | The Depsang Plains represent a high-altitude gravelly plain at the northwest portion of the disputed Aksai Chin region of Kashmir, divided into Indian and Chinese administered portions across a Line of Actual Control.[2][3] India controls the western portion of the plains as part of Ladakh, whereas the eastern portion is controlled by China and claimed by India.[4] The Line of Control with Pakistan-administered Gilgit-Baltistan is 80 kilometres (50 mi) west of the Depsang Plains with the Siachen Glacier in-between.[5] Ladakh's traditional trade route to Central Asia passed through the Depsang Plains, with the Karakoram Pass lying directly to its north. [...] The Depsang Plains are located in the north-western part of Aksai Chin.[9] They are bounded on the north by the valley of the Chip Chap River and on the west by the Shyok River. On the east they are bounded by low hills of the "Lak Tsung" range, which separate them from the basin of the Karakash River. In the south, the Depsang Plains proper end at the Depsang La pass, but in common parlance, the Depsang region is taken to include the mountainous region to the south of it, including the "Depsang Bulge". The latter is a bulge in theoretical Indian territory, housing the Raki Nala, which joins the Depsang Nala near Burtsa to form the Burtsa Nala. | 2020-09-18 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-381_ret_bn_g5 | borderlines-381 | - | Depsang Plains is a territory of People's Republic of China | Depsang Plains | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputed_territories_of_India | People's Republic of China's position [edit]The Depsang Plains are located on the border of the Indian union territory of Ladakh and the disputed zone of Aksai Chin. The Chinese Army controls most of the plains,[4] while India controls the western portion of the plains.[5] The dispute remains unresolved.[6] [...] - ^ Manoj Joshi (2013-05-07). "Making sense of the Depsang incursion". The Hindu. Retrieved 2014-03-15. | 2024-09-30 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-382_ret_bn_g1 | borderlines-382 | - | Depsang Plains is a territory of Republic of China | Depsang Plains | 2024-10-09 | https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/chinas-strategic-intentions-implications-for-india-and-taiwan | With the conclusion of the 20th Party Congress last month which consolidated President Xi Jinping’s continued reign for an unprecedented third term, there are daunting and potentially ominous times ahead for its two immediate neighbours–Taiwan and India. Let us begin with the latter, the Chinese have shown considerable truculence in their negotiations with India. As reported recently, an Indian intelligence report indicates that the Chinese are in no mood to vacate territory claimed by India in the Depsang plains of Ladakh. The territory on which Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) units are perched is 18 kilometres inside India’s claim lines, and the PLA has significantly enhanced its development of infrastructure along the Western sector. The Modi government would be well advised to be cautious and disabused of any temptation to concede the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) land grab, notwithstanding the Modi-Xi handshake at the G-20 Summit in Bali. This is reinforced by the Indian Army Chief General Manoj Pande’s recent statement that while the contested border is "…stable… unpredictable". The Depsang Plains is a strategically important territory, because the PLA’s control threatens India’s control over the Siachen Glacier, bringing the Indian Army under a pincer from both China and Pakistan. | 2023-12-04 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-383_ret_b12_gn | borderlines-383 | - | Depsang Plains is a territory of India | Depsang Plains | 2024-10-09 | https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/india-china-disengagement-along-the-lac | For Prelims: Line of Actual Control (LAC), Depsang Plains, Galwan Valley, Pangong Tso, BRICS, Siachen Glacier, Aksai Chin, Darbuk-Shyok-DBO Road, G20. [...] - However, Demchok and Depsang plains have seen no progress towards their resolution in the past two years. [...] - Depsang Plains: The Depsang Plains is a strategically important territory, because the PLA’s control threatens India’s control over the Siachen Glacier, encircling the Indian Army from both China and Pakistan. | 2024-09-18 | India | false | true | insufficient-refutes |
borderlines-383_ret_b19_gn | borderlines-383 | - | Depsang Plains is a territory of India | Depsang Plains | 2024-10-09 | https://theprint.in/pageturner/book-scene/4-tents-9-men-one-dog-how-2013-brought-back-border-conflict-between-india-and-china/1268353/ | This was not unusual: there were, as we have pointed out, many places along the LAC where the border was really marked by a Line of Perception—the Chinese had one and the Indians another. In this case the Lines of Perception had been some 10–15 km apart. The Chinese patrolled to their line and the Indians theirs. By agreement neither side could build structures or camp in this area. The Depsang Plains, some 900 sq. km in size and at an altitude of 16,000 ft (5,000 m), lie between high mountains on the Indian side and the Laktsang range in the east, adjacent to which runs the Chinese Aksai Chin Highway (G-219). To its north is the undisputed Sino–Indian border point—the Karakoram Pass, and to the south a knot of mountain territory which includes the Galwan river, the site of the June 2020 incident. To their surprise, the Indians were confronted by something unusual next morning. The Chinese had pitched tents and had not gone back. Neither did they do so the day after. | 2022-12-17 | India | false | true | insufficient-refutes |
borderlines-384_ret_b5_gn | borderlines-384 | - | Chumar is a territory of People's Republic of China | Chumar | 2024-10-09 | https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/doklam-standoff-india-china-compromise-demchok-chumar-daulta-beg-oldi-1034861-2017-08-31 | CHUMAR STAND-OFF: APRIL - May 2013 Hours after Chinese troops pulled back from Daulat Beg Oldi, they came back in Chumar area in Ladakh. This time, the local patrol teams said that some 300 PLA troops were camping in Chumar. Chinese troops came there objecting to tin shed structures put by the Indian forces. [...] Chumar is the last village in Ladakh area of Jammu and Kashmir bordering Himachal Pradesh. Chumar has been a bone of contention between India and China with latter claiming it to be its own territory. Chinese troops have been foraying into this border area with their helicopters almost every year. This time, their troops raised tents on the ground. | 2017-08-31 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-384_ret_b7_gn | borderlines-384 | - | Chumar is a territory of People's Republic of China | Chumar | 2024-10-09 | https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/at-chumar-a-retreat-of-sorts/story-ukuHuSe72iaxsLlBF2Gu8O.html | The staring match between Indian and Chinese troops at Chumar in eastern Ladakh continued on Friday amid evidence that the Chinese were retreating. Indian troops, however, have decided to adopt an aggressive stance and stay put at their positions in the sector. [...] Chumar, the last village in Ladakh area bordering Himachal Pradesh, has been a bone of contention with China claiming it to be its own territory. China has been sending helicopter sorties to the area almost every year. [...] Chumar became flash point during the fortnight long standoff last year in Daulat Beg Oldie as the Chinese side had objected to overhead bunkers erected by the Indian side. | 2014-09-20 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-refutes |
borderlines-385_ret_b4_gn | borderlines-385 | - | Chumar is a territory of Republic of China | Chumar | 2024-10-09 | https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chumar | Chumar is a place in the provences of Jammu and Kashmir, India.[1] The area is claimed by both China and India.[2] According to China's Ministry of Defence "the two countries’ border, to this day, has not been designated".[2] The problem is that for centuries, the sparsely inhabited mountainous region existed as a buffer zone between empires.[3] A border war broke out in 1962 that has to date killed thousands of soldiers. The tension between the two countries has come and gone but is now raised again.[3] References [change | change source]- ↑ "Where is Chumar in Jammu and Kashmir, India Located?". GoMapper. Archived from the original on 18 August 2019. Retrieved 29 December 2015. [...] Wikimedia Commons has media related to Chumar. | 2024-05-15 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-refutes |
borderlines-386_ret_b18_g8 | borderlines-386 | - | Chumar is a territory of India | Chumar | 2024-10-09 | https://theprint.in/defence/how-india-and-china-resolved-three-major-stand-offs-in-the-modi-era/430594/ | A 16-day stand-off ensued between Indian and Chinese forces in eastern Ladakh near the village of Chumar, after Indian soldiers tried to block Chinese construction work into what India considers its territory. This stand-off began on 16 September, the eve of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s first visit to India, about four months after Modi was elected PM. The stand-off began after the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) tried to extend the road from Chepzi towards Chumar (which India considers to be its own territory), and the construction work was stopped by Indian soldiers. Meanwhile, in Demchok, which is located in the Chumar area, PLA troops had pushed civilians into Indian territory to prevent ongoing work on an irrigation canal. [...] The stand-off was resolved after India and China managed to reach a quid pro quo. While the Chinese agreed to not pursue construction of the Chepzi-Chumar road, India agreed to demolish its observation hut at Tible in the same sector, and refrain from building bunkers there. | 2020-05-27 | India | false | true | insufficient-refutes |
borderlines-387_ret_b4_gn | borderlines-387 | - | Kaurik is a territory of Republic of China | Kaurik | 2024-10-09 | https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/chandigarh-news/chinas-pla-resumes-building-border-post-along-kaurik-in-hp-101620367078126.html | With snow melting in the high-altitude areas, China’s People Liberation Army has begun constructing a post along the Indian border in the sensitive Kaurik sector of Himachal Pradesh’s tribal Lahaul and Spiti district. [...] Five battalions of the ITBP guard the border with China in the state. In all, there are 20 ITBP posts along the border and Kaurik is a sensitive one being the last village beyond Sumdoh. [...] China stepped up activity in the region after air incursions in Kaurik sector in April last year. Chinese helicopters violated Indian airspace twice in April 2020. | 2021-05-07 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-387_ret_bn_g9 | borderlines-387 | - | Kaurik is a territory of Republic of China | Kaurik | 2024-10-09 | http://www.tibetarchaeology.com/may-2015/ | The Pare Chu begins north of the Parang La (5580 m), the main pass linking Spiti to Ladakh. It flows in a northeastern direction before entering Ladakh and turning south. The Pare Chu then crosses into the Tibetan territory known as Chumurti (Chu-mur-ti), in the township of Chusum (Chu-gsum), Tsamda (rTsa-mda’) county (Tibetan Autonomous Region). According to a Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) administrative map produced in the Tibetan language, entitled Bod rang skyong ljongs srid ’dzin sa khul gyi sa bkra, the stretch of the Pare Chu in Tibet is called Rubshok Tsangpo (Rub-shog gtsang-po). Bending again, this time to the west, the Pare Chu reenters India at Kaurik (Khyu-rigs) and joins with the Spiti river at Sumdo (Sum-mdo). A sliver of territory in southeastern Spiti under Indian jurisdiction is still officially contested by People’s Republic of China (PRC). The disputed area includes Kaurik, Sumdo and the Gyu (rGyu) valley. Fortunately, both India and the PRC have stated that they are committed to a peaceful settlement of all outstanding border issues. Residents of Kaurik were resettled in Hurling and other places after the 1962 war with China. [...] 2013, January. "High on the khyung". [...] Balikci, Anna. 2008. Lamas, Shamans and Ancestors: Village Religion in Sikkim. Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library, vol. 17. Leiden: Brill. | 2024-01-01 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-39_ret_b3_gn | borderlines-39 | - | Koalou is a territory of Burkina Faso | Koalou | 2024-10-09 | https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Koalou | Koalou or Kourou is a neutral zone between Benin and Burkina Faso[2] containing the villages of Koalou, Niorgou I, and Niorgou II.[3] The 68 km2 area of land is near the tripoint border with Togo and has been the subject of a dispute between the two countries for years. For Benin, the zone is part of the commune of Matéri in the department of Atakora; for Burkina Faso, the zone is part of the department of Pama in the province of Kompienga. The two countries chose to settle the issue peacefully in 2008 by removing all displayed symbols of sovereignty from both countries.[2] Since 2009, the area has been administered by the Joint Committee for the Concerted Management of the Kourou/Koalou Area (COMGEC-K). The committee is composed of 14 members from each country and is led by two chairmen.[2] Due to the delicate legal situation of the area, there is a lack of security as both Burkinabe and Benin forces have deserted the area in order to avoid a diplomatic incident.[4] The hole left by the security forces has caused Koalou/Kourou to become an epicentre of an illicit cross-border fuel trade. It has also allowed for Al-Qaida-affiliated groups to operate gold mines in the area and tax smugglers.[5] The problem has been slightly reduced following a crackdown on the area by Beninese troops in 2023. However, it did not come without controversy from Burkina Faso.[5][6] | 2023-08-18 | Burkina Faso | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-390_ret_b5_gn | borderlines-390 | - | Shipki La is a territory of People's Republic of China | Shipki La | 2024-10-09 | https://www.tripoto.com/kinnaur/trips/shipki-la-pass-india-tibet-border-5e03075e0b0a4 | Shipki La is a mountain pass and border post on the India-Tibet border. It is located in Kinnaur district in the state of Himachal Pradesh, India, and Tibet Autonomous Region in People’s Republic of China. Sutlej river enters India (from Tibet) through this pass. It is an offshoot of the ancient Silk Road. It is a border post for trade with China. The Shipki La pass is third Indian border post for business and trade with Tibetian people after the border post of Nathu La located in Sikkim, and the Lipulekh border post in Uttarakhand state of India. Shipki La pass is located very close to the village of Khab. Trade on the Shipki La Pass was re-established in 1993 after being shut in 1962 after Chinese attack. Trade has also been badly affected by flash floods. At present this border post Shipki is used mainly for the small-scale local trade just across the border. The Special Permit is given only to the local traders to go to Shipki La Pass to do cross border trade and Shipki La Pass is one of the three main Passes between India and China. This boarder is no more remained opened for nonresident people. In recent time travelers preferring to visit Tibet via land follow the route through Nepal. From year (2010), the Border Roads Organization (BRO) has been constructing a drivable way from the Indian side to join the tall pass. | 2016-11-03 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-refutes |
borderlines-390_ret_bn_g16 | borderlines-390 | - | Shipki La is a territory of People's Republic of China | Shipki La | 2024-10-09 | https://testbook.com/question-answer/correctly-arrange-the-following-passes-in-india-fr--61d6cf9fa37a7150215c6a2d | - Zoji La is a high mountain pass located in the Kargil district of Ladakh. [...] - Shipki La - It is a mountain pass and border post on the India-Tibet border, located in the Kinnaur district in the state of Himachal Pradesh, India, and Tibet Autonomous Region in the People’s Republic of China. | 2024-07-01 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-391_ret_b0_g0 | borderlines-391 | - | Shipki La is a territory of India | Shipki La | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipki_La | Shipki La is a mountain pass and border post with a dozen buildings of significant size on the India-China border. The river Sutlej, which is called Langqên Zangbo in Tibet, enters India (from Tibet) near this pass.[1] A spur road on the Indian side rises to an altitude of 4,720 metres (15,490 ft) four km southwest of Shipki La. [...] The road from Tyak to Shipki is very dangerous and precipitous, sometimes consisting of a rather insecure scaffolding on the face of the cliff, hundreds of feet above the roaring torrent, and is suitable only for porters or goats as the path is often cut into the cliff and one has to bend double to proceed. After 4 miles there is a small village called Korang, and the Sutlej is crossed by bridge, the first since Toling. A mile farther on is Kiuk and, 3 miles past that, Shipki. ... The next day we found that it [our camp] was the other side of the village, and we passed it on our way to the Shipki La. This is the border village and there is a lumbardar (headman) here who speaks Urdu and can be very helpful. The Shipki La is 13,420 feet and is the border between Tibet and Bashahr State. As far as I know it is the lowest pass through the Himalaya and is open for a large part of the year: On the pass I rested and looked back to Tibet, just turning golden-brown in the morning sun. [...] - ^ "Shipki La". www.dangerousroads.org. Retrieved 18 August 2017. | 2023-08-17 | India | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-391_ret_b10_gn | borderlines-391 | - | Shipki La is a territory of India | Shipki La | 2024-10-09 | https://www.indianetzone.com/80/shipki_la.htm | Shipki La is a mountain pass with 3930 meters of elevation. It is also the border post between India and China. Indian portion of this pass comes under Kinnaur region of Himachal Pradesh and China occupies the pass in Ngari Prefecture in Tibet. River Sutlej, also called Langqen Zangbo in Tibet, enters India near this pass. Shipki La pass is one of the border posts of India for trade with China along with Nathu La pass in Sikkim and Lipulekh in Uttarakhand. Shipki La pass is located near the Khab village of Himachal Pradesh. The road at the Shipki La pass is an offshoot of the ancient Silk Road. Currently, the road is mainly used for local trade of small scale across the border. The opening of the border at the Shipki La pass is considered to be potential enough to increase trade on the both sides of the border. Visiting Information to Shipki La Pass | 2022-11-11 | India | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-391_ret_b9_gn | borderlines-391 | - | Shipki La is a territory of India | Shipki La | 2024-10-09 | https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Shipki_La | Shipki La is a mountain pass and border post with a dozen buildings of significant size on the India-China border. The river Sutlej, which is called Langqên Zangbo in Tibet, enters India (from Tibet) near this pass.[1] A spur road on the Indian side rises to an altitude of 4,720 metres (15,490 ft) four km southwest of Shipki La. [...] The road from Tyak to Shipki is very dangerous and precipitous, sometimes consisting of a rather insecure scaffolding on the face of the cliff, hundreds of feet above the roaring torrent, and is suitable only for porters or goats as the path is often cut into the cliff and one has to bend double to proceed. After 4 miles there is a small village called Korang, and the Sutlej is crossed by bridge, the first since Toling. A mile farther on is Kiuk and, 3 miles past that, Shipki. ... The next day we found that it [our camp] was the other side of the village, and we passed it on our way to the Shipki La. This is the border village and there is a lumbardar (headman) here who speaks Urdu and can be very helpful. The Shipki La is 13,420 feet and is the border between Tibet and Bashahr State. As far as I know it is the lowest pass through the Himalaya and is open for a large part of the year: On the pass I rested and looked back to Tibet, just turning golden-brown in the morning sun. | 2017-06-09 | India | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-391_ret_bn_g2 | borderlines-391 | - | Shipki La is a territory of India | Shipki La | 2024-10-09 | https://byjus.com/question-answer/in-which-state-of-india-is-shipki-la-pass-located-himachal-pradeshkashmirladakhuttarakhand/ | In which state of India is Shipki La pass located? [...] The correct option is A Himachal Pradesh Shipki La is a mountain pass and has a border post with a dozen buildings of significant size on the India-China border. It is located in Kinnaur district in the state of Himachal Pradesh, India. | 2022-07-04 | India | false | true | insufficient-refutes |
borderlines-392_ret_b17_gn | borderlines-392 | - | Shipki La is a territory of Republic of China | Shipki La | 2024-10-09 | https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/chandigarh-news/crossborder-trade-with-china-via-shipki-la-pass-to-resume-after-2-years-101654623244921.html | After two years of trade suspension between India and China through the mountain passes connecting the two countries, primarily due to the Covid pandemic, the Himachal Pradesh government has sought clearance from the Union ministry to resume the business through Shipki La pass in the tribal Kinnaur district. [...] The bilateral trade through Shipki La pass reopened in 1993 after it was shut due to the Indo-China war in 1962. Shipki La is a mountain pass that connects the Kinnaur district to the Tibetan Autonomous Region in China. | 2022-06-07 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-refutes |
borderlines-393_ret_b0_g0 | borderlines-393 | - | Barahoti is a territory of India | Barahoti | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barahoti | Barahoti (Bara Hoti, Hoti Plain), also called Wu-Je or Wure (Chinese: 乌热; pinyin: Wū rè), located in the 'middle sector' of the disputed Sino-Indian border, is a 1.5 square miles (3.9 km2) sloping plain situated in the Indian state of Uttarakhand, Chamoli district.[1] It is disputed by China, which also disputes a 750 square kilometres (290 sq mi) area surrounding it.[2] The entire disputed area also goes by the name "Barahoti", or sometimes "Barahoti–Sangchamalla–Lapthal disputed area". The entire area is on the Ganges side of the Sutlej–Ganges water divide, which is also the current Line of Actual Control between India and China.[3] Barahoti was the first location in Indian territory claimed by China in 1954.[4] In 1960, China added Lapthal and Sangchamalla to the dispute and said that three places formed one composite area.[5] | 2023-06-01 | India | false | true | insufficient-supports |
borderlines-393_ret_b14_gn | borderlines-393 | - | Barahoti is a territory of India | Barahoti | 2024-10-09 | https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/alternate-route-ensures-access-to-contested-lac-in-uttarakhand-amid-glacier-burst-1767242-2021-02-08 | Barahoti is part of the central sector and is considered a sensitive area. [...] Barahoti is an 80 sq km contested area along the Line of Actual Control with China in Chamoli district of Uttarakhand. It is about 400 km from the state capital of Dehradun and 100 km from Joshimath, the location of a brigade headquatres. [...] The last big incident of hostility in Barahoti took place in 2017 during the Doklam standoff when Chinese troops transgressed into Indian territory forcing Indian shepherds out leading to some tensions. | 2021-02-08 | India | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-393_ret_b8_gn | borderlines-393 | - | Barahoti is a territory of India | Barahoti | 2024-10-09 | https://en.bharatpedia.org/wiki/Barahoti | Barahoti (Bara Hoti, Hoti Plain), also called Wu-Je or Wure (Chinese: 乌热; pinyin: Wū rè), is a 1.5 square miles (3.9 km2) sloping plain located in the Indian state of Uttarakhand, Chamoli district.[1] It is disputed by China, which also disputes a 750 square kilometres (290 sq mi) area surrounding it.[2] The entire disputed area also goes by the name "Barahoti", or sometimes "Barahoti–Sangchamalla–Lapthal disputed area". The entire area is on the Ganges side of the Sutlej–Ganges water divide, which is also the current Line of Actual Control between India and China.[3] Barahoti was the first location in Indian territory claimed by China in 1954.[4] In 1960, China added Lapthal and Sangchamalla to the dispute and said that three places formed one composite area.[5] | 2022-06-30 | India | false | true | supports |
borderlines-393_ret_bn_g6 | borderlines-393 | - | Barahoti is a territory of India | Barahoti | 2024-10-09 | https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/incursion | Contestations along the Sino-Indian border are complex and deeply region-specific. When it comes to Barahoti the same understanding of where the border is has never been accepted by China, Tibet, or India. Barahoti is a grazing ground about 16,000 feet above sea-level, close to the Tun Jun La pass between India and Tibet. To date there is no agreement on the geographical location of Barahoti. India claims it lies two miles south of Tun Jun La, China say it is 12 km to the north of the pass (Mathur 2012). In the everyday functioning of the local state’s outpost, this zone is a forgotten space where herdsmen, primarily Bhotiyas (lit. of Tibet) still take their livestock for grazing as the seasons change. In addition, a small contingent of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) is stationed there. | 2019-04-01 | India | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-394_ret_b0_gn | borderlines-394 | - | Barahoti is a territory of People's Republic of China | Barahoti | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barahoti | Barahoti (Bara Hoti, Hoti Plain), also called Wu-Je or Wure (Chinese: 乌热; pinyin: Wū rè), located in the 'middle sector' of the disputed Sino-Indian border, is a 1.5 square miles (3.9 km2) sloping plain situated in the Indian state of Uttarakhand, Chamoli district.[1] It is disputed by China, which also disputes a 750 square kilometres (290 sq mi) area surrounding it.[2] The entire disputed area also goes by the name "Barahoti", or sometimes "Barahoti–Sangchamalla–Lapthal disputed area". The entire area is on the Ganges side of the Sutlej–Ganges water divide, which is also the current Line of Actual Control between India and China.[3] Barahoti was the first location in Indian territory claimed by China in 1954.[4] In 1960, China added Lapthal and Sangchamalla to the dispute and said that three places formed one composite area.[5] [...] - Barahoti disputed area, OpenStreetMap, retrieved 1 February 2022. | 2023-06-01 | People's Republic of China | false | true | supports |
borderlines-394_ret_b18_gn | borderlines-394 | - | Barahoti is a territory of People's Republic of China | Barahoti | 2024-10-09 | https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/over-100-chinese-soldiers-transgress-into-uttarakhand-damage-bridge-in-barahoti-report/817782 | Barahoti lies on the border with China in the Chamoli district of Uttrakhand, north of the Nanda Devi National Park. Back in July 2017, Chinese soldiers had transgressed into Barahoti twice during India's standoff with China in Bhutan's Doklam. An ITBP source had then told the Indian Express that, "On both occasions [on July 15 and July 25] about 15-20 Chinese soldiers transgressed into the territory at Barahoti that India and China lay claim upon. The soldiers stayed there for a while and returned." | 2021-09-28 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-396_ret_b4_gn | borderlines-396 | - | Jadhang is a territory of Republic of China | Jadhang | 2024-10-09 | https://claudearpi.blogspot.com/2020/08/a-series-on-chinese-claims-in-central.html | The Nilang/Jadhang 'dispute' with Tibet Nilang/Jadhang is the third places ‘disputed’ by China in the Central Sector (going westward). [...] The Report of 1960 further noted: "In this sector the Chinese alignment are conformed for the most part to the traditional Indian alignment. Only in four areas did it diverge from the watershed to include certain pockets of Indian territory in China-the Spiti are (Chuva and Chuje), Shipki pass, the Nilang-Jadhang area (Sang and Tsungsha) and Barahoti (Wu-je) Sangchamalla and Lapthal. In this sector, therefore, it would be sufficient to prove the traditional and customary basis of the Indian alignment in these four areas." | 2020-08-28 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-396_ret_b5_gn | borderlines-396 | - | Jadhang is a territory of Republic of China | Jadhang | 2024-10-09 | https://www.jatland.com/home/Jadhang | Jadhang (जादंग) is a small hilly village in Uttarkashi District, Uttarakhand, and claimed by Zanda County, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet, China. [...] Nelang and Jadhang villages are inhabited by the Char Bhutia tribe who practice Buddhism. During the 1962 Sino-Indian War, India evacuated these villages. The villagers of Nelong-Jadhang villages situated on Indo-China border have a twinge of eviction during Indo-China War of 1962. The elders of the border area say that the Indo-China war went on from October 20 to November 21 in 1962. The next year, when they started going to their villages, the government stopped them. Their Nelong and Jadhang villages were handed over to the army, declaring a threat from China. The villagers of Nelong-Jadhang used to migrate to the traditional pasture camps of Dunda, Tehri, Mussoorie, Rishikesh, and Dehradun with their flocks. The villagers returned from these villages to their winter camps in the month of September before Diwali in 1962. The security of this border was dependent on the police and the Special Task Force. Later ITBP and Army were deployed here. | 2022-02-04 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-supports |
borderlines-396_ret_bn_g9 | borderlines-396 | - | Jadhang is a territory of Republic of China | Jadhang | 2024-10-09 | http://snowscapes.blogspot.com/2013/08/in-valley-of-jadhs-june-2013-part-12.html | The Tale of the Jadhs of Jadhung "They must have cooked the name up" I thought when one of the officers of the Jadung post said… "हाँ हाँ, दस कीलोमीटर आगे ताल है बहुत सुन्दर- जनक ताल ." [...] The Jadhs of Jadhung (Jadh-Dung) [...] The name Jadung seems to have come from the compound word Jadh (name of the tribe that inhabited the valley)- Dung (Mountain). | 2013-08-19 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-397_ret_bn_g1 | borderlines-397 | - | Jadhang is a territory of People's Republic of China | Jadhang | 2024-10-09 | https://claudearpi.blogspot.com/2020/08/pulamsamda-vs-pulang-sumdo-another.html | Let us remember the basics to determine a border, as explained in the Report of the Officials of India and China in 1960/61; the Indian Report says: "In the Middle Sector both sides had referred to the watershed boundary and were clear as to where the watershed lay. In fact, the two alignments coincided for the most part along the main watershed. The Chinese alignment departed from it only at Gyuand Kauirik, Shipki, Nilang-Jadhang, Barahoti, Lapthal and Sangchamalla. All these departures from the watershed were also the points of divergence from the Indian alignment, and were, curiously enough, to the south and west, so as to include Indian territory in Tibet, and in no case the other way round. These isolated and small departures always in one direction were difficult to comprehend and emphasized that the correct traditional boundary lay along the watershed itself." [...] The Report of 1960 further noted: "In this sector the Chinese alignment are conformed for the most part to the traditional Indian alignment. Only in four areas did it diverge from the watershed to include certain pockets of Indian territory in China-the Spiti are (Chuva and Chuje), Shipki pass, the Nilang-Jadhang area (Sang and Tsungsha) and Barahoti (Wu-je) Sangchamalla and Lapthal. In this sector, therefore, it would be sufficient to prove the traditional and customary basis of the Indian alignment in these four areas." [...] There was no quid pro quo as long as Tibet was independent (though the entire Nilang-Jadhang area was claimed by Lhasa). | 2020-08-22 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-397_ret_bn_g3 | borderlines-397 | - | Jadhang is a territory of People's Republic of China | Jadhang | 2024-10-09 | https://www.himalayanclub.org/hj/69/7/exploring-the-valley-of-the-jadhs/ | The Jadhs of Jadhung (Jadh-Dung) The name Jadung seems to have come from Jadh (name of the tribe that inhabited the valley) and Dung (mountain). The British mapmakers have mentioned this place as Jadhang, but all local residents of Uttarkashi use the name Jadung (perhaps Jadh-Dung) for this village and valley. The pronunciation agrees well with the nomenclature. Agriculture, livestock and commerce drove economy of their villages of Jadh-Dung and Nelang2. The Jadh population3 is estimated at around 2500 today of which more than 60% are residents of the Kinnaur valley in Himachal and the rest in the villages of Harsil and Dunda in Uttarakhand. Although of predominantly Bhotia origins, the Jadh people have a strong Garhwali influence. Even though they have converted to Buddhism and changed their rituals during the time of Tibetan domination; the legend of King Janak and festivals like Pandav Lila4 continues to live on in the Jadh consciousness. [...] Due to some communication issue, the post-commander at Jadung had not been informed about our arrival through official channels. By about 8 in the evening the official hassles were sorted out. The day ended with a nice campfire in the farmlands of Jadung. The little solar-powered lights of the ITBP post shone at a distance across a little stream. The silhouettes of the ruins of the Jadung village around created an ambience that was surreal and ghostly. | 2024-01-01 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-398_ret_b13_g0 | borderlines-398 | - | Jadhang is a territory of India | Jadhang | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sang,_Uttarakhand | Sang (Jadhang) is a small hilly village in Uttarkashi District, Uttarakhand, India, and claimed by Zanda County, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet, China. A tributary of the Jadh Ganga, itself an important tributary of the Bhagirathi River, flows through this place. [...] History [edit]Etymology [edit]Jadhang village itself and Jad people living in Jadhang and Nelang valley are named after a man "Jadha" who was resettled here by British adventurer Frederick Wilson. The settlement document of Garhwal Kingdom, which administered this area, from that era reads, "Wilson invited certain Jadha from the upper Pargana of Kunawar in Bashahr state (now in Himachal Pradesh) to settle at Nilang, re-establish the hamlet of Jadhang and administered the area on behalf of Maharaja Bhavani Shah [r. 1859-71 CE]."[3] [...] Since 1962: Territorial dispute [edit]The India-held valley of the Jadh Ganga river is also claimed by China.[4] | 2023-12-12 | India | false | true | insufficient-refutes |
borderlines-398_ret_b6_gn | borderlines-398 | - | Jadhang is a territory of India | Jadhang | 2024-10-09 | https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Jadhang | Sang (Jadhang) is a small hilly village in Uttarkashi District, Uttarakhand, India, and claimed by Zanda County, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet, China. A tributary of the Jadh Ganga, itself an important tributary of the Bhagirathi River, flows through this place. [...] Jadhang village itself and Jad people living in Jadhang and Nelang valley are named after a man "Jadha" who was resettled here by British adventurer Frederick Wilson. The settlement document of Garhwal Kingdom, which administered this area, from that era reads, "Wilson invited certain Jadha from the upper Pargana of Kunawar in Bashahr state (now in Himachal Pradesh) to settle at Nilang, re-establish the hamlet of Jadhang and administered the area on behalf of Maharaja Bhavani Shah [r. 1859-71 CE]."[3] [...] The India-held valley of the Jadh Ganga river is also claimed by China.[4] | 2020-07-18 | India | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-398_ret_b8_gn | borderlines-398 | - | Jadhang is a territory of India | Jadhang | 2024-10-09 | https://en.bharatpedia.org/wiki/Sang,_Uttarakhand | Sang (Jadhang) is a small hilly village in Uttarkashi District, Uttarakhand, India, and claimed by Zanda County, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet, China. A tributary of the Jadh Ganga, itself an important tributary of the Bhagirathi River, flows through this place. Mana Pass and some of the nearby villages are Tirpani, Nelang and Pulam Sumda, which all lie in the valley of the Jadh Ganga.[1] [...] The valley of the Jadh Ganga is claimed by China.[2] | 2020-07-18 | India | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-399_ret_b0_gn | borderlines-399 | - | Lapthal is a territory of Republic of China | Lapthal | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapthal | Lapthal is located in the Pithoragarh district and Chamoli district of Uttarakahand, India.[1] Lapthal is historically part of India territory and currently controlled by India with some claim on the region by Zanda County, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet, China. Origins of Lapthal [edit]The Lapthal Region, located in Pithoragarh District in the north-east of Uttarakhand, Himalayas, holds a fascinating geological history that traces back to the ancient Tethys Sea. During the Mesozoic Era, the Tethys Sea was a vast ocean separating the supercontinents of Gondwana and Laurasia. As tectonic movements gradually pushed these landmasses together, the Tethys Sea began to close, giving rise to the majestic Himalayas. Today, the Lapthal Region offers a rare glimpse into this bygone era, with marine fossils and sedimentary rock formations that once lay at the bottom of the Tethys Sea now visible on the surface. These geological remnants provide invaluable insights into the Earth's dynamic history and the processes that shaped the current Himalayan landscape. [2][3][4] [...] Presently, access to Lapthal is limited to trekking routes from Sumna in Chamoli or Munsiyari in Pithoragarh, although the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) has plans to construct a new route from Sumna to Lapthal. | 2024-07-20 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-refutes |
borderlines-399_ret_b12_gn | borderlines-399 | - | Lapthal is a territory of Republic of China | Lapthal | 2024-10-09 | https://claudearpi.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-unnecessary-controversy-of-lapthal.html | At the 15th meeting at Beijing on July 18, 1960, while answering the question of the Indian side, the Chinese suddenly stated that Barahoti (Wu-je), Sangchamalla and Lapthal formed one composite area on the Chinese side of the alignment claimed by them, and there was no Indian territory wedged between these three pockets. [...] The Report continued: "In the winter of 1958, when according to usual practice, the Indian border check-posts retired south, Chinese patrols for the first time intruded into these two places; in 1959 the Chinese Government put forward a claim to these places; and now for the first time it was stated that Wu-je, Sangchamalla and Lapthal formed one composite area and the Chinese side claimed not merely these three places but also the territory lying between them, even though in the description given at an early stage of the meetings, Wu-je, Sangchamalla and Lapthal were specified as three separate places." [...] The Chinese negotiators had quoted a passage from Strachey who said that Lapthal was more accessible from Tibet: "But comparative accessibility has never been a criterion in the determination of a boundary." | 2020-09-08 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-399_ret_bn_g5 | borderlines-399 | - | Lapthal is a territory of Republic of China | Lapthal | 2024-10-09 | https://claudearpi.blogspot.com/2020/08/pulamsamda-vs-pulang-sumdo-another.html | Let us remember the basics to determine a border, as explained in the Report of the Officials of India and China in 1960/61; the Indian Report says: "In the Middle Sector both sides had referred to the watershed boundary and were clear as to where the watershed lay. In fact, the two alignments coincided for the most part along the main watershed. The Chinese alignment departed from it only at Gyuand Kauirik, Shipki, Nilang-Jadhang, Barahoti, Lapthal and Sangchamalla. All these departures from the watershed were also the points of divergence from the Indian alignment, and were, curiously enough, to the south and west, so as to include Indian territory in Tibet, and in no case the other way round. These isolated and small departures always in one direction were difficult to comprehend and emphasized that the correct traditional boundary lay along the watershed itself." [...] The Report of 1960 further noted: "In this sector the Chinese alignment are conformed for the most part to the traditional Indian alignment. Only in four areas did it diverge from the watershed to include certain pockets of Indian territory in China-the Spiti are (Chuva and Chuje), Shipki pass, the Nilang-Jadhang area (Sang and Tsungsha) and Barahoti (Wu-je) Sangchamalla and Lapthal. In this sector, therefore, it would be sufficient to prove the traditional and customary basis of the Indian alignment in these four areas." | 2020-08-22 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-refutes |
borderlines-4_ret_b5_gn | borderlines-4 | - | Kafia Kingi is a territory of Sudan | Kafia Kingi | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudan%E2%80%93Sudan_relations | Kafia Kingi [edit]Kafia Kingi is a South Sudan sovereign territory according to the authoritative 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed by both states, the UN, and Colin Powell representing the US, but has largely been controlled ever since then by Sudanese forces. The binding 2005 agreement specifies use of the 1 January 1956 boundary. Kafia Kingi was not transferred to Darfur in the north until 1960. | 2024-04-02 | Sudan | false | true | insufficient-supports |
borderlines-4_ret_bn_g6 | borderlines-4 | - | Kafia Kingi is a territory of Sudan | Kafia Kingi | 2024-10-09 | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A32016D1446 | Address: Kafia Kingi (a territory on the border of Sudan and South Sudan whose final status has yet to be determined). [...] In April 2015, Salim departed Kafia Kingi to retrieve a shipment of tusks. In May, Salim participated in the transport of 20 pieces of ivory from DRC to Kafia Kingi. Around the same time, Ali met with the merchants to purchase supplies and to plan a future meeting to conduct additional transactions and to agree to terms of purchase on the LRA's behalf for what is assessed to be the ivory that Salim was escorting. [...] Address: a) Kafia Kingi (a territory on the border of Sudan and South Sudan whose final status has yet to be determined) b) Central African Republic | 2016-09-01 | Sudan | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-400_ret_bn_g1 | borderlines-400 | - | Lapthal is a territory of India | Lapthal | 2024-10-09 | https://claudearpi.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-unnecessary-controversy-of-lapthal.html | Again the Indian negotiators had to show that the traditional and customary boundary in this sector lay along the watershed range, "on which were the passes of Tsangchok La, Mana, Niti, Tunjun La, Balcha Dhura, Kungri Bingri, Darma and Lipulekh. Nilang, Jadhang and Pulamsumda were in Uttarkashi district (formerly Tehri-Garhwal State), Barahoti in Garhwal district and Sangchamalla and Lapthal in Almora district, in Uttar Pradesh State." [...] The road from Milam passes through Sangchamalla; and Lapthal is south of Sangchamalla; it meant that both places are in India. [...] The Report concluded that as far as Sangchamalla and Lapthal were concerned, the evidence submitted by India was conclusive: "The Gazetteer Map clearly showed the pasture grounds of Sangchamalla and Lapthal as the northern most parts of the Patti Malla Johar of the Almora District and Milam was the northernmost village in the Patti. It was, therefore, clear that Sangchamalla and Lapthal were included in the traditional boundaries of Milam. The revenue settlements for Milam and the census taken in the area had also included Sangchamalla and Lapthal. The area upto the border had been regularly visited by Indian officials." | 2020-09-08 | India | false | true | refutes |
borderlines-400_ret_bn_g2 | borderlines-400 | - | Lapthal is a territory of India | Lapthal | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barahoti | Barahoti was the first location in Indian territory claimed by China in 1954.[4] In 1960, China added Lapthal and Sangchamalla to the dispute and said that three places formed one composite area.[5] [...] Lapthal (or Laptel, 30°44′00″N 80°08′00″E / 30.7333°N 80.1333°E Chinese: 拉不底) is a large pasture towards the eastern end of the bowl. It is on the bank of the Lapthal river (or Kio Gad) in the Pithoragarh district of Kumaon. It is accessed from the Johar Valley of the Pithoragarh district via Unta Dhura (5350m, 30°34′35″N 80°10′21″E / 30.5763°N 80.1725°E), through the Girthi Ganga valley, and the Kyungar La pass (5250m, 30°39′03″N 80°09′32″E / 30.6509°N 80.1588°E).[citation needed] [...] Disputes [edit]Hardly had the talks ended, than China complained of armed Indian officials arriving in the area on July 8. India deemed it to be routine "revenue settlement operations" by Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, mounted only as a reciprocation to China sending their civil officials on 29 June but rejected the charges of carrying arms. Later that year, according to Indian Government, once winter set in and Indian border posts were dismantled, two adjacent areas (on east and west) —Lapthal and Sangchamalla— were intruded by Chinese troops only for China to claim all the three places (individually) next year. | 2023-06-01 | India | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-401_ret_b2_gn | borderlines-401 | - | Lapthal is a territory of People's Republic of China | Lapthal | 2024-10-09 | https://claudearpi.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-unnecessary-controversy-of-lapthal.html | At the 15th meeting at Beijing on July 18, 1960, while answering the question of the Indian side, the Chinese suddenly stated that Barahoti (Wu-je), Sangchamalla and Lapthal formed one composite area on the Chinese side of the alignment claimed by them, and there was no Indian territory wedged between these three pockets. [...] The Report continued: "In the winter of 1958, when according to usual practice, the Indian border check-posts retired south, Chinese patrols for the first time intruded into these two places; in 1959 the Chinese Government put forward a claim to these places; and now for the first time it was stated that Wu-je, Sangchamalla and Lapthal formed one composite area and the Chinese side claimed not merely these three places but also the territory lying between them, even though in the description given at an early stage of the meetings, Wu-je, Sangchamalla and Lapthal were specified as three separate places." [...] In any case Strachey had also said that "from Sangchamalla he had proceeded north towards the boundary of Tibet. Lapthal was to the south of Sangchamalla and, therefore, the evidence about Sangchamalla covered Lapthal." | 2020-09-08 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-supports |
borderlines-402_ret_bn_g17 | borderlines-402 | - | Nelang is a territory of People's Republic of China | Nelang | 2024-10-09 | https://himalayandreamtreks.in/blog/nelong-valley-the-unexplored-valley-of-uttarakhand/ | Nelong Valley is located within Gangotri National Park, so the opening and closing times of the National Park also apply to the valley. The National Park opens in April, and tourist visits are allowed only after forest officials complete their reconnaissance. In April, the National Park is still covered with snow, as is Nelong Valley. The best time to visit the nelong valley is from May to June and mid-September to mid-October. [...] Nelong Valley is visited only during the daytime, so the temperatures mentioned here reflect daytime conditions. [...] Before the Sino-Indian War of 1962, Nelong and other villages were residences of the Jadh Bhotiya tribe. The Jadh of Kinnaur and Nelong had trade ties with Tibet, and people from here used to go to Tibet regularly for trade. However, due to the war, all the villages were evacuated by 1965, and the Jad community was settled in Bagori and Dunda. | 2024-09-06 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-402_ret_bn_g5 | borderlines-402 | - | Nelang is a territory of People's Republic of China | Nelang | 2024-10-09 | https://claudearpi.blogspot.com/2024/ | The places are Nilang (also written as Nelang), a village located in the Jadh Ganga valley, Jadhang (or Jadhung) and Pulam Sumda, the latter two lying on the upper reaches, towards the India-Tibet frontier. The Line of Actual Control (LAC) with the Chinese army occupying Tibet is located on top of the ridge. [...] In 1921, the Tsaparang Dzongpen visited Nelang again. This time, he sent a letter to the Raja of Tehri requesting him to nominate an official to sort out the boundary issue; at that time, it was not yet considered a 'dispute'; it was only a 'difference of perceptions' between friendly neighbours. [...] On May 2, 1956, the ministry of external affairs complained about a Chinese intrusion. The ministry said: 'Nilang at the area right up to Tsang Chok‐la pass is clearly within Indian territory and has always been in our possession.' | 2024-06-25 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-403_ret_b0_g0 | borderlines-403 | - | Nelang is a territory of India | Nelang | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelang | Nelang or Nilang is a river valley of the Himalayas, containing a small eponymous village, in the Uttarkashi District of the state of Uttarakhand, India. It is close to the disputed Sino-Indian Line of Actual Control (LAC), and is also claimed by China as part of Zanda County of Ngari Prefecture of Tibet. [...] Geography [edit]The Jadh Ganga, an important tributary of the Bhagirathi River, flows through a narrow gorge flanked by steep cliffs. The gorge is called Jadh Ganga valley, and part of this valley near Nelang is called Nelang Valley. [...] Culture [edit]Nelang and Jadhang villages are inhabited by the Char Bhutia tribe, who practice Buddhism. During the 1962 Sino-Indian War, India evacuated these villages. | 2023-12-12 | India | false | true | insufficient-supports |
borderlines-403_ret_b18_gn | borderlines-403 | - | Nelang is a territory of India | Nelang | 2024-10-09 | https://en.bharatpedia.org/wiki/Nelang | Nelang or Nilang is a river valley of Himalayas, with a small eponymous village, in Uttarkashi District of Uttarakhand state of India. It is close to disputed Sino-India Line of Actual Control (LAC), hence also claimed by China as part of Zanda County of Ngari Prefecture of Tibet. [...] Jadh Ganga, an important tributary of the Bhagirathi River, flows through a narrow gorge flanked by steep cliffs. The gorge is called Jadh Ganga valley, and part of this valley near Nelang is called Nelang Valley. [...] Nelang and Jadhang villages are inhabited by the Char Bhutia tribe who practice Buddhism. During the 1962 Sino-Indian War, India evacuated these villages. | 2020-07-18 | India | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-404_ret_b3_gn | borderlines-404 | - | Nelang is a territory of Republic of China | Nelang | 2024-10-09 | https://medium.com/@dhruv.sharma/nelang-valley-82d15bd2d82 | Nelang Valley: Mountain Desert and a Blue River [...] At an altitude of 11,600 feet, located 45 kilometres from the Indo-China border in Gangotri National Park is a cold mountain desert called Nelang. The etymology of the word Nelang suggests that it means the ‘place of blue stones’. It was once an important centre for trade with Tibet. [...] The women of this tribe were good weavers of carpets, blankets and woollen clothes. Jadh Bhotia tribesmen would travel to the Tibetan plateau for trade through the Nelang and Jadung Valleys. Traded goods included livestock such as yak, sheep and goats and products made out of their wool and skin. | 2017-10-02 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-405_ret_b0_g0 | borderlines-405 | - | Pulam Sumda is a territory of India | Pulam Sumda | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulam_Sumda | Pulam Sumda is a small hilly village which lies in Uttarkashi District, Uttarakhand, India. Pulam Sumda is a part of Uttarkashi District, Uttarakhand, India, and claimed by Zanda County, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet, China.[1] The Jadh Ganga, an important tributary of the Bhagirathi River, flows through this place. Some of the nearby villages are Jadhang, Sang and Nelang, which all lie in the valley of the Jadh Ganga.[2][3] Geography [edit]See Geography of Dhumku, Nelang, Pulam Sumda, Sumla and Mana Pass area and Geography of Mana. | 2023-12-12 | India | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-405_ret_b15_gn | borderlines-405 | - | Pulam Sumda is a territory of India | Pulam Sumda | 2024-10-09 | https://en.bharatpedia.org/wiki/Pulam_Sumda | Pulam Sumda is a small hilly village which lies in Uttarkashi District, Uttarakhand, India. Pulam Sumda is a part of Uttarkashi District, Uttarakhand, India, and claimed by Zanda County, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet, China. Jadh Ganga, an important tributary of the Bhagirathi River, flows through this place. Some of the nearby villages are Jadhang (Sang) and Nelang, which all lie in the valley of the Jadh Ganga.[1][2] See Geography of Dhumku, Nelang, Pulam Sumda, Sumla and Mana Pass area and Geography of Mana. | 2005-11-26 | India | false | true | supports |
borderlines-405_ret_b16_gn | borderlines-405 | - | Pulam Sumda is a territory of India | Pulam Sumda | 2024-10-09 | https://wiki2.org/en/Pulam_Sumda | Pulam Sumda is a small hilly village which lies in Uttarkashi District, Uttarakhand, India. Pulam Sumda is a part of Uttarkashi District, Uttarakhand, India, and claimed by Zanda County, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet, China.[1] The Jadh Ganga, an important tributary of the Bhagirathi River, flows through this place. Some of the nearby villages are Jadhang, Sang and Nelang, which all lie in the valley of the Jadh Ganga.[2][3] [...] See Geography of Dhumku, Nelang, Pulam Sumda, Sumla and Mana Pass area and Geography of Mana. | 2005-11-26 | India | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-405_ret_bn_g7 | borderlines-405 | - | Pulam Sumda is a territory of India | Pulam Sumda | 2024-10-09 | https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Pulam_Sumda | Pulam Sumda is a small hilly village which lies in Uttarkashi District, Uttarakhand, India. Pulam Sumda is a part of Uttarkashi District, Uttarakhand, India, and claimed by Zanda County, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet, China.[1] The Jadh Ganga, an important tributary of the Bhagirathi River, flows through this place. Some of the nearby villages are Jadhang, Sang and Nelang, which all lie in the valley of the Jadh Ganga.[2][3] See Geography of Dhumku, Nelang, Pulam Sumda, Sumla and Mana Pass area and Geography of Mana. | 2005-11-26 | India | false | true | supports |
borderlines-408_ret_b15_gn | borderlines-408 | - | Sang is a territory of India | Sang | 2024-10-09 | https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137031716_15 | The Sangh Parivar, a network of organizations articulated around the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS – National Volunteer Corps), has become over the years a global movement propagating a Hindu nationalist agenda. As such, it links and imbricates transnationalism and nationalism. Hindu nationalism is an exclusive form of ethnoreligious nationalism which thrived in the first years of the twentieth century in reaction to the ‘threat’ theWest (Christian missionaries as well as British colonizers) and the Muslim minority (allegedly related to a pan-Islamic movement rooted in the Middle East) were according to its leaders posing to the Hindus. It was and still is very much linked to the soil of India and is not naturally inclined to overflow India’s borders. Its deep-seated ethnoreligious nature coincides with a people and a civilization. It is indissociable from a territory, the ‘sacred’ land of ‘eternal’ India. However, over the years, the Sangh Parivar developed the idea of a global Hinduism that transcends the physical frontiers of India and reaches out to the diaspora, thus operating a shift from an ethnoterritorial to a more purely ethnic base – a development related to the growth of the Hindu diaspora. An RSS pamphlet significantly entitled RSS: Widening Horizons can thus boast that ‘the Sangh’s sphere of influence has been spreading far and wide, not only inside Bharat [India] but also abroad, like the radiance of a many splendoured diamond’.1 | 2008-11-12 | India | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-409_ret_b19_gn | borderlines-409 | - | Sang is a territory of People's Republic of China | Sang | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_changes_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China | Territorial changes of the People's Republic of China The territory of the People's Republic of China (PRC) has frequently been revised since its formation on 1 October 1949. [...] See also [edit]- Land reclamations of the People's Republic of China - Borders of China - Territorial disputes of the People's Republic of China | 2024-05-17 | People's Republic of China | false | false | not_applicable |
borderlines-409_ret_bn_g16 | borderlines-409 | - | Sang is a territory of People's Republic of China | Sang | 2024-10-09 | https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/2528218/ | 51 Chang, "China’s claim of sovereignty," 405. 52 Chang, "China’s claim of sovereignty," 405. 53 Chang, "China’s claim of sovereignty," 406. | 2021-03-08 | People's Republic of China | false | false | not_applicable |
borderlines-41_ret_b2_gn | borderlines-41 | - | Sipilou is a territory of Ivory Coast | Sipilou | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sipilou_Department | Sipilou Department is a department of Tonkpi Region in Montagnes District, Ivory Coast. In 2021, its population was 73,109 and its seat is the settlement of Sipilou. The sub-prefectures of the department are Sipilou and Yorodougou. History [edit]Sipilou Department was created in 2012 by dividing Biankouma Department.[3][4] [...] - ^ "Le décret n° 2012-611 du 04 juillet 2012 portant création des Départements de Djékanou, Sipilou, Kong, Gbéléban, Taabo, Kouassi-Kouassikro, Méagui, Séguélon, Buyo, M'Bengué, Facobly et Dianra". | 2022-09-23 | Ivory Coast | false | true | supports |
borderlines-41_ret_b6_gn | borderlines-41 | - | Sipilou is a territory of Ivory Coast | Sipilou | 2024-10-09 | https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Sipilou_Department | Sipilou Department is a department of Tonkpi Region in Montagnes District, Ivory Coast. In 2021, its population was 73,109 and its seat is the settlement of Sipilou. The sub-prefectures of the department are Sipilou and Yorodougou. Sipilou Department was created in 2012 by dividing Biankouma Department.[3][4] | 2012-09-26 | Ivory Coast | false | true | supports |
borderlines-411_ret_b2_gn | borderlines-411 | - | James Shoal is a territory of Malaysia | James Shoal | 2024-10-09 | https://www.rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/rsis/chinas-james-shoal-claim-malaysia-the-undisputed-owner/ | Malaysia owns James Shoal, a submerged feature that is within its continental shelf. Being one thousand nautical miles from Hainan, James Shoal is outside the continental shelf of China; it is also outside the continental shelf of Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei and Indonesia. [...] James Shoal is 500 nm from Pagasa Island in the Spratlys that the Philippines has occupied since 1971. The Shoal is more than 400 nm from Itu Aba, an island that Taiwan has occupied since 1956. James Shoal is also outside Brunei’s extended maritime zone which the 2009 Letter of Exchange Brunei had with Malaysia attested to. In 1969, Malaysia and Indonesia signed a Treaty on the continental shelf, off Tanjung Datu, Sarawak, which has placed James Shoal on the Malaysian side. [...] Although the feature is nearer to Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur’s ownership of James Shoal is not premised on geographical contiguity but on customary international law. In the Island of Palmas (or Miangas) (United States v. The Netherlands), Arbitral Award, 1928 Judge Huber stated, "it is impossible to show the existence of a rule of positive international law" on contiguity to "the effect that islands situated outside territorial waters should belong to the state". | 2014-07-01 | Malaysia | false | true | supports |
borderlines-411_ret_b9_gn | borderlines-411 | - | James Shoal is a territory of Malaysia | James Shoal | 2024-10-09 | https://china.usembassy-china.org.cn/u-s-position-on-maritime-claims-in-the-south-china-sea/ | As Beijing has failed to put forth a lawful, coherent maritime claim in the South China Sea, the United States rejects any PRC claim to waters beyond a 12-nautical mile territorial sea derived from islands it claims in the Spratly Islands (without prejudice to other states’ sovereignty claims over such islands). As such, the United States rejects any PRC maritime claim in the waters surrounding Vanguard Bank (off Vietnam), Luconia Shoals (off Malaysia), waters in Brunei’s EEZ, and Natuna Besar (off Indonesia). Any PRC action to harass other states’ fishing or hydrocarbon development in these waters – or to carry out such activities unilaterally – is unlawful. The PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to (or derived from) James Shoal, an entirely submerged feature only 50 nautical miles from Malaysia and some 1,000 nautical miles from China’s coast. James Shoal is often cited in PRC propaganda as the "southernmost territory of China." International law is clear: An underwater feature like James Shoal cannot be claimed by any state and is incapable of generating maritime zones. James Shoal (roughly 20 meters below the surface) is not and never was PRC territory, nor can Beijing assert any lawful maritime rights from it. | 2021-05-13 | Malaysia | false | true | refutes |
borderlines-411_ret_bn_g18 | borderlines-411 | - | James Shoal is a territory of Malaysia | James Shoal | 2024-10-09 | https://asean.usmission.gov/the-south-china-sea-southeast-asias-patrimony-and-everybodys-own-backyard/ | Second, because Beijing has failed to put forth a lawful, coherent maritime claim in the South China Sea, the United States rejects any PRC claim to waters beyond a 12 nautical mile territorial sea derived from islands it claims in the Spratly Islands. This means that the United States rejects any PRC maritime claim in the waters surrounding Vanguard Bank (off Vietnam), Luconia Shoals (off Malaysia), Natuna Besar (off Indonesia), or in the waters of Brunei’s EEZ. Any PRC action to harass other states’ fishing or hydrocarbon development — or to unilaterally carry out such activities on its own – is unlawful. Period. Third, the PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to James Shoal, off Malaysia. This one deserves a moment of study. James Shoal is a submerged feature on the sea floor some 20 meters beneath the surface. It is also only 50 nautical miles from Malaysia – and over 1,000 nautical miles from the Chinese mainland. Yet Beijing claims it as the "southernmost point of China"! The claim is absurd – appearing to derive from an erroneous old British atlas and a subsequent translation error, suggesting the underwater shoal was actually a sandbank above the waves. But it isn’t. And yet Beijing’s propaganda touts James Shoal as PRC territory and PLA Navy ships deploy there to stage ostentatious oath-swearing ceremonies. International law is clear: An underwater feature gives no rights. James Shoal is not and never was Chinese territory, nor can Beijing assert any lawful maritime rights from such spurious claims. | 2022-05-20 | Malaysia | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-412_ret_bn_g10 | borderlines-412 | - | James Shoal is a territory of Republic of China | James Shoal | 2024-10-09 | https://www.themandarin.com.au/137740-south-china-sea-after-all-its-posturing-the-us-is-struggling-to-build-a-coalition-against-china/ | Pompeo’s announcement deviated from 25 years of US neutrality over three key issues. First, the US now argues that Mischief Reef and the Second Thomas Shoal, located 130 nautical miles and 105 nautical miles west of the Philippine Palawan Island respectively, are not Chinese but Philippine territories. Second, the announcement amounted to a declaration that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to James Shoal. Although the Chinese government claims James Shoal as its southernmost territory, it is an entirely submerged feature, 50 nautical miles from Malaysia and 1,000 nautical miles from China’s coast. Under international law, underwater features cannot be claimed by any state. So the US declared that James Shoal "is not and never was PRC territory". [...] The strengthening of the US position on the South China Sea signals an effort to build a coalition of allies and partners to counter and – in Esper’s words "openly compete" with – China. In more substantial terms, the US may be considering deeper defence support to regional states such as the Philippines and Malaysia, which has effectively managed James Shoal, to confront Chinese encroachment there. | 2020-08-18 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-refutes |
borderlines-412_ret_bn_g17 | borderlines-412 | - | James Shoal is a territory of Republic of China | James Shoal | 2024-10-09 | https://thediplomat.com/2014/08/the-nine-dashed-line-engraved-in-our-hearts/ | James Shoal is a small bank in the South China Sea, lying under the water at a depth of 22 meters (72 feet). It is located about 80 km (50 mi) from the Malaysian coast and about 1,800 km from the Chinese mainland. Both the PRC and ROC officially claim the shoal as the southernmost feature of China. Malaysia also claims the shoal. As the bank is under the water, there is no way to erect a sovereignty stele. On April 20, 2010, however, the Chinese Marine Surveillance Ship-83 came to the water around the shoal. Several officers of the ship threw a sovereignty stele into the water. The stele is a big and heavy marble engraving with the Chinese characters Zhongguo (China). Another report from 2013 tells the story of Chinese naval officers and soldiers participating in an oath-taking ceremony on waters off Zengmu Ansha, pledging to safeguard China’s territorial integrity and marine interests. | 2014-08-26 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-412_ret_bn_g19 | borderlines-412 | - | James Shoal is a territory of Republic of China | James Shoal | 2024-10-09 | https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/15/pompeo-south-china-sea-nine-dash-line-unclos/ | China’s claims in the South China Sea fall into two types: "territorial claims" to the disputed rocks and reefs and "maritime claims" to the resources in the sea around those rocks and reefs. The United States, quite sensibly, has never taken a position on which country is the rightful owner of these territories. However, Pompeo’s statement breaks new ground by asserting that China has "no lawful territorial or maritime claim to (or derived from) James Shoal." This will be music to the ears of Malaysia because James Shoal (Beting Serupai in Malay, Zengmu Ansha in Chinese) is an entirely submerged piece of seabed about 50 miles from the coast of Borneo and more than 600 miles from China. China claims James Shoal as its "southernmost territory" because of a translation error by a Republic of China government committee in 1934. The committee used the Chinese word "tan" as a translation of "shoal." Tan means "sandbank," and this bureaucratic mistake led to a piece of seabed becoming defined as land. In 1947, the translation was changed to ansha, which means "hidden sand," but the territorial claim remained. | 2020-07-15 | Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-refutes |
borderlines-413_ret_b0_g3 | borderlines-413 | - | James Shoal is a territory of People's Republic of China | James Shoal | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shoal | James Shoal[1][6] is a shoal (bank) in the South China Sea, with a depth of 22 metres (72 ft) below the surface of the sea,[1][7] located about 45 nautical miles (83 km; 52 mi) off the Borneo coast of Malaysia. It is claimed by Malaysia, the People's Republic of China, and the Republic of China (Taiwan). The reef and its surrounds are administered by Malaysia. [...] Chinese students are taught and tested in schools that James Shoal is the southernmost point of Chinese territory, and that territory within the nine-dash line has always belonged to China, without any reference to the disputes over the islands and surrounding waters by neighbouring countries.[22] [...] The PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to (or derived from) James Shoal, an entirely submerged feature only 50 nautical miles from Malaysia and some 1,000 nautical miles from China’s coast. James Shoal is often cited in PRC propaganda as the "southernmost territory of China." International law is clear: An underwater feature like James Shoal cannot be claimed by any state and is incapable of generating maritime zones. James Shoal (roughly 20 meters below the surface) is not and never was PRC territory, nor can Beijing assert any lawful maritime rights from it.[1][23][24][25][26] | 2024-09-28 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-neutral |
borderlines-413_ret_bn_g0 | borderlines-413 | - | James Shoal is a territory of People's Republic of China | James Shoal | 2024-10-09 | https://2017-2021.state.gov/u-s-position-on-maritime-claims-in-the-south-china-sea/ | The PRC cannot lawfully assert a maritime claim â including any Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) claims derived from Scarborough Reef and the Spratly Islands â vis-a-vis the Philippines in areas that the Tribunal found to be in the Philippinesâ EEZ or on its continental shelf. Beijingâs harassment of Philippine fisheries and offshore energy development within those areas is unlawful, as are any unilateral PRC actions to exploit those resources. In line with the Tribunalâs legally binding decision, the PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to Mischief Reef or Second Thomas Shoal, both of which fall fully under the Philippinesâ sovereign rights and jurisdiction, nor does Beijing have any territorial or maritime claims generated from these features. [...] The PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to (or derived from) James Shoal, an entirely submerged feature only 50 nautical miles from Malaysia and some 1,000 nautical miles from Chinaâs coast. James Shoal is often cited in PRC propaganda as the âsouthernmost territory of China.â International law is clear: An underwater feature like James Shoal cannot be claimed by any state and is incapable of generating maritime zones. James Shoal (roughly 20 meters below the surface) is not and never was PRC territory, nor can Beijing assert any lawful maritime rights from it. | 2020-12-01 | People's Republic of China | false | true | insufficient-refutes |
borderlines-414_ret_b17_gn | borderlines-414 | - | Macclesfield Bank is a territory of Philippines | Macclesfield Bank | 2024-10-09 | https://acearchive.org/macclesfield-bank | China refers to the Macclesfield Bank as part of the Zhongsha Islands and claims it as part of its territory. It's worth noting that the Zhongsha Islands include several other submarine features in the area. The Macclesfield Bank is also included as part of a county-level administrative division. [...] The Macclesfield Bank is an underwater feature located in the South China Sea, which has been a subject of territorial disputes between several countries, including China, Taiwan, and the Philippines. Despite its submerged status, the bank has become a hotbed of conflicts and tensions, with various countries claiming ownership of this obscure underwater terrain. The claims over the Macclesfield Bank have been a source of friction between China and its neighboring countries. While China has maintained its right to claim the entire South China Sea, it has also claimed that the Macclesfield Bank is within its sovereign territory. Taiwan, on the other hand, has asserted its claim over the bank, citing its historical ties to the region. The Philippines, too, has claimed the Macclesfield Bank, despite not being within its EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone). | 2021-02-12 | Philippines | false | true | insufficient-contradictory |
borderlines-414_ret_bn_g16 | borderlines-414 | - | Macclesfield Bank is a territory of Philippines | Macclesfield Bank | 2024-10-09 | https://verafiles.org/articles/justice-carpio-chinas-9-dashed-line-grand-theft-of-global-commons | "Macclesfield Bank is one of the largest atolls in the world, with a water surface area of 6,448 square kilometers, about ten times the land area of Metro Manila. Macclesfield Bank lies just outside the Philippines’ EEZ facing the South China Sea in Luzon Island. Macclesfield Bank is named after the HMS Macclesfield, a British warship that ran aground in the area in 1804. [...] "Under UNCLOS, Macclesfield Bank is part of the high seas since it is situated beyond the EEZ of any coastal state. Macclesfield Bank is within the hole of the doughnut in the middle of the South China Sea. UNCLOS prohibits any State from subjecting the high seas to its sovereignty. All States have the right to fish in Macclesfield Bank, which is part of the global commons. Macclesfield Bank, rich in fishery resources, has been a traditional fishing ground of Filipino fishermen, just like the nearby Scarborough Shoal. " | 2023-04-09 | Philippines | false | true | refutes |
borderlines-414_ret_bn_g6 | borderlines-414 | - | Macclesfield Bank is a territory of Philippines | Macclesfield Bank | 2024-10-09 | https://globalnation.inquirer.net/43171/philippines-protests-china%E2%80%99s-moving-in-on-macclesfield-bank | The Philippines on Wednesday protested China’s move placing virtually the entire West Philippine Sea (South China Sea), including the Philippine territory of Macclesfield Bank and its surrounding waters, under the jurisdiction of a newly created city. [...] Macclesfield Bank is a huge underwater group of reefs and shoals located east of the Paracel Islands, southwest of the Pratas Islands and north of the Spratly Islands in the center of the West Philippine Sea. The Philippines claims Macclesfield Bank and administers it through the provincial government of Zambales. It is one of the largest atolls in the world, covering an area of 6,500 square kilometers, and is surrounded by excellent fishing waters. | 2012-07-06 | Philippines | false | true | supports |
borderlines-415_ret_b19_gn | borderlines-415 | - | Macclesfield Bank is a territory of People's Republic of China | Macclesfield Bank | 2024-10-09 | https://globalchallenges.ch/issue/1/a-sea-at-the-heart-of-chinese-national-interest/ | The so-called nine-, ten-, but also eleven-dash lines indicate the area that China considers it has sovereignty over. In 2009, the Chinese government circulated a nine-dash map through a set of notes verbales to the United Nations, taking inspiration from an eleven-dash line map published by the Nationalist Government of the Republic of China in 1947. This map, in turn, was seen to follow a map published by the Republic of China’s Land and Water Maps Inspection Committee in 1935. In these maps, the geographical extent of the area claimed by Beijing includes the islands, banks and shoals as well as the surrounding waters of the Paracels, the Spratlys, Scarborough Shoal and Macclesfield Bank, and the Pratas – known in China as the Xisha, Nansha, Zongsha and Dongsha archipelagos respectively – all the way down to James Shoal – also known as Zengmu Ansha reef – as its southernmost tip, 1,800 miles away from mainland China. [...] Macclesfield Bank is an elongated sunken atoll of underwater reefs and shoals. It lies east of the Paracel Islands, southwest of the Pratas Islands and north of the Spratly Islands. Its length exceeds 130 km southwest-northeast, with a maximal width of more than 70 km. With an ocean area of 6,448 km2 within the outer rim of the reef, although completely submerged without any emergent cays or islets, it is one of the largest atolls of the world. Macclesfield Bank is claimed, in whole or in part, by China and Taiwan. | 2019-03-14 | People's Republic of China | false | true | refutes |
borderlines-417_ret_b0_g2 | borderlines-417 | - | Mainland China is a territory of People's Republic of China | Mainland China | 2024-10-09 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainland_China | Mainland China "Mainland China", also referred to as "the Chinese mainland", is a geopolitical term defined as the territory under direct administration of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in the aftermath of the Chinese Civil War. In addition to the geographical mainland, the geopolitical sense of the term includes islands such as Hainan, Chongming, and Zhoushan.[1] By convention, territories outside of mainland China include: | 2024-09-26 | People's Republic of China | false | true | supports |