Building Borders to Facilitate Free Movement? One Stop Border Posts (OSBPs) and the West African Paradox

1. The paper is innovative - it pulls together different strands of literature to make sense of the complexities of borders in West Africa within the context of free movement of persons in the sub-region, using Togo as the case study.
2. Field work conducted, evidenced in photos and the quotes by the interviewees, contribute to the originality of the paper and the depth of the analysis.
3. The paper fills a very important gap in critical analysis of the One Stop Border Posts in West Africa, offering a unique perspective of analysing OSBPs from a migration/mobility perspective. There are no papers analysing this in the West African context.

1. The paper would benefit from tightening the sections, some loose sentences need to be removed, sentence strucutre tightened for better clarity and improved logical flow of the arguments.
2. The paper would require a thorough edit - grammatical errors, abbreviations, referencing and punctuation issues would need to be addressed. 3.

1. The paper begins from the premise that OSBPs are meant to facilitate movement of persons. OSBPs are primarily meant for trade related activities, including the movement of persons for reasons of trade (trade in services), it would be useful here to refer to the work on movement of persons for services (the various modes of movement) vs. the traditional understanding of migration – movement of persons for over a year (by some organisations like UNDESA) or movement of persons for more than 6 months (by some African countries). I think the challenge here is that the premise does not clearly define these different strands which are visible in the research and the policy space before delving into its analysis on how these OSBPs function and what they achieve in terms of regulating movement of persons.
2. Secondly, a clear definition of OSBPs would be good to have, so the reader can understand what is meant by this. Here, I would suggest looking into the literature on trade and customs facilitation for this. The world customs organization has standard definitions of OSBPs and how they should function, the AU (under the AU NEPAD project) also has standard definitions of OSBPs, including these definitions would provide a background understanding of the context and thinking behind the establishment of OSBPs on the continent. Particularly in West Africa, it would be also important to include the policies of ECOWAS and UEMOA that establish these OSBPs .

3. It is important to note that the bias of OSBPs is towards trade transactions, which as several authors have argued have implications for the movement of persons – whether temporarily, as service providers or traders or more permanently – as migrants. It is important to tease out these strands in order to firmly ground the analysis.

4. Seamless mobility does not mean mobility without control (see Bjarnesen and Bisong 2023). In most cases, seamless mobility whether of goods or persons exists because there is heightened surveillance for the authorities – think of pre arrival clearing procedures that enhance the movement of goods; or visa/ registration processes that facilitate the movement of persons. Here it would be good to tease out the argument around surveillance and control happening behind the scenes, vs. what is visible to the citizen as part of everyday practice.

5. “Their implementation thus raises a fundamental question: how can a border control instrument promote free movement?” this is a central argument of the paper. Here it would be important to nuance this argument. What is considered free movement in the West African/ African context? Is the unhibited mobility of pepole? Or is it movement under certain conditions and what are these conditions? I would urge the author to take another look at the ECOWAS and UEMOA policies on free movement of persons along with the national laws and policies of Togo relating to migration and moblity to paint a clearer picture of this. It is also possible to paint an aspirational picture based on the desires expressed in aspirational statements either by everyday people using the border, academics or politicians, but that should be clearly indicated.

6. The paper discusses a complex issue around the interlinkages between OSBPs and migration and movement of persons in the region. The frameworks are complex, the realities are complex. However, the description of these complexities need to be done in a logical argument, so the paper would not appear to be messy.

7. The paper could benefit from better transitions, tighter sections and an improved flow of the argument. Perhaps an inclusion of a diagram showing the different frameworks and themes and how they interact could help simplify these complexities (just a thought, must not be followed).

Ask for minor revision

1- The manuscript addresses an important gap on the topic of free movement in West Africa in the context of One Stop Border Posts (OSBPs) in West Africa from a critical lens, bringing together multi-actor perspectives and situated within different disciplines. This is important given that most information on OSBPs that exists are usually in the form of evaluation reports produced by stakeholders and often lack critical perspectives.

2-The choosen case study (Togo) is extremely relevant given the prevevalence of OSBPs and its implication on free movement within the ECOWAS region. The papers not only explains the rationale behind OSBPs, but goes further to show its contradictions (promotion of free movement vs control imperatives) by showcasing multiple examples in Togo and Burkina Faso. Moreover, its shows how different the stakes and interest of the different actors involved.

3-Finally, a key strenght of the manuscript is its embeddedness on different strands of literature and fields of studies.

1-While the paper fundamentally addresses the contradictions between the establishment of OSBPs and facilitation of freedom of movement in the West African context, the paper could perhaps be anchored on migration control and how the actions of different actors shape the day to day operations of OSBPs in this regard? As it stands, migration control is just one of many different elements (trade, political, regional integration) discussed. The authors needs to make the central argument of this manuscript more clear.

2- The manuscript also lacks a clear theoretical framework. I think the quality of the paper would be much better if this is spelt our clearly.

Yes, this paper could make significant contributions to the topic of freedom of movement within the West African region, especially within the context of OSBPs. However, this will require some substantial revisions from the author. First, the author needs to clearly state from the outset what the central argument of the paper is. As it stands, it is only when you read the conclusion section of the manuscript that you get a sense of what the key argument is. Secondly, the author could improve the quality of the manuscript by highlighting a clear theoretical framework. The analysis part is very descriptive as it stands, and this could help address this problem. Thirdly, the structure of the manuscript (too many sections and sub-sections) makes it very difficult to follow the arguments, and sometimes it is difficult to establish how they relate to each other. This should be improved as well. Finally, a reflection on the methodology would be extremely important: when was the fieldwork conducted? What actors did you speak to? Limitations?

Minor comments: - The author perhaps forgot to mention the cost of the facility financed by the EU mentioned on page 2. -The full meaning of the acronyms should be spelled out at the very beginning. -Some claims in the manuscript need to be sufficiently backed up by references.

Overall, the manuscript could make an important contribution once these changes are implemented.

See my comments on the report section.

Ask for major revision

1. This manuscript addresses issues concerning movement and mobility in West Africa, a geographical space with high intra-regional mobility with connection to irregular movement towards Europe.
2. The focus on Togo is very important as the country though a source and transit country for migration, is rarely mentioned in literature on migration governance, cross-border trade and regional integration. This is surprising given that one of its early post-colonial leaders, President Gnassingbe Eyadema, played a crucial role in ECOWAS formation and engaged in contestations on free movement and integration in the region.
3. The subject matter, One-Stop-Border Posts (OSBPs), as a free movement, trade and transportation facilitating infrastructure is very crucial in the broader global mobility and border governance.

1. The manuscript suffers from problems of clarity and consistency. Acronyms are not fully written out, referencing is in French while the paper is in English, and there is inconsistent use of dashes. These technical issues reduce readability.
2. The argument lacks a coherent theoretical framework. Concepts like the logistic turn, paper infrastructures, materiality, and Foucauldian principles are mentioned but not systematically tied together, leaving the analysis scattered.
3. Many claims are weakly sourced or unsupported. Some sentences stand alone without evidence, references are outdated, and interview excerpts are too short or fragmented to add real analytical weight.
4. Generally, the work leans too much toward description. It does not anchor the discussion firmly enough in recent academic literature, which makes it read more like a report than a strong scholarly article.

1. The paper will benefit more by sharpening the central argument and presenting it in a standalone paragraph early in the introduction. This will give the reader clearer grasp of the core claim and follow how it unfolds through the analysis.

2. In the introduction and other parts, the full meaning of acronyms and abbreviations such as JICA, WB (World Bank), ECOWAS, EU, GIZ, and WAEMU should be written out the first time they appear.

3. Some sentences are misplaced and would read better in different thematic sections. For example, the line about the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to streamline cross-border flows would fit more appropriately in the paragraph on Science and Technology Studies (STS) below it, rather than its current position.

4. There are also technical and stylistic issues. The in-text citations and reference list are presented in French, since the paper is in English, they should be formatted in English. On page 5, em dashes and en dashes are not clearly distinguished, and this issue appears throughout the text, so they need to be used consistently and appropriately.

5. While the author makes good use of concepts to frame ]the discussion, the analysis would be much stronger if there was a clear theoretical framework guiding the research. An integrated framework that brings together some of the concepts already mentioned, such as the logistic turn, Foucauldian principles, materiality, and paper infrastructures, would provide a stronger scholarly footing and give more coherence to the interpretation and analysis.

6. The author should also make clear when information comes from interviews or observations. For instance, the section on page 7 that begins with “Although the goals and mission of OSBP…” would be more credible if it showed the source.

7. There are also several places where sentences are left hanging and need to be tied more clearly to the claims being made, such as on page 8.

8. In many parts, especially on page 10 and elsewhere, the analysis is not sufficiently grounded in existing literature, which makes the work come across more like a report than a scholarly paper.

9. On page 12, the references used are not recent and should be updated.

10. The manuscript should be better formatted. it should follow a standard form for paper publication unless the current formatting is allowed by SciPost.

11. Some quotes and interview excerpts, such as the one on page 18, should be extended to better connect with the analysis being made.

Ask for major revision

1) This is a well-written, engaging paper on a phenomenon that has important implications for migration and mobility in West Africa and quite possibly beyond.

2) All of the “raw materials” are in place for an impactful contribution to the literature.

3) The topic, region, and country at issue are not extensively covered in the mainstream migration literature, so the value added could be significant.

1) As can be seen in my suggestions, I think that the argument is not stated strongly and explicitly enough at the start, and as a result, the body of the paper lacks a clear organizing principle. It is easy for the reader not to see the main point when in the middle of the (admittedly interesting) detail.

2) The material presented in the sections and sub-sections is too “blocky,” and transitions between them are too cursory, when not absent.

3) The OSBP story is not put into the context of border history in West Africa.

Yes, I believe that Migration Politics' acceptance criteria are met and that the article is appropriate for publication in the journal.

1) There are a lot of moving parts, which is to be expected when the goal is to contribute “to reconnecting fragmented and siloed literatures” and to use OSBPs to analyze “contradictory trends and foster the intersection of literatures on free movement, borders, Africa’s logistics turn, and security and technological governance” (p. 5). While each of the pieces is interesting, it is easy to lose the plot line in the different sections. I think that the argument found in the conclusion (p. 21) could streamlined and presented at the outset and then carried through the rest of the text. Also, the French-style outline format (I., 1., II., 1., 2., 3., III, etc.) should be dropped in favor of appropriately formatted subject headings, with special attention given toward constructing a sustained narrative. Appropriate transitions are missing between the sections.

2) On p. 2, we are told that the article adopts a “geographical perspective, attentive to how borders are spatially transformed and how everyday practices are restructured within these new infrastructures,” that “reflects a disciplinary approach that can be interpreted through a Foucauldian lens.” Foucault only appears in passing through proxies (and in blessedly clear, non-Foucauldian language) on pp. 11 and 15. Perhaps the author sees the whole analysis here as being filtered through that analytical lens. If so, that needs to be made explicit, so that the reader can see what is holding everything together. Relatedly, the term “assemblage(s)” appears in the abstract (p. 1) and the Introduction (p. 2), but not along the way – except just in passing on p. 6 – or in the conclusion.

3) Under the ECOWAS Protocol on Free Movement of Persons, ECOWAS citizens are allowed visa-free entry into other member states when they present a valid travel document and international health certificate – which many in the region do not have. Even before the recent backsliding on free movement, similarly, the Schengen Agreement’s elimination of passport checks at internal borders did not mean that people were freed from the responsibility of carrying a valid passport or national identification card with them in the event of random checks (which happened a lot on trains and busses). States impose such requirements for health and security reasons and because (at least theoretically) they are beholden to taxpayers who pay for local services. To contrast what is happening at Togo’s borders with an imaginary scenario in which everyone would simply be free to wander about West Africa unhindered and unchecked is setting up something of a straw man.

4) There are references here and there to prior border control facilities (pp. 10 and 15) yet no detailed or systematic coverage of the pre-OSBP border-crossing procedure/process. As someone who crossed a number of international borders in West Africa, including the Ghana-Togo border at Aflao-Lomé, with an HIC passport before the recent developments, I can see similarities and differences with what is being described at the OSBPs and how the changes both facilitate and hinder mobility in new ways. A historical perspective would be helpful.

Small issues:

Provide an idea of the timeline in the Introduction on p. 1. Since when have OSBPs been implemented? (Right now, the answer only comes on p. 9.)

Spell out the acronyms ECOWAS and WAEMU on p. 1 (the first time they appear, and not on p. 7, as is now the case ). Do this also with EU, JICA, and GIZ on p. 2.

“The facility, financed by the European Union for approximately [ADD AMOUNT] includes....” (p. 2).

“Some view such informal exchanges as promoting social peace in contexts where states fail to distribute wealth equitably” (p. 4). Examples/who?

“OSBPs, largely supported by international and regional organizations such as the European Union, the WTO, and ECOWAS, embody a model of imported public action based on international norms for mobility management and border control.” >> A one-sentence paragraph (p. 7). There are other examples on p. 8 and later in the article. I do not know what the journal's style guide says about these.

Please see the section above.

Ask for major revision