Solidarity as Selective Practice: Legal Norms, Geopolitical Interests, and the EU’s Divergent Responses to Ukraine and Gaza

The language of solidarity has become increasingly prominent in the European Union’s external action, particularly in response to acute conflicts such as the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Yet, despite being frequently use, the concept remains insufficiently examined in terms of how it is constructed, justified, as well as operationalised in practice. In this context, this paper investigates the EU’s engagement with “international solidarity” through a comparative analysis of its responses to the two conflicts, both of which involve significant civilian harm, far-reaching legal debates, and strong political pressures. The contrast between the EU’s cohesive and legally framed response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its fragmented, often ambivalent, approach toward Gaza raises important questions about the conditions under which solidarity becomes meaningful in EU foreign policy. The analysis argues that these variations point to a form of conditional solidarity, where legal and normative principles are foregrounded only when they do not conflict with the EU’s broader geopolitical interests. The research draws on a qualitative examination of official EU documents, including statements by EU institutions, European Council conclusions, communications from the High Representative, and resolutions of the European Parliament. It also incorporates member state positions and public appeals from Ukrainian and Palestinian actors, who have actively sought to mobilise the language of solidarity. The paper focuses on three dimensions: the discursive framing of solidarity; the policy instruments through which it is expressed; and the points at which solidarity becomes contested within the EU. Thus, the emerging patterns indicate that in the case of Ukraine, solidarity has been articulated through a combination of legal commitments, shared political values, and a sense of collective European responsibility. This framing has facilitated an unusually high degree of political unity and policy coherence. In contrast, the EU’s response to Gaza has centred largely on humanitarian considerations, while legal framing has been inconsistent and overshadowed by political sensitivities linked to Israel, transatlantic relations, and regional security dynamics. These tensions have therefore contributed to a more hesitant and internally divided approach. By bringing these two cases into direct comparison, the paper therefore contributes to wider discussions on the EU’s dual identity as a normative and geopolitical actor. It also highlights the extent to which solidarity operates as a flexible and often strategic concept, shaped not only by legal principles but also by political calculations and internal contestation. The analysis suggests that selective or inconsistent applications of solidarity, particularly when they concern international law, risk undermining the EU’s credibility and its self-presentation as a principled global actor. Understanding these dynamics is essential at a time when the EU is increasingly expected to navigate complex crises while maintaining coherence between its normative claims and foreign policy practice.