Mobilizing theory - Governing Transboundary Waters: Canada, the United States, and Indigenous Communities - page 27

as a priori containers of State power is pervasive throughout the governance
literature and continues to guide conventional thinking (Newman, 2002, 2006;
Agnew, 2010, 2012; Fall, 2010; Popescu, 2012).
However, political borders are not passive, unproblematic backdrops that neatly
bound national identities and peoples (Sack, 1986; Anderson, 1991; Ó Tuathail,
1996; Newman, 2002, 2006; Paasi, 2009). Rather, contemporary political borders
are active sites, which provide great insight into political processes and power
relations. As Knight (1982, p. 517) eloquently reflects: “Territory is not; it becomes,
for territory itself is passive, and it is human belief and actions that give territory
meaning”. The acts of nation-building or entrenching borders, however, are
discursive acts that occur beyond the site of the border (Balibar, 2004). Nation-
building occurs in classrooms when children pledge allegiance to their flag, in sports
games when people sing national anthems, during national holidays when people
are reminded of their country's greatness, as well as in everyday practices such as
obtaining driver's licenses. These national identities, in turn, impact the management
of natural resource regimes.
As borders are closely linked to issues of power and identity, investigating the
border helps to unpack the social projects that are inscribed upon them (Fall, 2005,
2010) as well as to open up wider questions regarding identity, citizenship, and
nationalism (Anderson, 1996).
In recent years, border studies have moved away from the predominantly
International Relations model, which privileges the nation-state as the sole site of
analysis, to a more nuanced understanding of borders as negotiated, reflexive, and
wrought with power dynamics (Balibar, 2004; Kostovicova, 2005; Agnew, 2007;
Fall, 2010; Furlong, 2006; Norman and Bakker, 2009). Works in postcolonial
studies have helped to articulate power-dynamics associated with the ongoing
legacies of colonial boundary-setting (Balibar, 2004; Sundberg, 2004, 2008).
The ongoing legacies of these colonial constructions - including both national
borders and Indigenous reserve/reservation borders - continue to influence daily
practice (Braun, 2002; Harris, 2002; Evenden, 2004; Holifield, 2010, 2012;
Norman, 2013). Projects such as identifying “hydrohegemony” and “transboundary
water justice” have also brought these discussions more into focus (Zeitoun et al. ,
2013).
Furthermore, although the geographic literature provides avenues to explore
power dynamics related to borders (or the act of “b/ordering” as van Houtum et al. ,
2005 suggest), many of these ideas have yet to be translated to the administrative
practices of environmental management that transgress neatly bound jurisdictions.
Sovereignty, the State, and the citizen
Within a modern state system, sovereignty is often considered the foundation of
State power. Clearly defined and well-protected borders are considered a key
component in rationalizing and upholding state sovereignty (Brown and Purcell,
1995; Gilbert, 2007). However, the power relationships are more complex than
just maintaining a sovereign state. As Mitchell Dean explores - drawing on