Nepal is a docile neighbor to China and India. On the contrary, the arrogance of power is seen in both neighbors of Nepal. Nepal has accepted Sikkim within India's map and Tibet within China's map as neighboring regions. However, both the neighbors of Nepal falsely claim that their current geographical boundaries were spread in the same way in ancient times.

Indeed, the unification of modern China and India has a complex history. The current People's Republic of China was established in 1949 only after the civil war. Although Indian political analyst Shashi Tharoor claims that before British rule, "India's share in the global economy" was 23 percent, and India put up an "Akhand Bharat mural" in Parliament, there is no evidence that India was a unified sovereign state at any time before Britain left India in 1947. 

Nepal–British War (1814–16) and the Sugauli Treaty

Before 1816, Nepal's borders extended from the Teesta River to Sikkim in the east and from the Sutlej River to Qilla-Kangada in the west, including Kumaon and Garhwal, which are now Indian territories. In retrospect, Nepal's war against the British colonial power was a 'war of resistance'. However, some historians call it an expansionist war. It is a fact that Nepal managed to maintain its independence even after handing over one-third of its territory to the British East India Company.

India became a successor state to British colonial rule. Nepal is bound by the Sugauli Treaty to the principle of international law that 'colonial border treaties must be followed'. In particular, clause 5 of the treaty states that "the King of Nepal renounces all claims to the west of the Kali River for himself and his successors". If the current Nepal was stronger than India, could India have occupied the territory lost in the war? The answer to this question can be found in politics rather than international law. US President Donald Trump's famous claim over Greenland provides a short answer. But the political topic is kept outside the scope of this article. 

Now, India is illegally occupying Limpiyadhura, Lipulek and Kalapani in the western-northern regions of Nepal related to the Sugauli Treaty. It seems that China is also involved in such illegal occupation through a mutual agreement with India. This triangular dispute is getting complicated. Some diplomatic and legal options for border dispute resolution are discussed here.

India and China signed MoU in 2014 for Kailash Mansarovar Yatra via Lipulekh. Subsequently, in a joint statement by China and India in 2015, the two sides agreed to expand the 'Lipu-Lake Pass' trade. After the India-China armed conflict in the Galwan Valley in 2020, trade through the bilateral border was suspended. Recently, India and China have agreed to reopen Lipulekh border trade in 2025 after the Chinese Foreign Minister's visit to New Delhi. Nepal has also officially objected to China in 2015 against the India-China agreement including Nepal's territory without consulting Nepal. 

The world is unfair to small power states. It is no exaggeration to say that the main source of injustice is powerful states. It is an age-old unjust tendency for a powerful nation to occupy the territory of a weak nation through military intervention and genocide. There are many examples of taking over the territory of the weak not only through military force but also through written agreements. Like

, under the Munich Agreement, 1938, Germany, Britain, France and Italy allowed Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland region of what was then Czechoslovakia. Under the secret protocol of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, Hitler and Stalin annexed territories such as Poland, the Baltic states, and Finland. The Yalta Conference, 1945 established Soviet dominance in Eastern Europe without the agreement of the US, Britain and the Soviet Union, Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. In the Potsdam Agreement, 1945, the US, UK, Soviet Union moved Poland's borders westward, transferring territory from Germany to Poland and from Poland to the Soviet Union. Neighboring governments of Nepal should be aware of these unjust examples. However, the neighbors are treating Nepal unfairly like the above example. 

Nepal-India border dispute was bilateral, now it has become tripartite. Nepal is sticking to the 'One China' policy. However, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who recently visited Pakistan after his visit to India, has given a roundabout response saying that the India-China partnership will not affect any other country. But the main issue is not the India-China partnership, but the agreement between India and China on the Nepalese land Lipulek affects and has affected the geographical sovereignty of Nepal. How can China, which always insists on the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law, enter into an agreement with India that affects the sovereignty of Nepal? It's ironic. 

The Nepal–India border dispute is said to have arisen from the interpretation of the Sugauli Treaty, which defined Nepal's western border with British India (now India) as the Kali (Mahakali) River. The Sugauli Treaty established the Kali River as the boundary, but it did not specify the source of the river. The Mahakali River Agreement between Nepal and India in 1996 also did not specify the source.

Nepal is claiming that the source of Mahakali river is Limpiyadhura on the basis of 'geographic watershed'. This is the strongest irrefutable physical evidence. Unless expressly agreed by treaty, the river Mahakali, which is not navigable, is considered to be the origin and main flow of the water, which, according to geographers, appears at Limpiyadhura. In addition, the maps published after the Sugauli Treaty seem to support Nepal's claim. 

To create alternative evidence, India released a new political map on November 2, 2019, including Limpiyadhura, Kalapani and Lipulekh within its territory. In response, the Government of Nepal announced the release of a map with Limpiyadhura on 15 May 2020. The new map was approved by Parliament on June 13, 2020, amending the constitution. The said map was certified by the Head of State on June 18, 2020.

Treaty law violation by China-India

The agreement made without the consent of Nepal is against the United Nations Charter 1945 and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969. It is a fundamental principle of the UN Charter that no country's territory should be invaded or occupied by another country without its consent. Before the establishment of the United Nations, powerful states used to make legal or strategic decisions without the consent of smaller states. But the Charter and the Vienna Convention prohibit the conclusion of treaties without consent. 

It is a universal principle of international treaty law that when two countries enter into a treaty covering the territory of a third country, it cannot create obligations or rights without the consent of the third country. This principle is based on the Vienna Convention on Treaty Law. Accordingly, treaties are binding only on those parties who have agreed to them. That is, this principle called 'pacta sant servanda' means that the parties to the treaty are bound to fulfill their obligations in mutual faith. No treaty can confer obligations or rights without the express consent of a third state. 

China and India do not seem to have formally contacted Nepal for an agreement yet. The third country's consent can be expressed in various ways, such as formally acceding to the treaty, expressly accepting the treaty's provisions. No such procedure seems to have been adopted by Nepal. Nepal's territorial sovereignty is relevant and important in this context. Sovereign territory is not allowed to be transferred to other states even by consent. But there can be practical compromises. As such, Finland's Åland Islands retain sovereignty and the right to self-government of the Swedish people living there is a unique example. 

Nepal's options

The UN Charter mandates the peaceful settlement of disputes and prohibits the use or threat of force against the territorial integrity of any state. When two countries enter into an agreement affecting the territory of a third country, the United Nations Security Council is the body to be contacted. The main problem for Nepal in this regard is that no proposal can be submitted or accepted in the Council without the unanimous consent of the five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and America). 

Nepal can request the Security Council to investigate the situation, mediate between the parties and ensure respect for the rights of third countries. Does the government of Nepal have the will to do so? If Nepal approaches the Council, will the five permanent member states accept the application or not? These two questions are difficult to answer. The Security Council itself has turned into a powerless body to deal with the Gaza massacre and the Russian encroachment on Ukraine. 

It is unreasonable for Nepal to file a complaint against China among the five permanent members of the Council. Many experts say that the internationalization of another new dispute will complicate the situation when many bilateral problems between Nepal and India have not been resolved. Nepal seems to have accepted that this option is not practical. If other diplomatic efforts fail, as a last resort, Nepal must try in the Security Council. 

It is well known that international courts are the natural choice for legal dispute resolution. In order to use this option, Nepal, India and China have to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, but none of these countries have 'explicitly' accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. India in particular does not seem willing to accept compulsory jurisdiction over border issues. 

There is no restriction for Nepal to raise a tripartite dispute in the UN General Assembly. However, it cannot be said whether the General Assembly will address Nepal's border dispute or not. Although this is another option, it will only help to internationalize the dispute but does not seem to provide any practical solution. Because, resolutions of the UN General Assembly are not binding.

In addition to this, the recently held meeting of the Indo-Nepal Border Working Group in New Delhi in July 2025 has decided that the foreign secretaries of both countries should address the issue of 'Susta and Kalapani'. India has been insisting on a bilateral solution to the border dispute. However, delaying or doing nothing seems to be the solution for India. This is evidenced by the fact that 8 diplomatic letters sent by Nepal to India in the past remained unanswered. Last time, Nepal sent separate diplomatic letters to China and India, but what will happen next, the future will tell. 

In addition to the options mentioned, there are also arbitration and neutral tribunal options. Any person trusted by Nepal and India can be an arbitrator. In addition, there is the Permanent Court of Arbitration, established since 1899, which can make binding decisions. But the jurisdiction of the Court of Permanent Tribunal must be accepted by agreement by the parties to the case. Nepal and India can settle the border dispute by agreeing on a separate neutral tribunal. For example, the India-Pakistan border 'Ran of Kutch' arbitration (1968) resolved the border dispute between the two countries.  Approaching India and China to resolve the current dispute through

mediation could potentially benefit Nepal. But this is a risky option. Because Kalapani is intertwined with geopolitics and engaging China could be seen by India as a challenge to its regional influence. India does not accept third party arbitration on Kashmir. India may be reluctant to engage in mediation or legal solutions if its claim on the border with Nepal is not strong.