Can state borders be justified, and if so, how should they be drawn? What gives states the right to control their borders? In this wonderfully refreshing book Paulina Ochoa Espejo argues that we need a new model for considering a range of matters related to borders, one that centers on place. To build her case she draws on the rich but largely abandoned Topian tradition, which is concerned with the environmental conditions of politics. She offers an approach to questions related to borders and territory in which place grounds special relations, obligations, and rights.

In contrast to a dominant assumption that the right to control borders stems from internal legitimacy and the right to rule, Ochoa Espejo argues that a state’s legitimacy does not arise solely from its internal institutions. Rather, because of our interconnectedness we have a “vast international and transnational network of shared concerns and responsibilities” (p. 203). The right to control borders comes from “international conventions, not from internal legitimacy—so border institutions should be governed cooperatively by the neighboring states and by the state system” (p. 296).

As well, she argues that there is an important role for boundaries and place-specific obligations to play: without them “it would be impossible to sustain universal obligations, such as legal equality, in any given place” (p. 144). Place-specific duties are important and allow for common understandings, predictability, and schemes of cooperation, all of which facilitate social life in particular located settings. They allow you to “play your role in the choreography of living together there, where you happen to be” (p. 168).

The watershed model that Ochoa Espejo develops highlights interconnectedness, change, and uncertainty, in contrast to the more dominant desert island model that emphasizes independence, territory ownership, identity, and property. Watersheds drain, catch, and channel water via rivers and streams to lakes, dams, and the ocean. Yet they are also integrally related to land, animals, habitats. and ecosystems. They have also been long used in drawing international borders, as in determining boundaries between Chile and Argentina, France and Spain, and Austria and Italy. Water system resilience is important not only because it assists in meeting the human right to water but also because it will serve as a key resource in maintaining a dense network of place-specific rights and obligations in specific localities. In her watershed model, borders “are justified when they sustain place-specific duties” (p. 295). If any borders are to be redrawn, this process should be done in ways that are mindful of environmental conservation.

How can Ochoa Espejo’s analysis help us solve some specific issues related to borders that are apparently not directly concerned with environmental conservation? In one excellent extended discussion, she presents two main arguments for a strong set of rights for irregular migrants who are present in a territory: “first, the participation of those present is often required for the success of local cooperation schemes; and second, and more importantly, the rights— including the right to stay—are necessary to uphold citizens’ moral agency” (p. 235).

To make the case, first consider one of her analogies. Because of the configuration of houses in a particular cul de sac, neighbors need to coordinate who digs out the snow from their driveways first to ensure that all can gain access to their properties. There is an order in which snow must be shoveled, and every neighbor has to cooperate in this project for the objective to be achieved. If irregular migrants who live in the neighborhood fear deportation, they might fail to contribute to such local cooperative schemes because they fear the consequences of such actions, such as becoming more visible and drawing attention to their irregular immigration status. Similarly, such concerns might lead to a range of other ways in which citizens’ well-being would be compromised. To keep citizens in a community safe, all should have access to public services, such as firefighting and law enforcement, without fearing that such interaction will result in deportation. In addition, one cannot properly fulfill one’s duties unless those around you fulfill theirs. So, for instance, refusing to allow irregular migrants rights to drivers’ licenses means they must drive without car insurance, and this puts others at risk. In addition, we must grant those settled irregular noncitizens rights that allow them to fulfill place-specific duties. For example, parents have duties to provide for their dependents who are citizens and so should have the right to work.

In this original book, the author helpfully shifts discussion away from issues about identity and argues for a focus on place. Place-specific duties arise in many familiar contexts such as in the case of being a good neighbor, so Ochoa Espejo’s extended analysis of what is possible in this area is a welcome contribution to the literature. My main critique concerns whether the framework is sufficiently comprehensive to address the vast range of questions that arise in relation to borders and to guide us to better solutions, compared with rival accounts. Although the model undoubtedly offers some excellent insights about how we should manage and arrange borders, there are many other pressing questions related to borders that it may not be able to address. My hope is that in this critical dialogue Ochoa Espejo might elaborate on how her account can indeed address these matters, so we can better appreciate this promising model.

To highlight some of these concerns, let me begin by examining whether her model helps us address some important questions concerning migration. Although there is some discussion of how the needs of those proximate to a particular territory should be integrated, there is little sustained examination of how the needs of those in nonproximate territories should be taken account of in matters concerning borders. In contemporary border debates there is considerable discussion about what constitutes fair admission policies, the kinds of criteria states may or may not use in deciding who should be admitted (such as family connections, potential economic contributions, need, ethnicity, compatibility with host populations, criminal convictions, and effects on those left behind in brain drain cases). It was not clear to me that a place-based account can straightforwardly contribute to such debates.

Does her model help us address questions such as these two that are related to refugees: Do states have a responsibility to admit all those who present for asylum at their borders? And given the many would-be migrants who would like to permanently resettle in other lands, how many is each state obligated to welcome as new permanent members? As Ochoa Espejo emphasizes, environmental conservation—presumably, the carrying capacity of the land, especially its water resources—would play an important role in arriving at a fair target for refugee admissions for each state. But would this work against the legitimate claims of many who have compelling needs to relocate, such as large populations of displaced or desperately needy people who urgently require housing? My view is that in some cases extraordinary human suffering should trump environmental conservation, at least in the short term and until better arrangements for the vulnerable can be secured. But if weight is given to environmental conservation, perhaps Ochoa Espejo would arrive at a different conclusion.

COVID-19 must surely be another pressing issue concerning borders these days, highlighting the need in dire circumstances for strong border controls or even closures. Again, a place-based account seems less able to contribute to making decisions around keeping populations separated and isolated to manage the spread of the virus during a grave public health crisis.

Another concern I had relates to an issue that Ochoa Espejo briefly mentions. She notes that, when those in the United States think of borders, they associate them with immigration or racial and ethnic identity. By contrast, when those in Mexico talk about borders, they often associate them with drug violence: “the descent of cities along the border—San Fernando, Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana, and many more—into uncontrollable violence. On the Mexican side, the border evokes drug trafficking and the erosion of government authority due to smuggling” (p. 58). I wondered how her place-based account would address the association of borders with drug violence and what positive solutions it might offer, given its focus on water and environmental conservation.

It would be helpful if Ochoa Espejo would explain what work her place-based account can do in addressing some of these other core issues concerning borders. In addition, as she emphasizes, the watershed model is a metaphor rather than a literal proposal to change existing borders so that they align with her preferred analysis. I was not entirely sure how to read this argument, and I would welcome her elaborating on more of the practical or policy implications of her rich account.