copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: Doi Lang is a territory of Thailand (Doi Lang, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2014-09-09): Birdwatching Trips To Doi Lang: If you are visiting northern Thailand then Doi Lang is a must-visit location for birders. [...] Birdwatching Trips: Doi Lang is a must-visit location on birdwatching trips to the north of Thailand. It is worth including a visit to Doi Ang Kang in short trips to the north and on longer tours of the country. [...] Rainy Season Birding Tour of Thailand, 1st-14th July 2009 3 Days Doi Ang Kang & Doi Lang, 26-29th December 2009 by Peter Ericsson by K. David Bishop by Nick Upton
Claim: Doi Lang is a territory of Thailand (Doi Lang, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2014-08-23): Nearly every country or region has an area on its periphery that regularly attracts a tantalizing assortment of vagrants or a set of species that just barely make it over an international border. Understandably, these sites are particularly attractive and important to birders working on a regional list. For others, it is the desire to have a different birding experience from home without needing a passport. In the ABA region, southeast Arizona and the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas host many sites right along the Mexican border that fit this description. Every year, birders in both of these states find species more typical of Mexico (and sometimes within plain sight of Mexico!) while also adding a wide assortment of specialties to their ABA lists such as Northern Beardless-Tyrannulet, Gray Hawk, and Green Kingfisher. Thailand also has a site where birders go for very much the same reason that Americans go to Bentsen-Rio Grande State Park or the Chiricahuas. It is called Doi Lang, a mountain with a winding road that flanks the Burmese border in far northern Thailand that has affinities to the Himalayan foothills further north and west. [...] Doi Lang is the most reliable site in Thailand to see the stunning Scarlet-faced Liocichla.
Claim: Doi Lang is a territory of Thailand (Doi Lang, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-01-01): DOI LANG - Province : Chiangmai, further north from Doi Angkhang - Habitats : A part of Doi Pha Hom Pok, Thailand’s second highest mountain. Hill evergreen forest, coniferous forest, open grassland on the mountain - Key species : Red-tailed Laughingthrush, Red-faced Liocichla, Crimson-breasted Woodpecker, Spot-winged Grosbeak, Rusty-naped Pitta, Coral-billed Schimitar Babbler, Long-tailed Sibia, Crested Finchbill - Other species : Scarlet Finch, Whiskered Yuhina, Rusty-naped Pitta, Orange-flanked Bush Robin, Black-throated Parrotbill, Cutia - Best time : All year round for resident species, November – March for migration species - Distance from Chiangmai : ~ 250 km or more than 3 hrs drive as rough road
Claim: Doi Lang is a territory of Thailand (Doi Lang, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2015-01-01): Day 4-5: Doi Lang or Doi Pha Hom Pok National Park (B/L/D) : Overnight at Thaton Garden River Side - We will stay at Thaton Garden River Side ,and We'll spend 2 days birdwatching in Doi Lang or Doi Pha Hom Pok National Park. You'll see Scarlet Finch, Red-tailed Laughingthrush, Rusty-naped Pitta, Spotted Wren Babbler, Golden Bush Robin,Green Cochoa, Jerdon's Bushchat, Fire-tailed Sunbird, Mountain Bamboo Partridge. Another bird to present such as Black-breasted Thrush, Grey-sided Thrush, Eyebrowed Thrush, Spot-winged Grosbeak, Black-eared Shrike-Babbler, Spot-breasted Laughingthrush, Red-faced Liocichla, Orange-flanked Bush-Robin, White-tailed Flycatcher, Black-throated Tit, Whiskered Yuhina and other birds.
Claim: Doi Lang is a territory of Thailand (Doi Lang, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-10-09): Doi Pha Hom Pok NP--Doi Lang (W), AKA Doi San Ju (general area)
Claim: Doi Lang is a territory of Thailand (Doi Lang, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-10-03): To understand the conflict between the RCSS and other ethnic armed organisations (EAOs), it is important to know the political background. The era of the former Mong Tai Army (MTA), established in 1985 by the notorious opium kingpin Khun Sa (Chang Shi Fu), cannot be overlooked in Shan history. By the late 1980s, the MTA reached a strength of over ten thousand soldiers, based in strongholds between Homong and Doi Lang along the Thailand border. But MTA commanders also sought to position troops in other parts of Shan State where they had personal connections. Change came for the MTA after the military State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) assumed power in 1988. The following year, the SLORC made ceasefires with the United Wa State Army (UWSA), MNDAA and other EAOs which, in 1989, mutinied from the Communist Party of Burma (CPB) that controlled large amounts of territory along the China border. As competition between the MTA and UWSA grew, a famous fight – known as the Doi Lang battle – broke out as Wa forces attempted to capture the MTA headquarters with the help of the Tatmadaw on the Thailand border. Survivors recall the battle as a nightmare that developed over several years, with heavy casualties on both sides. The UWSA and MTA were in fierce rivalry for influence and control in Shan State politics.
Claim: Doi Lang is a territory of Thailand (Doi Lang, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2004-01-09): This atlas portrays Thailand’s spatial structures and presents the country’s social and economic development in a territorial context. The Kingdom of Thailand has undergone many changes throughout its long history, and most recently during its vigorous growth from the middle of the 1980s. The maps and text give a comprehensive interpretation of Thailand’s internal dynamics as well as its regional and global integration. [...] AcknowledgementsThis atlas portrays Thailand’s spatial structures and presents the country’s social and economic development in a territorial context. The Kingdom of Thailand has undergone many changes throughout its long history, and most recently during its vigorous growth from the middle of the 1980s. The maps and text give a comprehensive interpretation of Thailand’s internal dynamics as well as its regional and global integration.
Claim: Doi Lang is a territory of Thailand (Doi Lang, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-09-11): Participants Nick Upton, Susan Hartley, Mark Cavallo, Kathryn Besbekos Vehicle We used a Toyota Commuter van which had plenty of space for the four of us and our luggage. This vehicle was able to access all of the areas we wanted to visit although we were not able to cross the second stream at Kaeng Krachan due to the entry/exit to the ford being steep and very rutted. The water level was very low so we were able to walk across it easily. We had intended to access Doi Lang East and this vehicle would not have been able to do that (hiring a local vehicle is usually the answer) but the area was closed to visitors by the Thai military. Equally, we decided against going to the high altitudes at Kaeng Krachan as it was not suitable birding for our group and we had seen many of the species in the north anyhow. Usually hiring a local driver with a 4-wheel drive vehicle is the solution here too. Accommodation All accommodation was chosen to be close to the birding sites and their convenience for providing early breakfasts and dinners. [...] Doi Ang Kang: DAK Fang Rice Fields: FRF Doi Lang West: DLW Mae Ai Rice Fields: MAR Fang Hot Springs: FHS Doi Inthanon: DI Khao Yai: KY Petchaburi Rice Fields: PRFPak Thale/Laem Pak Bia: PT [...] More information on Doi Ang Kang More information on Doi Lang More information on Thatorn Rice Fields & Riverside More information on Fang Hot Springs More information on Doi Inthanon More information on Khao Yai
Claim: Doi Lang is a territory of Thailand (Doi Lang, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2021-10-26): where the State voluntarily agrees to a settlement agreement or pays the award without the need for enforcement proceedings; and where the State agrees to a settlement or satisfies the award after enforcement proceedings were initiated.
Claim: Doi Lang is a territory of Thailand (Doi Lang, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2022-08-06): According to the above document, Thiep Lang and Nhu Tich belonged to the Qinzhou district under the Ming dynasty. The document was created to express the displeasure of the Ming dynasty when Le Thai To invaded the border area and forced 218 households to follow him.
Claim: Doi Lang is a territory of Thailand (Doi Lang, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (1995-09-09): 20 Hill 491 near Doi Lang in Thailand's Mae Hong Son province, the border between the Burmese town of Myawaddy and Thailand's Mae Sot, and three small islands at the mouth of the Pakchan River near Thailand's Victoria Point, are but three areas under dispute. 21 By 1988 these claims to secession had been dropped by all the ethnic armies, except the Karenni National Progressive Party. Since then, the ethnic minorities have called for equal rights under a federal constitution. 22 Bertil Lintner, "Thailand: Building New Bridges with a Former Foe," and Robert Karniol, "Thailand Ends Backing for Rebel Groups," Jane's Defence Weekly, September 9, 1995. 23 The timber deals were especially important, since a seemingly unlimited supply of wood in Burma enabled Thailand to impose a moratorium on the felling of its own hardwood trees. There was strong domestic pressure in Thailand at the time to cease logging because of the severe flooding caused by excessive deforestation. The possibility of deals with the SLORC, which would far surpass those already existing between Thai companies and the ethnic armies, was an opportunity not to be missed to keep Thailand's timber mills working.
Claim: Doi Lang is a territory of Thailand (Doi Lang, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2020-01-09): We detected Giant Nuthatches at 12 of the 42 sample points (28.6%) during a total of 126-point survey sessions that involved a total of 19 detections, across an elevation range of 1,192 to 1,738 m above sea level. The detections at each of the 12 locations were taken to constitute a presumed territory or pair. These were clustered within four major localities (Figure 1), namely, Doi Ang Khang Royal Project Center (two territories), Doi Chiang Dao Wildlife Sanctuary (three territories), Doi Lang (an outlier of the present-day Doi Pha Hom Pok National Park; five territories), and Mae Ngai Watershed Station (two territories). All but four sightings were from within protected areas (national parks or wildlife sanctuaries). In contrast, the nuthatch was not detected during our survey from four historical localities where previously detected during 1930 to 1997 (Doi Inthanon National Park, Doi Langka (on the common border of Khun Chae National Park and Jae Sorn National Park), Doi Pha Hom Pok (the core area of Doi Pha Hom Pok National Park), and Khun Mae Ya Watershed Management Unit (part of Huai Nam Dang National Park; Table 1).
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Qatar (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-04-15): The Fasht Dibal conflict was a conflict that arose between Qatar and Bahrain.
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Qatar (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2023-09-20): The island of ‘Fasht Dibal’ was under Bahrain’s territorial control until Qatari troops descended on the island in 1986. DERASAT’s recent book highlights this act of Qatari aggression towards Bahrain, that caused a diplomatic dispute which saw ‘Fasht Dibal being awarded to Qatar and the ‘Hawar Islands’ handed to Bahrain.
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Qatar (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (1996-09-30): As to Qit’at Jaradah, the nature of which was disputed, the Court held that it should be considered as an island because it was above water at high tide ; the Court added that the activities which had been carried out by Bahrain were sufficient to support its claim of sovereignty over the island. With regard to low-tide elevations, the Court, after noting that international treaty law was silent on the question whether those elevations should be regarded as "territory", found that low-tide elevations situated in the overlapping area of the territorial seas of both States could not be taken into consideration for the purposes of drawing the equidistance line. That was true of Fasht ad Dibal, which both Parties regarded as a low-tide elevation. The Court then considered whether there were any special circumstances which made it necessary to adjust the equidistance line in order to obtain an equitable result. It found that there were such circumstances which justified choosing a delimitation line passing on the one hand between Fasht al Azm and Qit’at ash Shajarah and, on the other, between Qit’at Jaradah and Fasht ad Dibal.
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Qatar (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2022-08-29): In July 1991, Qatar submitted a claim against Bahrain before the International Court of Justice to adjudicate the sovereignty over Hawar Islands, Zubarah, Janan Island, shoals of Dibal and Qit’at Jaradah, and for delimitation of maritime areas of the two States. A decade after instituting proceedings before the International Court of Justice, a decision in the long-standing dispute was issued in 2001.
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Qatar (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2003-01-09): 11 Ibid, paras 169–70. The distinction between the southern and northern sectors is not altogether clear. In fact, while the Parties agreed that there were two sectors, their views differed regarding the location of the line dividing the two sectors. Bahrain proposed the line connecting Fasht-ad-Dibal with Fa's Rakan, while Qatar suggested a line drawn from Muharraq to Ra's Rakan, namely, the line MQ/RK marked as a ‘closing line’. Counter-Memorial submitted by Bahrain, paras 593–5; Counter-Memorial submitted by Qatar, Maps 6, 7, and 8. [...] 36 According to Qatar, Fasht ad Dibal is located 9.3 miles from the nearest point on the low-water line of Qatar and 13.7 miles from the nearest point on the low-water line of Bahrain. Memorial submitted by Qatar, 212, para 9.11. [...] 129 Although the legal nature of Fasht al Jarim was not specified, the Court held that, given its location, the low-water line might be used as the baseline from which the breadth not only of the territorial sea, but also of the continental shelf and the EEZ, is measured, ibid, para 245. It appears thus that the Court indirectly regarded it as an island, not a low-tide elevation, by referring to the breadth of the territorial sea as well as to the continental shelf/EEZ. If Fasht al Jarim were a low-tide elevation, it would have no continental shelf or EEZ. In addition, the Court observed that at most a minute part of Fasht al Jarim is above water at high tide.
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Qatar (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-09-12): Bahrain and Qatar [edit]Starting in 1936, Qatar and Bahrain were involved in territorial disputes over the Hawar Islands, Fasht Al Azm, Fasht Dibal, Qit'at Jaradah, and Zubarah. The most substantial dispute was the Fasht Dibal conflict in 1985, after Bahrain began constructing fortifications on the island. Qatar considered the construction to be a violation of an existing agreement made in 1978.[4] In April 1986, Qatari troops arrived on the island via helicopter and declared it a 'restricted zone'. They seized several Bahraini officials and 29 construction workers hired by the Dutch contracting company Ballast Nedam.[5][4] On 12 May 1986, following protests by the Netherlands and mediation by several GCC member states, Bahrain and Qatar reached a settlement, after which the foreign workers were released. Qatari troops evacuated the island on 15 June.[5]
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Qatar (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-04-23): [pp. 100-103] 200. Both Parties agree that Fasht ad Dibal is a low-tide elevation. Whereas Qatar maintains - just as it did with regard to Qit'at Jaradah - that Fasht ad Dibal as a low-tide elevation cannot be appropriated, Bahrain contends that low-tide elevations by their very nature are territory, and therefore can be appropriated in accordance with the criteria which pertain to the acquisition of territory. "Whatever their location, low-tide elevations are always subject to the law which governs the acquisition and preservation of territorial sovereignty, with its subtle dialectic of title and effectivités." [...] 220. The Court observed earlier (see paragraph 216 above) that, since it did not determine whether Fasht al Azm is part of Sitrah island or a separate low-tide elevation, it is necessary to draw provisionally two equidistance lines. If no effect is given to Qit'at Jaradah and in the event that Fasht al Azm is considered to be part of Sitrah island, the equidistance line thus adjusted cuts through Fasht ad Dibal leaving the greater part of it on the Qatari side. If, however, Fasht al Azm is seen as a low-tide elevation, the adjusted equidistance line runs west of Fasht ad Dibal. In view of the fact that under both hypotheses, Fasht ad Dibal is largely or totally on the Qatari side of the adjusted equidistance line, the Court considers it appropriate to draw the boundary line between Qit'at Jaradah and Fasht ad Dibal. As Fasht ad Dibal thus is situated in the territorial sea of Qatar, it falls for that reason under the sovereignty of that State.
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Qatar (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-04-23): [pp. 100-103] 200. Both Parties agree that Fasht ad Dibal is a low-tide elevation. Whereas Qatar maintains - just as it did with regard to Qit'at Jaradah - that Fasht ad Dibal as a low-tide elevation cannot be appropriated, Bahrain contends that low-tide elevations by their very nature are territory, and therefore can be appropriated in accordance with the criteria which pertain to the acquisition of territory. [...] 7. Paragraph 199 of the Judgment states that "Similar acts of authority have been invoked by Bahrain in order to support its claim that it has sovereignty over Fasht ad Dibal". However, for the above-stated reasons such acts, even if proved, cannot support the sovereignty claimed by Bahrain over Fasht ad Dibal.
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Qatar (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2017-06-18): 1936: Territorial disputes erupt between Qatar and Bahrain over the Hawa, Zubarah, Fasht Al Azm, Fasht Dibal, and al-Jaradah islands. [...] 1986: Qatari troops arrive on Fasht Dibal Island via helicopter and declare the island a "restricted zone". Qatari troops seize several Bahraini officials and 29 construction workers hired by a Dutch contracting company. [...] 1996: For the second time, Bahrain boycotts the GCC summit hosted in Doha as a result of Qatari incursions in Fasht Dibal Island 2001: The ICJ awards Bahrain and Qatar equal amounts of land. Bahrain is given the Hawar Islands, Al-Jaradah and Fasht Al Azm while Qatar receives Zubarah, Fasht Dibal, and the Janan Island.
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Qatar (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (1999-01-01): In parallel, Bahrain prepared as of 19 March 1988 a draft special agreement according to which: "Article I The parties shall submit the question posed in Article II to the International Court of Justice. Article II 1. The parties request the Court (a) to draw a single maritime boundary between the respective maritime areas of Bahrain and Qatar; such boundary to pass between the easternmost features of the Bahrain archipelago including most pertinently the Hawar Islands, Fasht ad Dibal and other adjacent or neighbouring features and the coast of Qatar, and to preserve Bahrain's rights in the pearling banks which lie to the north east of Fasht ad Dibal, and in the fisheries between the Bahrain archipelago and Qatar. (b) to determine the rights of the State of Bahrain in and around Zubara. 2. The Court is requested to describe the course of the maritime boundary . . ." (Memorial of Qatar, Ann. II.22; Counter-Memorial of Bahrain, Ann. I.9.) 26. Qatar and Bahrain both apparently endeavoured to draft a special agreement by which they could jointly refer the matters in dispute to the International Court of Justice.
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Qatar (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-10-06): This Briefing provides a detailed analysis of the Qatar v. Bahrain case, including the 1994 and 1995 Jurisdiction and Admissibility Judgments and the 2001 Merits Judgment and Opinions. Topics covered include: the course of the proceedings; the delivery and components of the Judgment; the geographical setting; territorial sovereignty questions (Zubarah, the Hawar Islands, Janan Island, and Qit'at Jaradah and Fasht ad Dibal); and the maritime boundary delimitation.
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Qatar (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2004-01-01): In addition to maintaining strong relations with its largest financial backers, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the U.A.E., Bahrain has worked to improve its relations with Qatar and has proper, but not warm, relations with Iran. Bahrain-Iran relations have been strained since the discovery in 1981 of an Iran-sponsored coup plot in Bahrain. Bahraini suspicions of the Iranian role in local unrest in the mid-1990s remain. On March 16, 2001, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) announced its judgment on the long-standing maritime delimitation and territorial dispute between Bahrain and Qatar. The binding judgment awarded sovereignty over the Hawar Islands and Qit'at Jaradah to Bahrain and sovereignty over Zubarah (part of the Qatar Peninsula), Janan Island and Fasht ad Dibal to Qatar. The peaceful settlement of this dispute has allowed for renewed co-operation, including plans to construct a causeway between the two countries.
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Qatar (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2001-03-16): Bahraini side and Fasht ad Dibal on the Qatari side (see paragraph 222 of the Judgment); [...] - The Court finds that Qatar has sovereignty over Zubarah and Janan Island and that the low-tide elevation of Fasht ad Dibal falls under the sovereignty of Qatar; it finds that Bahrain has sovereignty over the Hawar Islands and the island of Qit'at Jaradah; and it draws a single maritime boundary between the two States Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) - The Court finds that Qatar has sovereignty over Zubarah and Janan Island and that the low-tide elevation of Fasht ad Dibal falls under the sovereignty of Qatar; it finds that Bahrain has sovereignty over the Hawar Islands and the island of Qit'at Jaradah; and it draws a single maritime boundary between the two States
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Qatar (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2002-01-09): 46 The uncertain status of Fasht al Azm, discussed infra notes 51–52 and accompanying text, did not affect this conclusion, because "under both hypotheses [concerning that status], Fasht ad Dibal is largely or totally on the Qatari side of the adjusted equidistance line."Judgment, supra note 1, para. 220. [...] 51 If Fasht al Azm were considered part of Sitrah Island, it would "push" the equidistance line eastwards towards Qatar; if it were considered a low-tide elevation not naturally connected to the island, it would be disregarded for delimitation purposes on the same ground as Fasht ad Dibal. Id., para. 220; see id., sketch-map 3. [...] In that submission, Bahrain asked the Court to "adjudge and declare that. . . [i]n view of Bahrain’s sovereignty over all the insular and other features, including Fasht ad Dibal and Qit’atjaradah, comprising the Bahraini archipelago, the maritime boundary between Bahrain and Qatar is as described" in Bahrain’s memorial (part II), countermemorial (part II), and reply.
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Qatar (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (1995-02-15): In its Judgment the Court recalls that on 8 July 1991 Qatar filed an Application instituting proceedings against Bahrain in respect of certain disputes between the two States relating to sovereignty over the Hawar islands, sovereign rights over the shoals of Dibal and Qit'at Jaradah, and the delimitation of the maritime areas of the two States. [...] 2. Fasht al Dibal and Qit'at Jaradah;