evidence: The dispute over a heavily forested section of Northern Amazon forest between Suriname and French Guiana is one of the most lingering boundary disputes of modern nations. Stemming from a colonial history that left borders fluid at the independence of Suriname, the border dispute today is marred by shifting and snaking waterways, diplomatic impasses and scant political resources to contribute by the two small Caribbean states. If the dispute was forwarded to a respected tribunal that follows customary international law, it is clear that because French Guiana has effectively occupied the area, a persuasive claim can be made to the disputed area. Suriname, on the other hand, contends that their colonial predecessor, Dutch Guiana, occupied the area through control over the inhabitants of the area. [...] While disputes over other territories in the region began long ago, most have either been subsequently resolved or international efforts to resolve them have advanced considerably after prolonged and intense negotiations.2 However, the dispute over the Itany-Marouini Triangle persists and there has been no indication of movement toward resolution. Neither Suriname nor French Guiana has pursued its claim vigorously for the past century, and the efforts of both governments to establish predominance during that time have been little more than perfunctory. Suriname has maintained virtually no governmental presence and France, through its French Overseas Department, has devoted minimal resources and administration to the area. It appears that neither side wants to expend the considerable sums and effort required to resolve the issue and develop the region's infrastructure.