What is Wrong with Solidarity in EU Asylum and Migration Law?

In this article, we explore why solidarity has not worked according to expectation in EU migration and asylum law, and why it is unlikely to work in the future. First, we explore discourses of burden-sharing and solidarity in EU law from the 1990s up to the Lisbon treaty in 2009 to identify emergent path dependencies. This period saw the introduction of primary law provisions on solidarity, such as Article 80 TFEU, as French and Dutch electorates had rejected a European constitution. Second, we perform an analysis of Article 80 through the conceptual history of solidarity; in particular, the dominant Roman law tradition of obligatio in solidum and the French tradition of solidarism. We submit that the term ‘solidarity’ is actually a misnomer: already on structural grounds, Article 80 should be read as an alliance clause, countering a threat of irregular immigration. Third, we find that the practice under Article 80 as it develops during the period between 2015 and the 2020 European Commission Pact on Migration and Asylum corroborates this finding. Overall, we find that the concept of solidarity in EU asylum and migration law engenders outcome expectations that it cannot deliver as the defense alliance it is.