Border disputes routinely continue long after the strategic value of the territory has disappeared. The persistence has causes that are largely political and legal rather than geographic.
Claims harden through repetition
A government that states a claim consistently over decades builds a legal record, and under international practice acquiescence can weaken a claim that goes unasserted.
This creates a strong incentive to restate the position at every opportunity, since silence may later be interpreted as abandonment.
The record then constrains future governments, which inherit a documented position they cannot soften without appearing to concede something their predecessors defended.
Domestic politics raise the cost of settling
Territory attaches to national identity in a way that trade or fiscal questions do not, and a leader who concedes it can be accused of surrendering the nation's patrimony.
Continuing a dispute costs a government very little, particularly where the territory is remote and no one is being harmed by the status quo.
Because the asymmetry is stable, the rational course for almost every individual leader is to leave the matter to a successor.
The original dispute is often documentary
Many boundaries were drawn by treaties describing features that were mapped inaccurately, using names that changed, or referring to rivers that have since moved.
Resolving such a dispute requires agreeing which historical document governs, and each side generally relies on a different one.
Where the underlying texts genuinely conflict, no amount of good faith produces an obvious answer, and the disagreement is real rather than pretextual.
Settlement mechanisms exist but require consent
Arbitration and adjudication can resolve boundary questions definitively, and states have used them successfully in a considerable number of cases.
Both parties must agree to submit, which means the mechanism is available exactly when the dispute is already close to settlement and unavailable when it is not.
A state confident of its legal position and uncertain of a negotiated outcome will prefer adjudication, and its opponent will decline for the same reason.
Practical arrangements often precede legal ones
Governments frequently agree on fishing access, resource sharing or local movement while leaving sovereignty formally unresolved.
These arrangements reduce the risk of incident and allow economic activity to continue, which is most of what settlement would achieve in practice.
The legal question then remains open indefinitely, which is an unsatisfying outcome that has nonetheless kept a number of long-running disputes peaceful.