|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
118138
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) is a body set up under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to deal with disputes that emerge because of a difference in the interpretation and application of the convention. 1 Bangladesh has had an ongoing maritime boundary dispute with India and Myanmar since 1974. On 14 March 2012, the ITLOS delivered a verdict and ended the long-running maritime boundary dispute between Bangladesh and Myanmar.
In the current global world, energy resources are a crucial element for a nation's growth. India, Bangladesh and Myanmar are no different in this regard. India discovered 100 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of gas reserve in the Bay of Bengal (BoB) in 2005-2006. Soon after, Myanmar discovered seven tcf of gas reserves near the Rakhine coast. This discovery of colossal gas reserves sparked a claim-staking contest between the three countries in the BoB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
097101
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
142457
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
182055
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Chennai, Westland Non-Fiction, 2021.
|
| Description |
xxxv, 208p.hbk
|
| Standard Number |
9789390679782
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:2/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 060098 | 327.54051/RAZ 060098 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
| 060119 | 327.54051/RAZ 060119 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
138130
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Will India and China resolve their boundary dispute during the tenure of Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping? The strategic communities in both countries are optimistic, particularly after the high tension prevailing along the border during President Xi Jinping’s tour of India in September 2014. Both Prime Minister Modi and President Xi are seen as decisive leaders.1 Both are expected to hold power in their respective countries for a few years to come. Personalities and personas matter greatly for scoring political brownie points. The boundary dispute, quintessentially, is political in nature. The 2005 Agreement on the ‘Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the India–China Boundary Question’ acknowledged as much: the ‘two sides are seeking a political settlement of the boundary question’.2 In future India–China boundary negotiations, will the two leaders go for territorial exchange or will they remain content with the status quo, and simply define the Line of Actual Control (LAC)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
077801
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A territorial dispute deriving from nineteenth-century treaties imposed on China by an ascendant Russia became an integral element of the falling-out between the two great communist powers, the USSR and the People's Republic of China, in the second half of the twentieth century. That dispute, which came to be concentrated on the issue of the exact boundary alignment within the Amur and Ussuri Rivers, was made more intractable by the ideological estrangement between Moscow and Beijing. The dispute, in turn, fed back to embitter that estrangement. Contradictory interpretations of the nineteenth-century treaties taken by the two sides were compounded by their different approaches to the problem of boundary settlement: Beijing sought settlement on the basis of compromise, but insisted that could be achieved only through full renegotiation. Moscow read into Beijing's approach covert irredentism, refused to negotiate, and exerted military force to impose its own interpretation of the treaties. China resisted, meeting force with force, and in the 1969 clashes on the Ussuri River prevailed, bringing the conflict to the brink of all-out war. In 1986 Moscow broke a protracted deadlock by reversing its approach and agreeing to negotiate. By 2005 the full extent of the Sino-Russian boundary had been agreed and legitimized in new treaties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
104392
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2011.
|
| Description |
xvi, 351p.
|
| Standard Number |
9780198070689, hbk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 055995 | 327.54051/NOO 055995 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
118713
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
140373
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
156027
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
074001
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
077246
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Providing a critique of alarmist discussions of the danger of ethnic conflict in Kyrgyzstan, and the positivist epistemological assumptions and research practices that underpin them, this article develops an approach to researching 'ethnicity' and 'ethnic conflict' through the use of focus groups. Uzbeks and Kyrgyz in southern Kyrgyzstan expressed similar views about the closures of international boundaries, framed in terms of ethnicity. However, this was not an essentialist notion, but rather a concept of authentic 'Uzbekness' or 'Kyrgyzness' predicated primarily on the performance of endogenous kinship practices and Muslim/Soviet notions of class morality, nuanced by geography. These overlaps and discrepancies provide resources for those wishing to articulate visions of future social formations wider than the range of options currently propagated by ethnic entrepreneurs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
072916
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New York, Praeger Publishers, 1978.
|
| Description |
viii, 145p.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 018461 | 341.42/GIN 018461 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
046983
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Bangkok, White Lotus and Co, 1998.
|
| Description |
viii, 216p.
|
| Standard Number |
9748434443
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 044530 | 341.420951/NEI 044530 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
071919
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
|
| Description |
xii, 340p.
|
| Standard Number |
0521675030
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 051263 | 341.42/KAH 051263 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
122155
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
117433
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article evaluates the source of instability and stability in the India-Pakistan dyad and the Sino-Indian dyad. Challenging the dominant thesis that "means determine ends," the article posits that the use of force by Pakistan renders the India-Pakistan relationship unstable, whereas the Sino-Indian relationship is significantly more stable because of the absence of force. The difference in the state of stability in both dyads is because the weaker state, Pakistan in its conflict with India has failed to accept the verdict of its military defeats. This failure to internalize irreversible military outcomes makes Pakistan particularly susceptible to employing forcible solutions to settle its dispute with India over Kashmir. The reality reverses in the Sino-Indian territorial dispute, in that India has implicitly accepted its military loss against China in 1962 and charted a diplomatic pathway in resolving the boundary dispute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|