There are two models for legitimizing the redistribution: an entitlement-based model and one based on solidarity. In both cases we are dealing with moral obligation; however, not imperative. In the legal model, one often refers to s.c. imperfect duty, while in the solidarity model we are dealing with a moral duty based on values. I defend the idea of justifying redistribution by referring to the principle of solidarity combined with the idea of sustainable development. This a philosophical paper in healthcare ethic. The result of the discussion is my proposal to combine categories of sustainable development and solidarity to provide justofication for the global redistribution of healtcare resources. Solidarity is a pragmatic and proactive relationship, flexible and open to the various beliefs and motivations of the cooperating parties. Therefore, the language of solidarity is more universal and promising in the work of building a global health system in which developing countries can feel safe and treated fairly, rather than a language that speaks of entitlements, obligations and charity. Building a climate of trust and pursuing socially responsible sustainable development policies do not require strong theories of justice or other rigid legal or ethical doctrines. Such doctrines can even be harmful. Meanwhile, the discourse relating to solidarity, trust-building and cooperation to achieve realistic and reasonable goals at the transnational public health level is relatively undoctrinaire, and instead flexible and open to a variety of interpretations. In the realities of international politics and cooperation, these are serious advantages.