IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/chnrpt/v47y2011i2p159-171.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Course Correction

Author

Listed:
  • Alka Acharya

    (School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110067. E-mail: alka.acharya@gmail.com)

Abstract

To most observers, Sino–Indian relations present a paradox—a seemingly intractable and staunchly contested dispute, persisting at the centre of a rapidly transforming relationship. Nearly a decade and a half of confidence-building measures between India and China has transpired during which a comprehensive set of mechanisms and procedures have been laid down to address their boundary dispute. An entire structure of dialogues at different levels and of diverse kinds—political, strategic, defence, economic—has evolved, with the objective of resolving such misunderstandings as arising from time to time, with speed and despatch. These achievements are the basis on which this paper asserts that the core issue of contention between India and China, the disputed boundary, has moved into a qualitatively different stage, which may be termed post-conflictual, that is, if current trends continue, force is unlikely to be used to settle the ongoing dispute. This article argues that the Agreements of 2003 and 2005 were a fundamental departure from the earlier approaches adopted by the two countries and a conscious attempt at charting a new way out of a tangled historical legacy riddled with contradictions and complexities. It seeks to examine the origins of this shift, the politics that underlay this vital ‘course correction’ by both sides and its hopefully far-reaching implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Alka Acharya, 2011. "Course Correction," China Report, , vol. 47(2), pages 159-171, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:chnrpt:v:47:y:2011:i:2:p:159-171
    DOI: 10.1177/000944551104700208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/000944551104700208
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/000944551104700208?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:chnrpt:v:47:y:2011:i:2:p:159-171. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.