Part I contributes to a richer understanding of the conceptual aspects and conditions of transnational solidarity. The first five chapters raise crucial questions. What is the history of the concept of solidarity? How can transnational solidarity be defined and understood? What are the symbols and myths of transnational solidarity? How can different solidarities co-exist and how do we chose between conflicting solidarities? Through philosophical, sociological, historical, political, anthropological, psychological and ancient Greek thought, we are drawn into an interdisciplinary universe with transnational solidarity at the heart.

This book has been conceived in a period where transnational solidarity and co-operation seemed to be moving backwards rather than forwards. A prime example of this decline of transnational solidarity being the so-called refugee crisis in Europe in 2015. After the Brexit referendum in the UK in June 2016, and presidential elections in the USA later the same year, the political agenda turned inwards, focusing primarily on internal national perspectives in relation to areas such as environmental protection, aid to countries in the Third World and trade with the outside world. Recently, the EU has experienced a number of crises, among others an economic and financial crisis and later the refugee crisis. These crises have challenged transnational solidarity in Europe.

This chapter studies the growing phenomenon of transnational co-operation between and among cities in Europe. This co-operation is driven by other actors than state-level actors, is (or at least claims to be) closer to the citizens, and is based on specific challenges facing cities in different countries. Central to the development is an increased legal and political role for the city transnationally. At a time with multiple challenges to solidarity, the aim is to assess whether co-operation initiatives between and among cities in Europe could be a means through which to create or contribute towards a European transnational solidarity. The focus is on cities within the territorial space of the EU. That being said, the phenomenon of intercity co-operation is by no means confined to Europe (or to the [EU]) and we therefore include prominent global initiatives in which European cities participate at the end of the chapter. The chapter has a special focus on the internal lack of solidarity between cosmopolitan big cities and small towns/rural areas, which seems to be a new trend in many countries, at the same time as we see transnational city solidarity appearing across borders.

Traditionally, Danish case law, academic literature, and other sources do not refer directly to ‘constitutional identity’. However, this absence of the term constitutional identity does not mean that Denmark has none. What it does mean is that it must be extracted from an interpretation of the Constitution, case law, and other sources. Seen in light of the different models of national separation of power in the EU Member States, this chapter challenges the common assumption that constitutional courts and supreme courts are the definers of national constitutional identity in relation to Article 4(2) TEU. In some Member States, the courts are very active in defining constitutional identity, but in others with strong parliaments and more reluctant courts, this is not the case. In order to secure equality between the Member States, we will have to accept that institutions other than courts can be the definers of constitutional identity, depending on the national model for separation of powers.