States increasingly regulate migration by the creation of waiting zones where the migrant is denied access to asylum and non-refoulement. Waiting zones are often described as legal black holes from which the state has withdrawn legal authority. So characterized, the governance of migration through waiting zones poses a challenge to the applicability of standards of legitimate authority. If authority is legitimate or illegitimate only when exercised, and if the state has withdrawn the exercise of authority in waiting zones, it appears to follow that waiting zones cannot be evaluated by standards of legitimate authority.

In response, this paper argues that as long as the state possesses the authority to regulate the conduct of the person, her conduct is governed by “deflecting reasons” that are third-order reasons not to act on reasons determined by the authority. Given that a person is subject to authority whenever she is subject to practical reasons determined by the authority, it follows that a person subject to deflecting reasons is subject to authority, even if there is no duty to comply with it. The significance of this claim is that migrants in the waiting zone remain subject to the authority claimed by the state even though the state claims not to exercise authority over migrants present therein. It is therefore in order to hold states to account by regular standards of legitimate authority also in waiting zones.