Nitin, I would go further and say that legality (in the sense of the sort of legality that is the life-blood of the lawyer) has not much role, not only in Sino-Indian relations, but in the relations of most countries to each other. At bottom such attempts aspire to exclude inter-national relations from the realm of politics (just as, for instance, a murder trial theoretically would be). One problem is that this approach suffers from a crippling contradiction, as nation-states are inherently political animals; another problem is that this approach must feign blindness to the politics that are already encoded into the legal construct sought to be created (i.e. the “system” presents itself as neutral, and will not acknowledge that it has itself been politicized). Take the example of nuclear non-proliferation; while certainly true that countries like India did well not to sign the treaty (a consistent theme for several decades now) and are hence technically not bound by it, in any event any discussion of the non-proliferation regime without discussion of the “winners make the rules” system that undergirds it would be superficial (at best) and in bad faith (at worst).

[I do not mean to suggest that principles, ideals or any other value held dear by the people or governments of countries has no place in discussions of international relations; but what Mr. Noorani is here guilty of is conflating the "legal" with the "good"; as far as international relations are concernes, he certainly hasn't made his case that equation is tenable.]

I refer you to an article by Dr. Gregory CLark, Australia’s Diplomat on Chinese affairs for most of 1962.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/oct/24chin.htm