imported>Zeex.rice: Changing short description from "Treaty concerning the status of Tibet" to "1913–1914 treaty concerning the status of Tibet" (Shortdesc helper)

2021-08-02T01:57:45Z

Changing short description from "Treaty concerning the status of Tibet" to "1913–1914 treaty concerning the status of Tibet" (Shortdesc helper)

New page

{{Short description|1913–1914 treaty concerning the status of Tibet}}
{{Distinguish|Simla Conference|Simla Agreement}}
{{EngvarB|date=September 2013}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2013}}
{{Too few opinions|discuss=Talk:Sino-Indian War#Sources|date=May 2020}}
{{Chinese
|order=ts
|t=西姆拉條約
|s=西姆拉条约
|p=Xīmǔlā Tiáoyuē
|w=Hsi1-mu3-la1 t'iao2-yüeh1
}}
The '''Simla Convention''' ({{zh|t=西姆拉條約}}), or the '''Convention Between Great Britain, China, and Tibet, [in] Simla''',<ref name="Convention 1914">[http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties16.html "Convention Between Great Britain, China, and Tibet, Simla (1914)"], [[Tibet Justice Center]]. Retrieved 20 March 2009</ref> was an ambiguous<ref>{{harvnb|Hoffmann|1990|p=19}}: "McMahon's achievement seemed substantial at the time, but its meaning proved to be ambiguous at best."</ref> [[treaty]] concerning the status of [[Tibet]] negotiated by representatives of the [[Republic of China (1912–1949)|Republic of China]], [[Tibet (1912–1951)|Tibet]] and Great Britain in [[Shimla|Simla]] in 1913 and 1914.

[[File:Simla Conference 1913.jpg|alt=|thumb|Tibetan, British and Chinese participants and plenipotentiaries to the Simla Treaty in 1914|399x399px]]
The Simla Convention provided that Tibet would be divided into "Outer Tibet" and "Inner Tibet". Outer Tibet, which roughly corresponded to [[Ü-Tsang]] and western [[Kham]], would "remain in the hands of the Tibetan Government at Lhasa under Chinese [[suzerainty]]", but China would not interfere in its administration. "Inner Tibet", roughly, equivalent to [[Amdo]] and eastern Kham, would be under the jurisdiction of the Chinese government. The convention with its annexes also defines the boundary between Tibet and [[China proper]] and that between Tibet and British India (with the latter coming to be known as the [[McMahon Line]]).<ref name="Convention 1914"/>{{efn|name="Sinha map"}}

A draft convention was initialled by all three countries on 27 April 1914, but China immediately repudiated it.<ref>
{{harvp|Banerji, Borders|2007|p=201}}: "... the draft treaty initiated by the three parties was subsequently revised, after consultations with Russia."</ref>{{sfnp|Mehra|1974|p=275}}
A slightly revised convention was signed again on 3 July 1914, but only by Britain and Tibet. The Chinese [[plenipotentiary]], Ivan Chen, declined to sign it.{{sfnp|Hoffmann|1990|p=19}}<ref>
{{harvp|Mehra|1972|p=299}}: "Ivan Chen, who had initialed the first earlier in April, kept his own counsel."
</ref> The British and Tibetan plenipotentiaries then signed a bilateral declaration that stated that the convention would be binding on themselves and that China would be denied any privileges under the Convention until it signed it.<ref>
{{harvp|Hoffmann|1990|p=19}}: "The Simla Convention itself was initialed again by the British and Tibetan conference leaders in Delhi on 3 July 1914, and they signed a joint declaration pronouncing the convention binding upon themselves, even without Chinese agreement."
</ref><ref name=bilateral>
{{harvp|Mehra|1972|p=299}}: "A joint British-Tibetan declaration stipulating that its terms would apply to China only when the latter fell in line with its two other signatories was attached to the Convention."
</ref>

==Background==
British forces led by Sir [[Francis Younghusband]] [[British expedition to Tibet|entered Tibet in 1904]] and made a treaty with the Tibetans.<ref name="Conven1904">[http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties10.html "Convention Between Great Britain and Tibet (1904)"], [http://www.tibetjustice.org/index.html Tibet Justice Center] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090310103457/http://www.tibetjustice.org/index.html |date=10 March 2009 }}. Retrieved 20 March 2009</ref> In 1906, the British government sought Chinese acceptance of suzerainty over Tibet as part of the [[Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet|Anglo-Chinese Convention on Tibet]], but was rebuffed by the Chinese envoy, who insisted on sovereignty.<ref name="Zhu 2020 1–28">{{Cite journal|last=Zhu|first=Yuan Yi|date=2020|title=Suzerainty, Semi-Sovereignty, and International Legal Hierarchies on China's Borderlands|journal=[[Asian Journal of International Law]]|publisher=Cambridge University Press|volume=10|issue=2|pages=293–320|doi=10.1017/S204425132000020X}}</ref>{{failed verification|date=October 2020|reason=There is no mention of 1906 in the source}} In 1907, Britain and Russia acknowledged Chinese "[[suzerainty]]" over Tibet.<ref name=anglorussian1907>[http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties12.html Convention Between Great Britain and Russia (1907)] Article II, [http://www.tibetjustice.org/index.html Tibet Justice Center] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090310103457/http://www.tibetjustice.org/index.html |date=10 March 2009 }}</ref>

After the fall of the Qing dynasty in China, the Tibet government at Lhasa expelled all Chinese forces and declared itself independent (1913),<ref name="Goldstein30-1">{{harvp|Goldstein|1997|pp=30–31}}</ref><ref name="Dalai">[http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/tibet/tibet1.html "Proclamation Issued by His Holiness the Dalai Lama XIII (1913)"], [http://www.tibetjustice.org/index.html Tibet Justice Center] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090310103457/http://www.tibetjustice.org/index.html |date=10 March 2009 }}. Retrieved 20 March 2009</ref> however, this was not accepted by the newly founded Republic of China.<ref>{{harvp|Smith|1996|pp=182–183}}</ref>

==Conference==
[[File:Simla Convention - contending claims in Kham.jpg|thumb|right|270px|Contending claims in [[Kham]]: Dark blue line – the boundary proposed in the conference; Light blue line – the boundary proposed by China; Pink line (1915) and Dashed blue line (1919) were later Chinese proposals. ([[Hugh Edward Richardson|Hugh Richardson]], 1945)]]
In 1913, the British convoked a conference at the [[Viceregal Lodge, Simla|Viceregal Lodge]] in [[Shimla|Simla]], India to discuss the issue of Tibet's status.<ref name="maxwell">Maxwell 1970</ref> The conference was attended by representatives of Britain, the newly founded [[Republic of China (1912–1949)|Republic of China]], and the Tibetan government at Lhasa.<ref name="Convention 1914"/> The British plenipotentiary, Sir [[Henry McMahon (diplomat)|Henry McMahon]], introduced the plan of dividing Tibetan-inhabited areas into "inner Tibet" and "outer Tibet" and apply different policies.{{Citation needed|date=March 2009}} "Inner Tibet", which includes Tibetan-inhabited areas in Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces, would be under the jurisdiction of the Chinese government. "Outer Tibet", covering approximately the same area as the modern "[[Tibet Autonomous Region]]" would enjoy autonomy. A boundary between Tibet and British India, later called the [[McMahon Line]], was drawn on a map referred to in the treaty.{{sfnp|Sinha|1987|p=12}}

The Tibetan Indian boundary was negotiated between the British and Tibetan representatives separately, in the absence of the Chinese representative.{{sfnp|Mehra|1974|loc=Chapter 19. "Negotiating the India–Tibet Boundary" (pp. 221–232)}}{{efn|name="Sinha map"|The map was finalised on 24/25 March 1914 by the British and Tibetan plenipotentiaries. Indian sources currently claim that, on being informed of the line, the Chinese plenipotentiary did not express any disagreement. {{harv|Sinha|1987|p=12}}}}
The border decided by them was incorporated in the Simla conference map, which showed the boundary of Tibet as a "red line" and the border between Outer and Inner Tibet as a "blue line". This map was provided as an annexe to the proposed agreement and was initialled by all three representatives on 27 April 1914.<ref>{{harvp|Calvin|1984}}: "The [McMahon] line was marked on a large-scale (eight miles to the inch) map. On a much smaller-scale map, which was used in the discussions of the Inner Tibet-Outer Tibet boundary, the McMahon-Tibetan boundary (which would become the McMahon Line) was shown as a sort of appendix to the boundary between Inner Tibet and China proper (see Map Six,below)."</ref>{{efn|name="Sinha"|
* {{harvp|Sinha|1966|p=37}}: "The two maps (27 April 1914 and 3 July 1914) illustrating the boundaries bear the full signature of the Tibetan Plenipotentiary; the first bears the full signature of the Chinese Plenipotentiary also; the second bears the full signatures along with seals of both Tibetan and British Plenipotentiaries. (V. Photographic reproductions of the two maps in ''Atlas of the North Frontier of India'', New Delhi: Ministry of External Affairs 1960)"
* {{harvp|Goldstein|1991|p=80}} quotes the India Office records IOR/L/PS/10/344.
* {{harvp|Gupta|1971}}: "The Indian Government opened bilateral negotiations with the Tibetans in Deli in February–March 1914 (the conferees having retreated from the Simla winter) with the object of securing Tibetan agreement to the proposed alignment."
}}

The [[s:Simla Accord (1914)#Schedule|Schedule appended to the Convention]] contained further notes. For example, it was to be understood that "Tibet forms part of Chinese territory" and after the Tibetans selected a Dalai Lama, the Chinese government was to be notified and the Chinese commissioner in Lhasa would "formally communicate to His Holiness the titles consistent with his dignity, which have been conferred by the Chinese Government"; that the Tibetan government appointed all officers for "Outer Tibet", and that "Outer Tibet" was not to be represented in the Chinese Parliament or any such assembly.<ref name="Convention 1914"/><ref name="Goldstein75">{{harvnb|Goldstein|1991|p=75}}.</ref>

Negotiations failed when China and Tibet could not agree over the Sino-Tibetan boundary.<ref>{{harvp|Shakya|1999|p=5}}</ref>{{clarify|date=January 2021|reason=What does it mean to say that the negotiations "failed", when all three parties signed it? What does the source say?}} The Chinese plenipotentiary, Ivan Chen, initialed the treaty, pending confirmation by his government. He was then ordered by the Chinese government to repudiate his agreement.<ref name="Zhu 2020 1–28"/>{{clarify|date=January 2021|reason=Why did the Chinese government repudiate?}} On 3 July 1914, the British and Tibetan plenipotentiaries signed the Convention without a Chinese signature. They also signed an additional bilateral declaration with the claim that the convention would be binding on them and that China would be denied any privileges under the agreement until it signed it.{{efn|This effectively meant that Tibet's ''de facto'' independence would continue until China signed the Convention. Lhasa would also be within its rights to contest the Chinese control of the "Inner Tibet" regions.<ref>
{{harvp|Richardson|1984|p=114}}: "The advantages of which the Chinese were thus deprived do not appear to have been specifically catalogued but they must be interpreted as follows:
# The operation in the favour of China of the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906. [...]
# The recognition of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet by the Tibetan and British Governments.
# The right to appoint an Amban at Lhasa with a military escort of 300 men.
# The admission that Tibet forms part of China.
# The admission that China is not a foreign power for the purpose of the 1904 Anglo-Tibetan Convention.
# Any concern in the appointment of a Dalai Lama.
# Any limitation of the strength of British escorts in Tibet."
</ref>}}<ref name="Goldstein75"/><ref name=bilateral/>
Ivan Chen left the room briefly while the British and Tibetan representatives signed the documents, and he did not have knowledge of the proceedings. He believed that the Convention itself was signed (whereas it was only initialled) and McMahon left him to retain that impression.<ref>
{{harvnb|Mehra|1974|pp=289–292}}: "When the Lonchen and Sir Henry proceeded to conclude the agreement, Ivan Chen was present briefly. ... Later, however, he left the chamber. After the Convention had been signed, Chen returned to the Conference room."
</ref>
The British and Lonchen Shatra also signed a fresh set of trade Regulations to replace those of 1908.<ref name=TibHist136>McKay, Alex, ''The History of Tibet: The modern period: 1895–1959, the Encounter with modernity'', p. 136.</ref>

Evidence indicates that the Chinese plenipotentiary viewed the Convention in favourable terms, thought it best obtainable under the circumstances, and believed that his government would accept it in due course. It is also known that he made a brave effort to convince President [[Yuan Shikai]] to accept it after his return to China.<ref>
{{harvp|Mehra|1974|p=187}}: "Ivan Chen had 'confidentially' informed him [McMahon] that even in the event of his (Ivan Chen's) signature being withheld tomorrow a favourable change in the attitude of the Chinese Government is likely to be produced by the actual conclusion of an independent agreement between Great Britain and Tibet."
</ref><ref>
{{citation |first=Parshotam |last=Mehra |title=India-China Border: A Review and Critique |journal=Economic and Political Weekly |volume=17 |number=20 |date=15 May 1982 |pages=834–838 |jstor=4370923}}: "It is significant that on the eve of his departure from Simla he [Chen] still sincerely believed that China would change its stance. More, it is now known that he made a brave effort, off his own bat, to influence Yuan Shih-kai accept the Simla convention."
</ref>

==Aftermath==
Simla was initially rejected by the Government of India as incompatible with the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention.{{citation needed|date=March 2021}} The official treaty record, C.U. Aitchison's ''A Collection of Treaties'', was published with a note stating that no binding agreement had been reached at Simla.<ref name="Lin">{{citation |last=Lin |first=Hsiao-Ting |title=Boundary, sovereignty, and imagination: Reconsidering the frontier disputes between British India and Republican China, 1914–47 |journal=The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History |date=September 2004 |volume=32 |number=3 |pages=25–47 |doi=10.1080/0308653042000279650|s2cid=159560382 }}</ref> Since the condition (agreement with China) specified by the accord was not met, [[Alastair Lamb]] states that the Tibetans regarded the McMahon Line invalid.<ref name="Shakya1999">{{harvp|Shakya|1999|p=279}}; {{harvp|Shakya|2012|p=530}}: "Since the British were not able to obtain such an acceptance, the Tibetans considered the line proposed by McMahon invalid.[14: Alastair Lamb, 1989. p. 469]"</ref>
Legal scholar M. C. van Praag states that the only mechanism for a 1914 treaty to become invalid is one of the parties repudiated it, and neither Tibet nor Britain did so.<ref>
{{citation |title=The Simla Agreements in International Law |first=M.C. van Walt |last=van Praag |journal=Tibet Policy Journal |publisher=The Tibet Policy Institute |number=1 |date=December 2014 |pages=26–55 |url=https://tibetpolicy.net/tibet-policy-journal-i/}}: "Moreover, under the law in existence at the time, a treaty would only have been voidable if the treaty party damaged by it had demanded its invalidation and the other party had agreed to it, or if the matter was resolved by a recognized dispute resolution mechanism. Unhappiness with the outcome of negotiations or with the behaviour of negotiators did not affect the validity and enforceability of treaties. Neither the British nor the Tibetan government officially repudiated the actions of their plenipotentiaries in communications to the other treaty party, internal rumblings notwithstanding."
</ref>

===2008 British policy change===
Until 2008 the British Government's position remained the same that China held [[suzerainty]] over Tibet but not full sovereignty. It was the only state still to hold this view.<ref name=economist-2008-11-24>Staff, ''[http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12570571 Britain's suzerain remedy]'', ''[[The Economist]]'', 6 November 2008</ref> [[David Miliband]], the British Foreign Secretary, described the old position as an anachronism originating in the geopolitics of the early 20th century.{{sfnp|Lunn|2009|p=8}} Britain revised this view on 29 October 2008, when it recognised Chinese sovereignty over Tibet by issuing a statement on its website.{{efn|{{citation |first=David |last=Miliband |author-link=David Miliband |url=http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/newsroom/latest-news/?view=PressS&id=8299838 |title=Written Ministerial Statement on Tibet (29/10/2008) |website=British Foreign Office website |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081202021442/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/newsroom/latest-news/?view=PressS&id=8299838 |archive-date=2 December 2008}}: "Our ability to get our points across has sometimes been clouded by the position the UK took at the start of the 20th century on the status of Tibet, a position based on the geo-politics of the time. Our recognition of China's "special position" in Tibet developed from the outdated concept of suzerainty. Some have used this to cast doubt on the aims we are pursuing and to claim that we are denying Chinese sovereignty over a large part of its own territory. We have made clear to the Chinese Government, and publicly, that we do not support Tibetan independence. Like every other EU member state, and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China. Our interest is in long term stability, which can only be achieved through respect for human rights and greater autonomy for the Tibetans."}} ''[[The Economist]]'' stated that although the British Foreign Office's website does not use the word sovereignty, officials at the Foreign Office said "it means that, as far as Britain is concerned, 'Tibet is part of China. Full stop.'"<ref name=economist-2008-11-24/>

The British Government sees their new stances as an updating of their position, while some others have viewed it as a major shift in the British position.{{efn|name=Lunn-7|{{harvp|Lunn|2009|p=7}}: "However, in October 2008 there was what some have viewed as a major shift in the British position, although the Government sees it more as an updating of it. This involved abandoning the concept of 'Chinese suzerainty' on the grounds that it was unclear and out-dated."}} Tibetologist Robert Barnett thinks that the decision has wider implications. India's claim to a part of its north-east territories, for example, is largely based on the same agreements – notes exchanged during the Simla convention of 1914, which set the boundary between India and Tibet – that the British appear to have simply discarded.<ref name=barnettnyt>Robert Barnett, ''[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/opinion/25barnett.html?hp Did Britain Just Sell Tibet?]'', [[The New York Times]], 24 November 2008</ref> It has been speculated that Britain's shift was made in exchange for China making greater contributions to the [[International Monetary Fund]].<ref name=barnettnyt/><ref>[http://www.spectator.co.uk/search/author/?searchString=James%20Forsyth Forsyth, James] (the web editor of ''[[The Spectator]]''). [http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3038881/have-brown-and-miliband-sold-out-tibet-for-chinese-cash.thtml Have Brown and Miliband sold out Tibet for Chinese cash?] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081203113429/http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3038881/have-brown-and-miliband-sold-out-tibet-for-chinese-cash.thtml |date=3 December 2008 }}, website of ''The Spectator'', 25 November 2008.</ref><ref>Editorial [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/4969667/The-neglect-of-Tibet.html The neglect of Tibet], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', 11 March 2009.</ref>

==Maps==
<gallery widths="200px" heights="160px">
Image:Simla Accord Treaty 1914 Map2.jpg|Simla Accord treaty map, signed in 1914 (showing the boundary of Tibet and the boundary of Outer Tibet)
Image:1945 Simla Conference Frontiers from Tibetan Precis by Richardson in Himalayan Triangle.jpg|In addition to the two boundaries, this map by [[Hugh Edward Richardson|Hugh Richardson]] shows Henry McMahon's first proposals as dashed lines, and the Tibetan (brown) and Chinese (light blue) claims
Image:McMahon Line Simla Accord Treaty 1914 Map1.jpg|McMahon Line Simla Accord Treaty 1914 Map 1
Image:McMahon Line Simla Accord Treaty 1914 Map2.jpg|McMahon Line Simla Accord Treaty 1914 Map 2
</gallery>

==See also==
* [[Treaty of Kyakhta (1915)]]
* [[Western imperialism in Asia|Imperialism in Asia]]

== Notes ==
{{Notelist}}

== References ==
=== Citations ===
{{Reflist|30em}}

=== Sources ===
{{refbegin|30em}}
* Aitchison, C.U. "[http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties16.html Convention Between Great Britain, China, and Tibet, Simla]", ''A Collection of Treaties, Engagements And Sanads'', Vol XIV, Calcutta 1929, pp. 21 & 38. (Official British colonial treaty record), on the website of the [https://web.archive.org/web/20090310103457/http://www.tibetjustice.org/index.html Tibet Justice Center]. Retrieved 2009-03-20
* {{citation |first=Arun Kumar |last=Banerji |chapter=Borders |editor=Jayanta Kumar Ray |title=Aspects of India's International Relations, 1700 to 2000: South Asia and the World |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Nyk6oA2nOlgC&pg=PA203 |year=2007 |publisher=Pearson Education India |isbn=978-81-317-0834-7 |pages=173–256 |ref={{sfnref|Banerji, Borders|2007}}}}
* Calvin, James Barnard (Lieutenant Commander,U. S. Navy). ''The China – India Border War (1962)'', Marine Corps Command and Staff College, April 1984, republished as [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm The China-India Border War], [http://www.globalsecurity.org globalsecurity.org]. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
* {{citation |last=Lunn |first=Jon |title=Tibet (SN/IA/5018) |publisher=International Affairs and Defence Section, British Parliamentary Briefing Paper |date=20 March 2009 |url=http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snia-05018.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090618172828/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snia-05018.pdf |archive-date=18 June 2009 }}
* {{citation |last=Marshall |first=Julie |title=Britain and Tibet 1765–1947 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2dV_AgAAQBAJ&pg=PR14 |year=2004 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-134-32784-3}}
* Maxwell, Neville. ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20080822215146/http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm India's China War]'' (1970) Jonathan Cape. {{ISBN|0-224-61887-3}}.
* {{Citation |last=Goldstein |first=Melvyn C. |year=1991 |title=A History of Modern Tibet, 1913–1951: The demise of the Lamaist state |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=978-0-520-07590-0 |pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=Upwq0I-wm7YC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA75&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false 75], [https://books.google.com/books?id=Upwq0I-wm7YC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA307#v=onepage&q&f=false 307], [https://books.google.com/books?id=Upwq0I-wm7YC&pg=PA836 837]}}
* {{Citation |last=Goldstein |first=Melvyn C. |year=1997 |title=The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama |publisher=University of California Press. |isbn=978-0-520-21951-9|pages=30–31}}
* {{citation |first=Karunakar |last=Gupta |title=The McMahon Line 1911-45: The British Legacy |journal=The China Quarterly |number=47 |date=July–September 1971 |volume=47 |pages=521–545 |doi=10.1017/S0305741000006214 |jstor=652324}}
* {{citation |last=Hoffmann |first=Steven A. |title=India and the China Crisis |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BpSRwC5_EPUC |year=1990 |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=978-0-520-06537-6}}
* {{citation |last=Lamb |first=Alastair |title=The McMahon Line: a Study in the Relations Between, India, China and Tibet, 1904 to 1914, Vol. 2: Hardinge, McMahon and the Simla Conference |year=1966 |publisher=Routledge & K. Paul |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Vak5AQAAIAAJ}}
* {{citation |title=A Forgotten Chapter in the History of the Northeast Frontier: 1914-36 |first=Parshotam |last=Mehra |journal=The Journal of Asian Studies |volume=31 |number=2 |date=February 1972 |pages=299–308 |doi=10.2307/2052598 |jstor=2052598}}
* {{citation |last=Mehra |first=Parshotam |title=The McMahon Line and After: A Study of the Triangular Contest on India's North-eastern Frontier Between Britain, China and Tibet, 1904-47 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=a4cnAQAAMAAJ |year=1974 |publisher=Macmillan|isbn=9780333157374 }}
* {{citation |last=Richardson |first=Hugh E. |title=Tibet and its History |edition=Second |publisher=Shambala |location=Boulder/London |date=1984 |isbn=9780877737896 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=45QizQEACAAJ }}
* {{citation |last=Shakya |first=Tsering |title=The Dragon in the Land of Snows: A History of Modern Tibet Since 1947 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dosnYnxzTD4C |year=1999 |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=978-0-231-11814-9}}
* {{citation |last=Shakya |first=Tsering |title=Dragon in the Land of Snows: The History of Modern Tibet since 1947 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WWjMMS7dHc0C |year=2012 |publisher=Random House |isbn=978-1-4481-1429-0}}
* {{citation |last=Sinha |first=Nirmal C. |title=Was the Simla Convention not signed? |url=http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/bot/pdf/bot_03_01_04.pdf |journal=Bulletin of Tibetology |volume=3 |number=1 |date=February 1966 |pages=33–38}}
* {{citation |last=Sinha |first=Nirmal C. |title=The Simla Convention of 1914: A Chinese Puzzle |journal=Bulletin of Tibetology |volume=23 |number=2 |pages=5–12 |date=July 1987 |orig-year=1974 |url=http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/bot/pdf/bot_1987_02_01.pdf |ref={{sfnref|Sinha, The Simla Convention of 1914|1987}}}}
* {{citation |last=Smith |first=Warren W. |title=Tibetan Nation: A history of Tibetan nationalism and Sino-Tibetan relations |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SbHtAAAAMAAJ |year=1996 |publisher=Westview Press |isbn=978-0-8133-3155-3}}
** {{citation |last=Smith |first=Warren |title=Tibetan Nation: A history of Tibetan nationalism and Sino-Tibetan relations |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OXmmDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT212 |year=2019 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=978-1-00-061228-8}}
* Staff, [http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties16.html "Convention Between Great Britain, China, and Tibet, Simla (1914)"], [https://web.archive.org/web/20090310103457/http://www.tibetjustice.org/index.html Tibet Justice Center]. Retrieved 2009-03-20
* {{Cite journal|last=Zhu|first=Yuan Yi|date=2020|title=Suzerainty, Semi-Sovereignty, and International Legal Hierarchies on China's Borderlands|journal=[[Asian Journal of International Law]]|publisher=Cambridge University Press|volume=10|issue=2|pages=293–320|doi=10.1017/S204425132000020X}}
{{refend}}

== External links ==
{{Wikisource|Simla Convention (1914)}}
* [http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties16.html "Convention Between Great Britain, China, and Tibet, Simla (1914)"], [http://www.tibetjustice.org/index.html Tibet Justice Center] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090310103457/http://www.tibetjustice.org/index.html |date=10 March 2009 }}. Retrieved 20 March 2009

{{Tibet topics}}

[[Category:1913 in China]]
[[Category:1913 in India]]
[[Category:1913 in international relations]]
[[Category:1913 in the British Empire]]
[[Category:1913 in Tibet]]
[[Category:1914 in China]]
[[Category:1914 in India]]
[[Category:1914 in international relations]]
[[Category:1914 in the British Empire]]
[[Category:1914 in Tibet]]
[[Category:Boundary treaties]]
[[Category:British Empire|Treaties, British]]
[[Category:China–India border]]
[[Category:China–Tibet relations]]
[[Category:China–United Kingdom relations]]
[[Category:Geography of Tibet]]
[[Category:History of the foreign relations of India]]
[[Category:History of Tibet]]
[[Category:Shimla]]
[[Category:Tibet–United Kingdom relations]]
[[Category:Treaties concluded in 1914]]
[[Category:Treaties extended to British India]]
[[Category:Treaties of Sikkim]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Republic of China (1912–1949)]]
[[Category:Treaties of the United Kingdom (1801–1922)]]
[[Category:Treaties of Tibet]]
[[Category:Unequal treaties]]

Simla Convention - Revision history

Aeon: minor cleanup page per standard format

imported>Zeex.rice: Changing short description from "Treaty concerning the status of Tibet" to "1913–1914 treaty concerning the status of Tibet" (Shortdesc helper)