This Article provides the outline for a conceptual framework focusing on legal infrastructures, comprised of socio-material assemblages and entangled legal normativities that both enable and constrain human societies. Section A introduces the growing transdisciplinary field of infrastructural studies, which employs the notion of infrastructure as a tool for analyzing the constitutive relationship between society and essential material structures. It then draws out the analytical conjunction of law and infrastructure in the role ascribed to law within existing applications of infrastructural studies and the nascent engagement with infrastructural theory within the legal discipline itself. Part II develops a conceptual framework on legal infrastructures, outlining three avenues for how thinking infrastructurally may yield new perspectives on the dynamic relationship between law, social practices, and socio-technical materiality; (a) legal infrastructures as socio-material formations that generate societal effects (b) legal infrastructures as schemes of social practice that recursively entangle to produce new configurations, and (c) legal infrastructures as distributing norms across transnational and regime boundaries.

This Article examines the role of political polarization in contributing to acute infrastructural dysfunction. It begins by applying an infrastructural lens to the study of law, identifying the synergies and tensions inherent in that conversation. The second section investigates the components of a functional border legal infrastructure from a range of perspectives, seeking to understand the performative role of the border. The Article next presents three case studies of politically polarized border legal infrastructures, highlighting material, relational, and distributional elements. Drawing from those examples, the Article then unpacks the role of law as border infrastructure, highlighting the contribution that a legal perspective can offer to the infrastructures literature. This section examines the layers of law involved in border infrastructures, including international, regional, and bilateral; the regulatory role of national law in constructing and governing infrastructures; and the jurisdictional functions of law in allocating the political and financial authority that are essential to the effective operation of infrastructures. This analysis highlights the role of discretion and opacity, as well as political polarization, in setting the stage for infrastructural breakdown. The Article ends by reflecting on the recursive relationship between politics and law in border infrastructures, examining how that dynamic creates and manifests failures, dysfunction, and acute breakdown.

Much work has been produced on the passport and on exceptional regimes of mobility, notably asylum or permanent immigration. There has, by contrast, been less research on that intermediary, ubiquitous legal device that is the visa, a fundamental manifestation of state discretion, a major source of arbitrariness, and a constant assertion of power over moving bodies. The visa is a manifestation of and is embedded in a deeper infrastructure of limited global mobility. Adopting a global and comparative perspective, this Article seeks to analyze the politics of the visa as the indispensable sesame of international travel but also as the ultimate manifestation of that infrastructure’s arbitrariness. The Article highlights an ideal type of the visa especially as it is deployed towards “at risk” categories, emphasizing the sort of performance it requires from applicants in adapting to the system’s demands as they are relayed by officials, corporations and, increasingly, algorithms and artificial intelligence. It will highlight the constraints of applying for the visa, its temporal frames, its assorted conditions, and its denial and possibilities of contestation thereof. The Article contends that, globally, the visa is the key legal infrastructure to channel systemic discrimination, frustrate professional and cultural opportunities, and keep families apart in ways that entrench class and racial divides.

Whenever a person intends to cross a border, citizenship de facto determines—more than any other status—whether that person can enter the territory of another state. Yet, despite its ubiquity and centrality within global mobility infrastructures, the exact mechanisms through which citizenship shapes human movement on the planetary scale remain surprisingly ambiguous. This Article examines the multifaceted ways in which citizenship operates as an organizing principle within the complex of rules and norms governing transnational human mobility, including how the increasing acceptance of dual nationality status and the emergence of citizenship-by-investment schemes reverberate throughout the legal infrastructure and create new pathways for elite mobility. Using citizenship as an exploratory lens, the Article thereby seeks to theoretically complement and nuance existing scholarship in migration and mobility studies, arguing that physical space remains the dominant structure for human mobility. As we show, legal infrastructures reconfigure access to human mobility in ways that simultaneously fragment and compress physical space as it pertains to transnational movement.

The promise of artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly invoked to ‘revolutionize’ practices of global security governance, including in the domain of border control. Legal scholarship tends to confront these changes by foregrounding the rule of law challenges associated with nascent forms of governance by data, and by imposing new regulatory standards. Yet, little is known about how these algorithmic systems are already reconfiguring legal norms and processes, while generating novel security techniques and practices for knowing and governing “risk” before the border. Exploring these questions, this article makes three important contributions to the literature. On an empirical level, it provides an original socio-legal study of the processes constructing and implementing Cerberus – an AI-based risk-analysis platform deployed by the UK Home Office. This analysis provides unique insight into the institutional frictions, legal mediations and emergent governance formations involved in the introduction of this algorithmic bordering system. On a methodological level, the article directly engages with the focus on ‘legal infrastructures’ in this special issue. It uses an original approach (infra-legalities) which follows how legal and infrastructural elements are relationally and materially tied together in practice. Rather than trying to conceptually settle the relation between law and infrastructure – or qualifying law as a sui generis infrastructure – the article traces incipient modes of governmentality and regulatory ordering in which both legal and infrastructural elements are metabolized. In its account of Cerberus, the article analyzes this emergent composition as a dispositif of speculative suspicion. Finally, on a normative and political level, the article signals the significant stakes involved in this algorithmic enactment of risk. It shows how prevailing regulatory tropes revolving around ‘debiasing’ and retention of a ‘human in the loop’ offer a limited register of remedy, and work to amplify the reach of Cerberus. We conclude with reflections on critiquing algorithmic systems like Cerberus through the emergent infrastructural relations they enact.

The aim of this Article is to present a general and nonexhaustive overview of the legal infrastructures that configure cross-border movement in Latin America. It draws on the mobility approach, regime interaction, and—legal—infrastructural studies, which, together, provide a tentative analytical framework for the legal infrastructuring processes that we observe around border regulation in Latin America, an, arguably, understudied but core mobility hotspot. We present—in the form of several vignettes—different outcomes of infrastucturing processes which either enable or impede cross border mobility. This approach reveals the dynamic nature of law surrounding mobility and its apparent contradictions and unintended consequences. It concludes that the shift to an infrastructural account of the law can help us gain a more holistic and, therefore, more realistic understanding of how the law works over time, how it infrastructures crossborder mobility beyond and sometimes against states’ intentions and expectations, and how people on the move have more agency than the snapshot image of—forced—migration law conveys.

The Economic Community of West African States (“ECOWAS”) has established one of the most comprehensive free movement regimes. By declaring West Africa a borderless region, the organization affirms the right of free movement for all citizens of member states. Nevertheless, significant obstacles to securing this right persist and is particularly prevalent for female migrants. Studies reveal that widespread corruption, border harassment, and bureaucratic inefficiencies restrict female migration opportunities. However, current scholarship inadequately addresses the interrelation between regional mobility law, infrastructures, and female migration. This Article examines the gendered dimensions of access to mobility infrastructures from the perspective of ECOWAS officials. Mobility infrastructures are conceptualized as comprising legal, physical, and technological components that collectively facilitate or restrict movement. The analysis draws on documentary evidence and insights from 19 semi-structured interviews with ECOWAS Commission officials. It shows that access to mobility infrastructures is predominantly determined by embedded gender norms, laws, and practices. By analyzing accounts from officials involved in constructing the free movement regime, the Article provides unique insights into the disparities between institutional intentions, legal frameworks, and mobility trajectories. In doing so, it contributes to research on free movement in West Africa, mobility infrastructures, and the emerging scholarship on legal infrastructures.

The notion of infrastructure has recently featured prominently in international legal scholarship. The ambition behind the turn to infrastructure in international legal theory is comparable to other large attempts to conceptualize the discipline. Yet, against the backdrop of work in the humanities and social sciences, theoretical engagement with infrastructure is still nascent in the legal discipline. In this Article, we build on another recent development in international legal scholarship—the turn to “materiality”—to articulate a systematic theory of infrastructure in international law. At the center of our study is the case study of the cruise ship. Studying cruise ships and their legal and political environment in detail, we introduce three conceptual building blocks through which we develop a more comprehensive theory of infrastructure: Platform, object and rupture. Although we focus on cruise ships, the theory of legal infrastructure that we offer is applicable to a wide array of industries and issues.

The article has the main aim of utilizing the literature on “fragment urbanism” and case studies in infrastructure from the global South to question the notion—dear to the World Bank and the IMF—that the global South ought to follow the North’s lead in aiming at “the modern infrastructure ideal,” that is, a series of integrated nation-wide networks. That model suits certain needs—electricity, phone service, perhaps Internet—but it doesn’t always work, even if funding can be found, for many other infrastructure needs. What is often thought of as “informal” solutions may in fact deploy more site-specific and community-specific techniques and tools.

The article also shows that even in the global North’s most advanced capitalist countries, the lack of overall planning and the absence of needs assessments done before choosing which projects will go ahead mean that infrastructure provision and governance is far more fragmented than the “modern” ideal would suggest. The fact that major projects are usually financed separately, often having their own credit rating, encourages a way of non-evidence based planning that is rife for political interference in infrastructure decision-making. The “art of the deal” is in fact the model for infrastructure projects these days, not the ‘seeing like a state’ that characterized many projects in the post-World War II era.