Solidarity is generally emphasized as a social good, particularly by international lawyers keen to stress its integrative function for the international community. This chapter will explore the possibility that solidarity might, on the contrary, occasionally be unwelcome, understood as both objectively and subjectively undesirable. Solidarity constructs certain social bonds through “imaginaries of solidarity” (who one imagines oneself to be in solidarity with) in ways that may be problematic. The chapter will examine different sites of international solidarity, including the inter-state and the transnational. It will distinguish between solidarity that is unwelcome on account of its effects (when solidarity actually makes things worse), on account of who it is offered by (the “intuitu personae” of solidarity), and on account of the burden of gratitude it creates (as part of an economy of gift and counter-gift). Overall, the chapter will refocus attention away from obligations to provide solidarity in favor of a more nuanced appreciation that not all solidarity is equally opportune. It also hopes to be a contribution to understanding what might be welcome solidarity based on a renewed understanding of its non-welcome variant.

This chapter distinguishes solidarity as a legal concept (LS) from solidarity as a social practice (SP). It matters for our understanding of the law to reflect on how, when and why law is able to interact with solidaristic practices. Section 1.1 explores the distinction. Section 1.2 stresses the ubiquity of solidarity in the law, from the traditional private law understanding of obligatio in solidum, to solidarity as a cohesive social force, to solidarity as a source of state duties. Section 1.3 shows that, despite its omnipresence, solidarity is an underinvestigated legal concept. Section 1.4 offers a typology of interactions between SP and the law, to show the many ways in which legal scholars may relate to SP. I list several types of interaction, and object to one. I argue that law cannot command us to act solidaristically since solidarity presupposes an intimate form of identification with others. But law may disrupt solidarities, sometimes in morally justified ways; it may compensate for the failing solidarity, recognizing and integrating it; and it may foster solidarity by its status-generative function, albeit merely in an indirect and not often controllable way.

In this paper, I discuss the possibilities of transnational worker solidarity, with a focus on the potential of digital communication that became normalized during the Corona pandemic. I draw on Sally Scholz’s distinction between different types of solidarity and argue that historical forms of worker solidarity were often a combination of social and political forms of solidarity, in concrete local settings responding to concrete local problems. I also draw on economic and psychological considerations for explaining how these constellations helped bring about solidaristic action. I then provide arguments for why, despite various reasons for pessimism, transnational worker solidarity is, today, needed maybe more than ever. New digital technologies and the social habits that are developing around them have the potential to give a new impulse to transnational worker solidarity, because they can create levels of connectedness and trust that are closer to those experienced by certain historical worker communities, for whom social and political solidarity overlapped. But these opportunities can often not be grasped because of legal obstacles. Therefore, I conclude by postulating that workers should have a right to “know their colleagues” along value chains, allowing those who work together to connect in ways that potentially lead to solidaristic action.

This chapter examines prominent solidarity conceptions used in legal discourses in the context of unfair economic arrangements, typically associated with neo-liberalism. It finds that prominent solidarity conceptions are from a legal theory perspective either circular, redundant, or too aspirational. The conceptual shortcomings of solidarity are echoed in standard policy proposals to counter and unwind neo-liberal economic arrangements. Those proposals typically involve imposing new legal duties on dominant economic actors and states, making their effectiveness depend on adopting new national, regional and international laws, on compliance by dominant economic actors, and on enforcement by legal authorities. The proposals imply that the normative resources for change lie outside existing law. This chapter explores an alternative understanding of law based on existing positive law: law as a public service. Dominant economic actors rely on law as a public service. They need legal authorities, especially judges, to declare their neo-liberal economic arrangements legally valid and enforceable. Positive law already offers judges the normative resources to refuse the help of the law whenever neo-liberal economic arrangements structurally lack minimal reciprocity and fairness. Rather than waiting for a global social solidarity movement, judges of Western civil and commercial courts can already make a difference.

This chapter systematically teases out and reflects on the antinomies and aporias that characterize each of two broad sets of international human rights solidarity argumentation. These are the broadly shared discourses on the issue that emanate in each case from the Global North and Global South. Why do Global North States tend to accept and focus on binding international human rights obligations in the civil and political (CP) rights area, while demurring regarding similarly mandatory legal duties to express international solidarity in regard to economic and social (ES) rights? And why do Global South countries tend to argue in favor of such binding obligations with regard to ES rights but not nearly as much regarding CP rights? The chapter is mainly concerned with the rather ironic circulation and eclipsing of relevant antinomies and aporias in plain sight; their relationships to state sovereignty argumentation; and their connections to global power relations as ideationally constitutive forces. In the last respect, the key question is what the relative roles of values/norms in international human rights solidarity argumentation are, vis-à-vis global power relations. And these questions should highlight for scholars the imperative to track internationalist praxis over the longue durée.

This chapter explores the relevance of the Christian tradition to contemporary debates on solidarity in international law and human rights. It positions the genealogy of solidarity within early Christian writings in which the western theological concepts of suffering, love, and salvation are detailed. Linking the Pauline doctrine and writings of early theologians to the processes of modernity – of which notions such as the West, the Global South, good neighborliness, and human rights are a part – the concept of solidarity is traced to a particularly Christian dynamic. As such, the promise of solidarity in international legal discourse, human rights discourse, and refugee discourse is considered as analogous to the way in which forms of messianism manifest themselves through a Christian logic of love, sacrifice, and debt.

Africa and Europe have had an economic partnership for decades, first around the notion of friendship, then, since the 2000s, around the idea of solidarity. Despite this moral rhetoric, Europe is sanctuarizing itself, cultivating an anti-migratory fantasy and working for a resolute control of African migration. This policy is formalized with the “readmission clause,” whereby certain African immigrants are being posed as unassimilable, undesirable and disposable because they are useless for the neoliberal productive order. Therefore, any flight from exploitation on the continent must be blocked. As this perspective has led to extensive violations and aroused criticism and opposition, this chapter proposes, no longer a hybrid ideology but care. By means of a reading of the history of ideas, we insist on the impasse of the perspective that rejects migration in the name of autochthony. We propose a utopia: to work for the access of all peoples to the general cycle of industrial civilizations; this will bring equality between peoples who will negotiate migrations, taking into account concrete forms of solidarity.

The advancement of technology has significantly altered the characteristics of remote work in general, and cross-border remote work in particular presenting complex regulatory challenges. These challenges, with their linkage to a large set of work arrangements and locations, involve among other matters coordinating the relationship between labor law and social security legislation. An increasing number of remote workers are now able to provide services across borders, to markets and countries where they or their employers have no physical connection. As there are more employment regulations to choose from, this increases the possibility for the employer to exploit lower labor standards in other countries and avoid responsibilities towards their workers. Analysis of the literature and jurisprudence in different cases shows that new interpretations of the place of work are brought forward with the view to better protect cross-border remote workers, both in Private International Law and in Labor Law, considering the increasingly virtual nature of the workplace. However, the principle of territoriality remains a strong argument in the hands of higher courts to limit evolution in that direction.

This chapter examines the relevance of sustainable development to regulation of remote work. It investigates various ways in which the sustainable development goals (SDGs) adopted in the UN 2030 Agenda can be relevant to remote work, offering a perspective that considers not only economic objectives but also the environmental and social pillars embedded in that instrument. It is argued that procedural aspects of sustainable development, such as the human right to freedom of association and effective collective bargaining together with the participatory governance mechanisms promoted by SDGs 16 and 17, will be important for the sustainability of remote work, in order to achieve just transitions which are both digital and green. The chapter then examines the significance of the international institutional response to sustainable remote work, both at the UN and the ILO. It considers the extent to which a corporate social responsibility (CSR) approach, which has ostensibly embraced sustainability, actually corresponds to UN and ILO standards that should govern remote work. It is suggested that this will only be possible if enhanced participatory engagement is enabled in the implementation of due diligence and just transition.

This chapter analyses the social mechanisms that facilitate the transformation of micro-level solidarities into coherent nationalist narratives. The aim is to explain the paradox: while the armed forces are highly nationalist institutions, most ordinary combatants detest nationalist rhetoric on the battlefield. Drawing on interviews with combatants who fought in the 1991–1995 wars in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina together with the analysis of mass media reports, the chapter examines how deep bonds of micro-solidarity forged in violent experiences are transformed into coherent nationalist discourses.

What channel partnerships represent is initially focused upon. To reinforce the meaning even more, three different types of indirect channel relationships are identified, including arm’s-length relationships, strong inter-firm relationships, and partnerships. Emphasis is given to key features of strong channel relationships, which can evolve into partnerships. Then, the major determinants of channel partnerships are covered. Why building and maintaining trust is so important to effective channel partnerships concludes the chapter.

This chapter explains the reasons for the popularity of the anti-Iranian movie Not Without My Daughter in 1990s Türkiye despite the country’s own harrowing experience with Hollywood’s Midnight Express (1977). In conjunction, I analyze a moment of failed outreach from Iranian woman reformists to a devout, US-educated Turkish woman politician called Merve Kavakçı, who was denied her seat in parliament because of her headscarf in 1999. The chapter demonstrates how US discourses and Iran–Türkiye comparisons influenced the work of Turkish and Iranian women’s activists who sought to expand Muslim women’s political participation and reform repressive clothing codes in the 1980s and 1990s.

This chapter investigates how advantaged group members perpetuate and deepen inequality, setting the stage for Chapter 4, which addresses their actions to reduce inequality in solidarity with disadvantaged groups. The chapter begins by discussing various forms of material, symbolic and systemic advantages that benefit advantaged groups. It then explores the psychological mechanisms that enable these groups to deny their privilege and engage in competitive victimhood, positioning themselves as aggrieved to justify their entitlement to discriminatory and repressive tactics. Further, this chapter also addresses more extreme manifestations of these behaviours, such as repression, hate crimes, genocide, and colonisation. The psychological processes that sustain these actions, including diffusion of responsibility, system justification, and desensitisation, are discussed. The chapter also considers the intersectional nature of privilege, highlighting how different identities, such as gender and economic status, influence the experience of advantage and perpetration of discrimination and violence.

Chapter 7 elaborates on the extensive empirical corpus analysed in the preceding chapters. It reinforces the comparative points and clarifies the general patterns emerging in the book. It also expands our reflections on the meanings of modern transnational war volunteering, especially as seen through the conceptual lens of internationalism. The chapter presents conclusions regarding the ideological and organisational dynamics of transnational war volunteering as a left-wing political practice in the twentieth century. These findings open up new perspectives on mobilisation patterns pertaining to transnational volunteering, potentially moving the discussion away from top-down directives or impersonal indoctrination tools to a greater appreciation of the significance of contingency and horizontal influences shaping volunteer behaviour. Elaborating on these findings, the concluding chapter thus offers new conceptual registers to comprehend the phenomenon of left-wing war volunteering in the twentieth century.

This chapter explores the role of ideologies (i.e., socially shared belief systems) to justify or challenge existing social systems. The chapter begins by defining ideologies and examining their origins, focusing on how they are shaped by socialisation, collective identities, and power relations. It then discusses system-justifying ideologies, such as right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and belief in a just world, which legitimise inequality and attribute privilege to merit. In contrast, the chapter also explores system-change ideologies that challenge inequality and promote social change, focusing on the psychological processes that lead advantaged group members to embrace these ideologies and become allies. Psychological dynamics underlying allyship and solidarity are also discussed. In sum, the chapter highlights the complexities of allyship, noting that motivations can vary and that intersectional privileges can either foster or undermine solidarity, depending on shared identities and norms within groups.