Recently, critical voices have raised concerns that EU member states are unwilling to express solidarity and proclaimed that EU solidarity was dead. Surprisingly, the Schengen Area, as opposed to asylum policies, has been examined only sporadically in this context. Although there is overall agreement that solidarity is a necessary precondition for the functioning of Schengen cooperation, it has multiple meanings. Hence, theoretically drawing on the concept of solidarity and methodologically employing the Discourse Historical Approach (DHA), this study attempts to find out how solidarity is conceptualised in legislative and political discourse on Schengen cooperation. It does so by identifying the argumentation strategies of the main actors. The main findings are that whereas scholars tend to link solidarity to free movement and incoming refugees, legislative and political discourse emphasise external border controls. Indeed, this suggests that Schengen will remain resilient as long as its security is ensured, no matter the reimpositions of internal borders. These are perceived as a remedy to Schengen deficiencies rather than a problem per se. Also, in line with EU legislation, the interstate dimension of solidarity clearly prevails within Schengen.

最近，批评声音引发了对欧盟成员国不愿表达团结的担忧，并宣称欧盟团结已死。令人惊讶的是，与庇护政策相反，申根区仅在此背景下进行了零星的审查。尽管普遍认为团结是申根合作运作的必要先决条件，但它具有多重含义。因此，本研究从理论上借鉴团结的概念，并在方法上采用话语历史方法（DHA），试图找出在申根合作的立法和政治话语中如何将团结概念化。它通过确定主要参与者的论证策略来做到这一点。主要发现是，虽然学者们倾向于将团结与自由流动​​和难民入境联系起来，立法和政治话语强调外部边界控制。事实上，这表明，只要确保其安全，申根将保持弹性，无论内部边界如何重新设置。这些被视为对申根缺陷的补救措施，而不是问题本身。此外，根据欧盟立法，国家间团结的层面显然在申根国家中占主导地位。