自既有的研究文獻指出，如兩國邊界相鄰且存在著衝突時，彼此的貿易往來將會受到負面影響，學者席蒙絲（Bath Simmons）因此建議，邊界衝突非常需要以制度化的方式（例如：締結和平協定）來加以解決。在這樣的前提下，國際關係學界形成一種認知，即衝突與貿易是難以併存的，甚至主張貿易是帶來和平的重要前提；或反過來強調，當衝突發生時，國家間的貿易合作必然會倒退。本文在反駁上述觀點之餘，進一步對衝突與貿易難以併存或註定彼消我長的關係提出質疑。透過對印度與中國貿易互動之個案研究，指出當特定條件滿足時，即便領土相鄰的兩國存在著邊界衝突，還是依然可以有貿易往來。 Bath Simmons's study of trade and border dispute demonstrates that such dispute negatively influences trade between neighboring countries, and reminding us that such dispute seriously relies on institutions as a problem-solving instrument (e.g., to sign a peace treaty). Given this, a bunch of academic volumes in the field of IR believes that border dispute, territorial conflict in particular, and trade are bound to be exclusive one another, or trade cooperation between countries will undoubtedly move downward when conflicts occur. This paper has a different perspective from what mentioned above by challenging traditional arguments. The case study clearly indicates that countries being connected by borders are very likely to maintain their mutual trade relations on the one hand and also possibly to involve into border dispute on the other hand under specific conditions.
