Photo: Walking in Canada viewing the USA across the water taken by the author.
Written by: Paula Drouin, Founder and Director of ADR Learning Institute (with some research help from Gemini)
Unless you live close to a border between countries, you may be oblivious to the unique impacts changes in national relations can have. I am working in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario this week among people who spent decades driving across the bridge to Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. Just to pick up a few things, have coffee with family and friends, go berry picking. People who are used to carrying their passport just in case they decide to scoot over to see a movie, go to a sporing event, or to their favorite shop in the USA. Living in Edmonton, which is 6.5 hours away from the border, shapes my perspective on the challenges Canadians face. Working here has broadened that perspective. Every tour I took over the weekend was a mix of Canadians and Americans simply spending time together with ease. It got me thinking about how national politicians may frame border issues in terms of strict sovereignty, security mandates, and trade policies, while folks living in borderland communities frame the issues as impacts on shared social and economic realities.
The experience of being here got me curious about a borderland mediator’s perspective. So, as a person wanting to get a newsletter out quickly with an article that may interest this mediator as much as another, I asked Gemini to research some common themes related to the issues arising specific to borderland communities. These are the themes arrived at:
- Local Interdependence vs. National Mandates: Border towns often share fire response, water, utilities, libraries, and family ties. When national policies tighten border crossings, local communities feel the human cost of being divided by federal decisions.
- Reframing Positions into Interests: A mediator’s approach tends towards working away from entrenched positions (“strict border closure” vs. “open borders”) toward core underlying interests—community safety, economic livelihood, family unity, and mutual respect.
- Erosion of Informal Trust Networks: Decades of informal cross-border agreements (like regional permits or local crossing courtesies) have increasingly been replaced by strict regulatory enforcement, creating new friction that requires formal co-management.
- Indigenous Borderland Rights & Multi-Jurisdictional Dialogue: Nations split by the international boundary (such as Akwesasne) face complex legal and mobility challenges under historical frameworks like the Jay Treaty, requiring specialized cross-border dialogue mechanisms.
Historically, border towns relied on informal “side paths” and unwritten courtesies to manage daily friction. As modern enforcement tightens boundaries, local communities and border agencies have to pioneer new mechanisms for collaborative problem-solving:
- Direct Dialogue Channels: In Point Roberts, where the majority of residents hold Nexus trusted-traveler passes, citizens formed an ad hoc Border Committee that meets quarterly directly with the CBP Port Director to resolve operational friction and anticipate major event traffic.
- Cross-Border Coalitions: Community-led associations, such as the Point Roberts–Delta Cross-Border Coalition, have successfully joined citizens across national lines to tackle shared regional development and infrastructure threats. Taxpayers’ associations have similarly adapted to give non-resident Canadian property owners an active voice in local governance.
- Indigenous Border Mobility Frameworks: In split Indigenous territories such as Akwesasne and White River First Nation, ongoing nation-to-nation dialogues under Canada’s UNDA Action Plan Measure 52 are working to reconcile statutory immigration laws with inherent mobility, ceremony, and trade rights.
Some Key Principles for Mediating Cross-Border Community Disputes
To build sustainable agreements between border communities and national authorities, dispute resolution professionals rely on proven cross-cultural strategies:
- Establish Common Process Rules Early: Cross-border stakeholders often operate under different assumptions about authority, confidentiality, and procedural goals. Clarifying process rules in advance prevents misunderstandings.
- Ensure Balanced Representation: Attendance matters deeply in cross-border negotiations. Ensuring that agency officials and community leaders are represented by individuals of equivalent decision-making rank avoids feelings of disrespect and keeps momentum moving forward.
- Foster Human Connections Beyond the Law: Legal frameworks alone cannot solve borderland friction. By focusing on shared human experiences—such as joint fire protection, shared regional environmental stewardship, and multigenerational family ties—mediators can guide parties from adversarial posturing to collaborative co-management.
Wouldn’t it be great if a border did not act as a wall diving interdependent communities. By shifting from win-lose positional bargaining to interest-based mediation, policymakers and border agencies could uphold territorial security while preserving the vital human relationships that sustain North America’s shared borderlands. Are any of the readers working on cross-border issues? If so, please reach out to me and share what is working and some of the challenges you face.
