Publications by Subject Area

@article{Sussman2016,

title = {R2P: State of Play},

author = {Sam Sussman and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/R2P-State-of-Play-SussmanNicolaidis.pdf},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-00-00},

journal = {The International Spectator},

volume = {51},

number = {2},

pages = {9-18},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2020b,

title = {In praise of ambivalence - another Brexit story},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Nicolaidis-In-praise-of-ambivalence-another-Brexit-story.pdf},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2020.1766456},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-00-00},

journal = {Journal of European Integration},

volume = {42},

number = {4},

pages = {465-488},

abstract = {The paper offers a defence of ambivalence as a response to the political polarisation of our era using multiple languages to present its case from psychology to sociology, political science, philosophy and critical theory. It suggests that the Brexit story can be told in a different key, whereby the politics that have led to entrenching ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ identities overlay a harder to assess ambivalence about the EU both in the UK and in the EU, a dynamic referred to as the ‘Machiavelli Trap.’ Accordingly, we ought to ground the future relationship in the recognition of the ‘Brexit paradox’ (you can leave and therefore you shouldn't), and its implications for the core principles that have shaped the Brexit debate and negotiations. In the end, the paper offers a plea for a politics that allows citizens to tune into their constructive ambivalence about the fundamental tension between control and cooperation which pervades both Brexit, EU and global politics at large.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2017b,

title = {Mutual Recognition: Promise and Denial, from Sapiens to Brexit},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Mutual-Recognition-Promise-and-Denial-from-Sapiens-to-Brexit-Nicolaidis.pdf},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-00-00},

journal = {Current Legal Problems},

volume = {70},

number = {1},

pages = {1-40},

abstract = {This contribution argues that the European crisis in general and Brexit in particular, can be seen to reflect the partial loss of the ethos of a principle that has been at the heart of the EU, namely mutual recognition. While familiar to legal scholars as a norm governing the integration of markets and the management of conflicts of law, the essay seeks to show how this principle bears on our current European predicament as a philoso- phical concept and a form of governance between states before dwelling on the intricacies of mutual recognition in the EU single market. Because recog- nition is sought, obtained or denied in all social spheres, every discipline has its own complex variation on this simple theme requiring to connect legal theory with anthropology, philosophy, history, sociology and international relations. The essay spans all these fields through eight takes (mutual Recognition shunned, invented, enshrined, constitutionalised, managed, ‘on trial’, lost, and for grabs) which can also be interpreted as different time horizons (from Sapiens to Brexit through Westphalia). Each take provides a variation on what is referred to as “mutual recognition paradox”, eg how to increase mutual engagement and mutual deference at the very same time.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Reversing the Gaze: Can the EU Import Democracy from Others?},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs and Richard Youngs},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Reversing-the-Gaze-Can-the-EU-Import-Democracy-from-Others-JCMS-2023-Nicolaidis-Youngs.pdf},

doi = {10.1111/jcms.13477},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-00-00},

urldate = {2023-00-00},

journal = {JCMS 2023},

pages = {1-17},

abstract = {For over two decades, the EU has used a wide range of policy instruments to support democratic reform in third countries under the assumption that the rest of the world must learn from Euro- peans. This one-way democracy policy is out of tune with the times as political malaise spreads within the EU and as global geopolitics calls for genuine decolonial mindsets. In this contribution, we ask what it would take for the EU to reverse the democratic gaze. We argue that the EU could do more to open itself to the democratic innovations unfolding around the world where reformers have long been grappling with anti-democratic playbooks. We distinguish between three relevant realms, namely, that of power-sharing arrangements, democratic backsliding and regional mecha- nisms. We hope to offer a significant tweak to decolonization analysis and a political, normative supplement to this Special Issue’s concern with outside influences on the EU.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Alemanno2022,

title = {Citizen Power Europe},

author = {Alberto Alemanno and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4000490},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-01-04},

journal = {The Groundwork of European Power, RED (Revue Européenne du Droit)},

volume = {3},

number = {1},

pages = {20},

abstract = {This article argues that if the EU is to recover its dented popularity among European publics, we need to build a European democratic ecosystem to nurture, scale and ultimate accommodate the daily competing claims of Europe’s citizens. To attain this objective, it presents and discusses three big ideas that are at the heart of the renewed EU ecosystem that we are calling for. These are: participation beyond voting; a transnational and inclusive public space; and, a democratic panopticon for greater accountability. Promisingly enough, these ideas already find reflection in the first batch of the citizens’ recommendations emerging from the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE). Even if these recommendations still need to be refined through deliberation by the plenary of the CoFoE, they add up a clear and urgent message: let’s tap into our collective intelligence and democratic imagination to construct a pan-European public sphere by enhancing mutual connections, knowledge and empowerment between citizens across borders.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2020d,

title = {Kant’s Mantle: Cosmopolitanism, Federalism and Constitutionalism as European Ideologies},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Kant-s-mantle-cosmopolitanism-federalism-and-constitutionalism-as-European-ideologies.pdf},

doi = {10.1080/13501763.2020.1786596},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-08-00},

journal = {Journal of European Public Policy},

volume = {27},

number = {9},

pages = {1307-1328},

abstract = {This article explores the ways cosmopolitanism, federalism and constitutionalism have evolved in Europe from core philosophical concepts to political programmes, and ultimately ‘ideological benchmarks’ with highly contested meanings. I identify three alternative intellectual strategies for their appropriation, and through them the appropriation of ‘Kant’s mantle’, which both reflect and affect the EU public sphere. In the process, I ask how they can serve as resources conceptually to ground a third way for Europe. First, essentialist strategies appeal to affinities with the essence of these traditions, an essence anterior to or distinct from the particular variant of the ‘state writ large’ with which they might be identified in the public and scholarly imagination. Second, composite strategies employ various modifiers to deflect criticism. Thirdly, pollination strategies retain the flavor and questions raised by the three isms without necessarily coopting their labels.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2018b,

title = {Braving the Waves? Europe’s Constitutional Settlement at 20},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Braving-the-Waves-Nicolaidis-2018.pdf},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-09-21},

journal = {JCMS },

volume = {56},

number = {7},

pages = {1614–1630},

publisher = {JCMS},

abstract = {This article reflects on the diagnosis proposed in 1998 by Moravcsik and Nicolaidis that the EU had reached an incipient constitutional settlement and makes two connected arguments. First, analytically, that contrary to the prevailing view, the EU's constitutional settlement is holding, although it has come under assault from federalists and sovereignists alike. The bicycle theory nevertheless continues to hold sway perhaps because paradigm shifts always exhibit significant lags. Second, normatively, to defend ‘the equilibrium’ does not amount to a defense of the status quo. On the contrary, and especially in the context of the eurozone crisis, we must reflect on the social foundations of the European project, of which intermittent democratic discontent is only one expression. The argument unfolds through four European cities, each regarding a different moment in the Constitutional saga of the last two decades, to conclude on the relationship between LI and demoicratic theory, as well as the promise of sustainable integration.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2017f,

title = {Just boundaries for demoicrats},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs and Juri Viehoff},

url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07036337.2017.1337111},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-00-00},

journal = {Journal of European Integration},

volume = {39},

number = {5},

abstract = {This article asks what features should characterise the boundaries between the EU and the outside world from the standpoint of demoicracy. Section one summarises the normative core of that view and grounds it in the values of autonomy, equal recognition and non-domination. Section two categorises the issues that arise for the demoicrat when it comes to the consequences of political borders. We demonstrate – through the example of intra-demoicracy border crossing – why demoicrats will seek to follow the three desiderata of procedural fairness, just outcomes, and overall consistency in designing political solutions. Section three defends a set of principles that would ideally govern large-scale arrival of refugees. Section four addresses questions of non-ideal theory, reflecting on how demoïcratic theorists should think about current EU policies. Though we do not offer a comprehensive solution to the tensions we identify, the conclusion offers some proposals of how demoicrats may alleviate them.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2016b,

title = {The Social Construction of Demoicracy in the EU},

author = {Francis Cheneval and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Social-Construction-demoicracy-Cheneval-and-Nicolaidis.pdf},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-00-00},

journal = {European Journal of Political Theory},

volume = {16},

number = {2},

pages = {235-60},

abstract = {The Eurozone crisis has brought the imperative of democratic autonomy within the EU to the forefront, a concern at the core of demoicratic theory. The article seeks to move the scholarship on demoicratic theory a step further by exploring what we call the social construction of demoicratic reality. While the EU’s legal-institutional infrastructure may imperfectly approximate a demoicratic structure, we need ask to what extent the ‘bare bones’ demoicratic character of a polity can actually be grounded in a full-flesh social construct that is or could be acted out in the democratic experience and the self-awareness of its peoples. Ultimately, such an enquiry should help us understand whether a polity like the EU is actually and potentially a stable or unstable political form. We develop a consistent theory of popular sovereignty drawing on John Searle and HLA Hart to conceive the constitutionalised people (dêmos) as a social fact and the sovereignty of the people as a status ascribed to the people. We use this construction of demoicratic reality as a conceptual framework to understand the possibility of popular sovereignty being exercised concurrently by several rather than just one dêmos.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2014c,

title = {Epilogue: the challenge of European demoi-cratization},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/JEPP-Epilogue-The-Challenge-of-Demoi-cratization.pdf},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-00-00},

journal = {Journal of European Public Policy},

volume = {22},

number = {1},

pages = {145-153},

abstract = {The conclusion to the collection draws out some of the insights from the contributions on the various challenges facing European demoi-cratization.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2014,

title = {Europe’s Democratic Trilemma},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs and Richard Youngs},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2014_EuropesDemocracyTrilemma_NicolaidisYoungs.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-00-00},

journal = {International Affairs, November 2014},

volume = {90},

number = {6},

pages = {1403-1419},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2014b,

title = {A Demoicratic Conversation: An Interview with Kalypso Nicolaïdis},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Nicolaidis-STAIR-2014-1.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-00-00},

journal = {St Antony’s International Review},

volume = {10},

number = {1},

pages = {8-21},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2014e,

title = {We, the Peoples of Europe},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/Wethepeoplesofeurope.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-00-00},

journal = {Foreign Affairs},

volume = {83},

number = {6},

pages = {97-110},

note = {Also available: “We, the Peoples of Europe”, in The Democratic Papers, British Council (Brussels), May 2004, pp. 20-32, URL: http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/democraticpapers.pdf},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2013b,

title = {European Demoicracy and Its Crisis},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Demoicracy-jcms-March-2013-1.pdf},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-03-00},

journal = {Journal of Common Market Studies },

volume = {51},

number = {2},

pages = {351–369},

abstract = {This article offers an overview and reconsideration of the idea of European demoicracy in the context of the current crisis. It defines demoicracy as ‘a Union of peoples, understood both as states and as citizens, who govern together but not as one,’ and argues that the concept is best understood as a third way, distinct from both national and supranational versions of single demos polities. The concept of demoicracy can serve both as an analytical lens for the EU-as-is and as a normative benchmark, but one which cannot simply be inferred from its praxis. Instead, the article deploys a ‘normative-inductive’ approach according to which the EU’s normative core - transnational non-domination and transnational mutual recognition - is grounded on what the EU still seeks to escape. Such norms need to be protected and perfected if the EU is to live up to its essence. The article suggests ten tentative guiding principles for the EU to continue turning such norms into practice.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2011,

title = {Germany as Europe: How the Constitutional Court unwittingly embraced demoi-cracy: A Comment on Franz Mayer},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2011_GermanyasEurope.pdf},

year  = {2011},

date = {2011-00-00},

journal = {International Journal of Constitutional Law},

volume = {9},

number = {3-4},

pages = {786-792},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaïdis2004b,

title = {We, the Peoples of Europe},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaïdis},

url = {http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/Wethepeoplesofeurope.pdf},

year  = {2004},

date = {2004-11-00},

journal = {Foreign Affairs},

volume = {83},

number = {6},

pages = {97-110},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaïdis2004c,

title = {Notre Démo-cratie européenne; Cette constitution est-elle une troisième voie pour l’Europe?},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaïdis},

url = {http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/Lignes-Constitution04.pdf},

isbn = {978-2849380062},

year  = {2004},

date = {2004-02-00},

journal = {Lignes n°13: L’ Europe en Partage},

publisher = {Léo Scheer},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2003,

title = {The new constitution as european ‘demoi‐cracy’?},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369823042000235985?scroll=top&needAccess=true},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/1369823042000235985},

year  = {2004},

date = {2004-00-00},

journal = {Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy},

volume = {7},

pages = {76-93},

address = {Paris},

abstract = {How should we assess the project for a Constitution presented by the Convention on the Future of Europe? This paper argues that in order to succeed, an EU Constitution would need to present a positive vision of what democracy in Europe is about. While the draft Constitution fails in finding the right language in this regard, it does nevertheless contain an all too implicit manifesto: that ours is a European ‘demoi‐cracy’ founded on the recognition of the persistent plurality of its component peoples but not reducible to a set of complex bargains between sovereign states. The paper analyses the main feature of the project against this benchmark and argues that it is closer to the spirit of demoi‐cracy when dealing with the vertical relationship between the Union and its member‐states than when dealing with the horizontal relationship among the member‐states themselves.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2004bb,

title = {Demos et Demoï: Fonder la constitution},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs and Aïcha Messina},

year  = {2004},

date = {2004-00-00},

journal = {Lignes 1},

volume = {1},

pages = {88-109},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2015d,

title = {EMU and Sustainable Integration},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs and Iain Begg and Annette Bongardt and Francisco Torres},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Sustainable-Integration-Nicolaidis-Final.pdf},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-11-00},

journal = {Journal of European Integration},

volume = {37},

number = {7},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2017b,

title = {Mutual Recognition: Promise and Denial, from Sapiens to Brexit},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Mutual-Recognition-Promise-and-Denial-from-Sapiens-to-Brexit-Nicolaidis.pdf},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-00-00},

journal = {Current Legal Problems},

volume = {70},

number = {1},

pages = {1-40},

abstract = {This contribution argues that the European crisis in general and Brexit in particular, can be seen to reflect the partial loss of the ethos of a principle that has been at the heart of the EU, namely mutual recognition. While familiar to legal scholars as a norm governing the integration of markets and the management of conflicts of law, the essay seeks to show how this principle bears on our current European predicament as a philoso- phical concept and a form of governance between states before dwelling on the intricacies of mutual recognition in the EU single market. Because recog- nition is sought, obtained or denied in all social spheres, every discipline has its own complex variation on this simple theme requiring to connect legal theory with anthropology, philosophy, history, sociology and international relations. The essay spans all these fields through eight takes (mutual Recognition shunned, invented, enshrined, constitutionalised, managed, ‘on trial’, lost, and for grabs) which can also be interpreted as different time horizons (from Sapiens to Brexit through Westphalia). Each take provides a variation on what is referred to as “mutual recognition paradox”, eg how to increase mutual engagement and mutual deference at the very same time.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2007e,

title = {Trusting the Poles? Constructing Europe through mutual recognition},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2007_TrustingthePoles1.pdf},

doi = {10.1080/13501760701427847},

isbn = {1350-1763},

year  = {2007},

date = {2007-08-01},

journal = {Journal of European Public Policy},

volume = {14},

number = {5},

pages = {682–698},

abstract = {European integration has been and will continue to be flawed with conflicts, conflicts of interests embedded in broader conflicts of identity. I argue that these conflicts and the bargains they require exhibit similar patterns across a wide array of issues, as struggaes around ‘mutual’ recognition where mutuality plays a crucial role. Indeed, the challenges and perils of recognition are universal. But Europe can be seen as an experimental polity where, more formally than else- where, actors debate the contours of a norm which has migrated from regulatory praxis to mode of governance, and beyond, to political principle. If the ‘Polish plumber’ has come to serve as the emblem for the denial of recognition in the EU, mutual recognition is no less conflictual when it comes to the status of refugees, Bosnians or cartoonists. Normatively, if ‘managed mutual recognition’ is to serve as a blueprint beyond international political economy, we need to better analyse the relationship between recognition and trust, blind and binding trust, deferential and interventionist recognition.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Shaffer2005,

title = {Transnational Mutual Recognition Regimes: Governance Without Global Government},

author = {Gregory Shaffer and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Nicolaidis-and-shaffer-2005.pdf},

year  = {2005},

date = {2005-08-31},

urldate = {2005-08-31},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Egan2001,

title = {Transnational market governance and regional policy externality: why recognize foreign standards?},

author = {Michelle Egan and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},

url = {https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/3458898/jepp8_3.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DTransnational_Market_Governance_and_Regi.pdf&Expires=1592589991&Signature=SbYKgjP-g0Ud99wnRyOHzLRuSd0CPgJNnall8wWHgF1cmNuerR8yGCeHXqf0A-wqyx-qAKo~Es9jTeLKi0HEMluNepdC46TNR05j7by6QV2pKoANjAtwqylpqYcnboYmU~d7suRvGJgDStcRQwDqmg~GMHVQzzqfCx4Tm8QhPNUybFiVyM4S-bVjHmvKHAFSBhuOEu0rxVhNuuzokTBL4RM~iZC0-FE~yWjB6WGjDMFcOi~FHAImBdyvwCb3JYKiJgE4PmjlGBRvRf4T2BvxkiE0ertQqfK1o49HgacJlwPm9xv1bGHbsLSWqHVcQC3yzYV6XvqMMMBxKBqZDglcPQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA},

doi = {10.1080/13501760110056068},

issn = {1350–1763},

year  = {2001},

date = {2001-08-00},

journal = {Journal of European Public Policy},

volume = {8},

number = {3},

pages = {454–473},

abstract = {Addressing non-discriminatory barriers to trade in the form of national standards and regulations has become central to global trade diplomacy. As a result, we increasingly observe a combined delegation of regulatory authority across borders and from the public to the private sectors through the norms of mutual recognition and standardization. This paper asks what the conditions are for such transnational market governance and seeks to explain variations in the speci􏰜c applications of these principles across different levels of governance, European, transatlantic and international. First, we argue that European integration has resulted in regional policy externalities, whereby developments in the single market changed the operating environment for non-EU actors, creating a demand for negotiations both on their part and on the EU’s part. Through such strategic spillover, the EU has bene􏰜ted from a ‘􏰜rst mover advantage’ by exporting core elements of its model. Second, we argue that regulatory compatibility between countries constitutes only part of the explanation for effective common governance. To account for modes of governance we also need to examine institutional conditions both internally and transnationally.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2015d,

title = {EMU and Sustainable Integration},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs and Iain Begg and Annette Bongardt and Francisco Torres},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Sustainable-Integration-Nicolaidis-Final.pdf},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-11-00},

journal = {Journal of European Integration},

volume = {37},

number = {7},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2012c,

title = {The Choice for Sustainable Solidarity in Post-Crisis Europe},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs and Juri Viehoff},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/SolidarityNicolaidis_Viehoff.pdf},

year  = {2012},

date = {2012-01-00},

urldate = {2012-01-00},

journal = {Europe in Dialogue},

volume = {23},

publisher = {Bertelsmann Stiftung},

edition = {Europe in Dialogue},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2010,

title = {Sustainable Integration: Towards EU 2.0?},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2010_SustainableIntegrationTowardsEU2.0.pdf},

year  = {2010},

date = {2010-00-00},

journal = {Journal of Common Market Studies},

volume = {48},

pages = {pp. 21–54},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Lacroix2004,

title = {Quelle justice au-delà de l'État-nation ? Deux paradigmes pour l'Europe},

author = {Justine Lacroix and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://www.cairn.info/revue-mouvements-2004-5-page-105.htm},

year  = {2004},

date = {2004-00-00},

journal = {Mouvements},

volume = {5},

number = {35},

pages = {105-113},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2019d,

title = {EU-topia? A critique of the European Union as a model},

author = {Tobias Lenz and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Lenz_Nicolaidis-EUasamodel.pdf},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-00-00},

journal = {Culture, Practice & Europeanization},

volume = {4},

number = {2},

pages = {78-101},

abstract = {The paper critically appraises the idea, both descriptively and normatively, that the Euro- pean Union (EU) system can and should serve as a model for governance beyond its own borders. Engaging the postcolonial literature, it proposes a critical analysis of the idea, dis- course and practice of Europe-as-a-model. We argue for a problematization of the label “model” without denying the value added by EU governance for the rest of the world. We start by developing an analytical heuristic that builds on three semantic meanings of the term model and outline the challenges of interpretation and translation that are associ- ated with each. We then discuss these challenges along the Hegelian three-step of the model idea (thesis), its postcolonial antithesis and our constructive critique that seeks to steer a middle ground. We advocate greater reflexivity on the part of Europeans, that is, to systematically question assumptions behind their discourse and practice. If the cosmo- politan promise is to be retrieved from the radical critique of Eurocentricism, Europeans need to infuse the EU’s message and practice with an ethos of mutual recognition as a crucial feature of a post-colonial agenda for the EU’s role in the world.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Gartzou-Katsouyanni2015,

title = {La crise de la zone Euro et le déni de l’autre Pour une reconstruction de la reconnaissance mutuelle},

author = {Kira Gartzou-Katsouyanni and Claudia Shrag and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

editor = {Eric Monnet and Claudia Shrag},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Nicolaidis-Garzou-Shrag-Reconnaissance.pdf},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-00-00},

booktitle = {Europe, Crise de Conscience},

publisher = {PUF- La Vie des Idées},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{NICOLAÏDIS2002b,

title = {‘This is my EUtopia…’: Narratives of Power},

author = {Robert Howse and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Nic-Howse2002.pdf},

doi = { https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00397},

year  = {2002},

date = {2002-12-16},

journal = {Journal Of Common Market Studies},

volume = {40},

number = {4},

pages = {767-92},

abstract = {The original comparative mission of JCMS testifies to the propensity of the EU, since its inception, to project its model on to the rest of the world. This article argues that narratives of projection are indeed key to the EU’s global influence and that, in this particular sense, the idea of Europe as a civilian power is more relevant than ever. But such narratives require our engagement with their reflexive nature: what is usually projected is not the EU as is, but an EUtopia. At a time when both the EU and the international trade system are undergoing crises of legitimacy, EU actors can learn a lot from the remedies suggested for the global level by such an EUtopia.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Gartzou-Katsouyanni2015,

title = {La crise de la zone Euro et le déni de l’autre Pour une reconstruction de la reconnaissance mutuelle},

author = {Kira Gartzou-Katsouyanni and Claudia Shrag and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

editor = {Eric Monnet and Claudia Shrag},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Nicolaidis-Garzou-Shrag-Reconnaissance.pdf},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-00-00},

booktitle = {Europe, Crise de Conscience},

publisher = {PUF- La Vie des Idées},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Merdzanovic2021,

title = {Advocacy for a citizen-centric rule of law agenda: How do we bring the rule of law to life?},

author = {Adis Merdzanovic and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/RoL-Article.pdf},

doi = {10.1111/eulj.12385},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-04-13},

journal = {Eur Law J. 2021;1–9.},

abstract = {How do we best defend the rule of law against its attackers, both within the European Union and outside of it? Often, the rule of law has been perceived as a domain belonging to jurists, lawyers, bureaucrats, or politicians. Yet at its most fundamental, the rule of law needs to be thought of from a citizen's perspective. When enforced, it guarantees freedoms and liberties for citizens and enables us to live peacefully. In this article, we propose a citizen-centric rule of law agenda based on a deep conviction that it is if and when it becomes a citizen-based societal principle that its many attackers are best countered. We discuss the challenges and necessities of rule of law promotion and propose an assessment approach called the “living list”. We close with a call for citizen-scholars to fight for the rule of law, the most precious human invention of all time.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidis2012d,

title = {Rethinking Europe’s Rule of Law and Enlargement Agenda: The Fundamental Dilemma},

author = {Rachel Kleinfeld and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},

editor = {Danielle L. Kim},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/JMWP-Nicolaidis-Kleinfeld-2012.pdf},

issn = {2161-0320},

year  = {2012},

date = {2012-08-12},

journal = {Jean Monnet Working Paper},

volume = {08},

number = {12},

note = {The Jean Monnet Working Paper Series},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Lacroix2004,

title = {Quelle justice au-delà de l'État-nation ? Deux paradigmes pour l'Europe},

author = {Justine Lacroix and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://www.cairn.info/revue-mouvements-2004-5-page-105.htm},

year  = {2004},

date = {2004-00-00},

journal = {Mouvements},

volume = {5},

number = {35},

pages = {105-113},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2020d,

title = {Kant’s Mantle: Cosmopolitanism, Federalism and Constitutionalism as European Ideologies},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Kant-s-mantle-cosmopolitanism-federalism-and-constitutionalism-as-European-ideologies.pdf},

doi = {10.1080/13501763.2020.1786596},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-08-00},

journal = {Journal of European Public Policy},

volume = {27},

number = {9},

pages = {1307-1328},

abstract = {This article explores the ways cosmopolitanism, federalism and constitutionalism have evolved in Europe from core philosophical concepts to political programmes, and ultimately ‘ideological benchmarks’ with highly contested meanings. I identify three alternative intellectual strategies for their appropriation, and through them the appropriation of ‘Kant’s mantle’, which both reflect and affect the EU public sphere. In the process, I ask how they can serve as resources conceptually to ground a third way for Europe. First, essentialist strategies appeal to affinities with the essence of these traditions, an essence anterior to or distinct from the particular variant of the ‘state writ large’ with which they might be identified in the public and scholarly imagination. Second, composite strategies employ various modifiers to deflect criticism. Thirdly, pollination strategies retain the flavor and questions raised by the three isms without necessarily coopting their labels.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2018b,

title = {Braving the Waves? Europe’s Constitutional Settlement at 20},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Braving-the-Waves-Nicolaidis-2018.pdf},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-09-21},

journal = {JCMS },

volume = {56},

number = {7},

pages = {1614–1630},

publisher = {JCMS},

abstract = {This article reflects on the diagnosis proposed in 1998 by Moravcsik and Nicolaidis that the EU had reached an incipient constitutional settlement and makes two connected arguments. First, analytically, that contrary to the prevailing view, the EU's constitutional settlement is holding, although it has come under assault from federalists and sovereignists alike. The bicycle theory nevertheless continues to hold sway perhaps because paradigm shifts always exhibit significant lags. Second, normatively, to defend ‘the equilibrium’ does not amount to a defense of the status quo. On the contrary, and especially in the context of the eurozone crisis, we must reflect on the social foundations of the European project, of which intermittent democratic discontent is only one expression. The argument unfolds through four European cities, each regarding a different moment in the Constitutional saga of the last two decades, to conclude on the relationship between LI and demoicratic theory, as well as the promise of sustainable integration.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Bechev2010,

title = {From Policy to Polity: Can the EU’s special relations with its Neighbourhood be Decentred?},

author = {Dimitar Bechev and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2010_FromPolicytoPolity.pdf},

year  = {2010},

date = {2010-06-00},

journal = {Journal of Common Market Studies},

volume = {48},

number = {3},

pages = {475-500},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Bechev2008,

title = {The Union for the Mediterranean: A Genuine Breakthrough or More of the Same?},

author = {Dimitar Bechev and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},

url = {https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232880888_The_Union_for_the_Mediterranean_A_Genuine_Breakthrough_or_More_of_the_Same},

doi = {10.1080/03932720802280578},

year  = {2008},

date = {2008-00-00},

journal = {The International Spectator},

volume = {43},

number = {3},

pages = {13-20},

abstract = {The new French scheme for a Union for the Mediterranean (UfM), officially inaugurated on 13 July, has stirred up a great deal of controversy inside the EU. Even in its watered-down form, the initiative promises to relaunch the stalled relations between the two sides of the Mediterranean in the context of the Barcelona Process. Though vulnerable to all manner of external shocks linked to the multiple inter- and intra-state conflicts around the Mediterranean, the Sarkozy plan is a welcome move to a greater degree of “co-ownership” through the institution of a joint presidency. Of great importance in the interest of overcoming at least some of the problems that have bedeviled the Barcelona Process is further “decentring” of Euro-Med politics away from Brussels and more comprehensive trade opening by the EU.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaïdis2007d,

title = {Exploring Second-Best Solutions in Cyprus},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaïdis},

url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00396339812331342840?tab=permissions&scroll=top},

doi = {10.1080/00396339812331342840},

year  = {2007},

date = {2007-06-27},

journal = {Survival},

volume = {40},

number = {3},

pages = {30-34},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Fabre2004,

title = {L’Union Européenne, puissance post-coloniale en Méditerranée?},

author = {Thierry Fabre and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/NicolaidisPostcolonialism04.pdf},

year  = {2004},

date = {2004-00-00},

journal = {Colonialism et postcolonialism en Méditerranée},

publisher = {Marseille: éditions Parenthèses},

abstract = {Comment penser une Europe qui pèse vraiment dans les affaires du monde, et de l’espace méditerranéen en particulier? On ne cesse de le répéter : à l’aune de la puissance américaine, l’Union Européenne ne fera pas le poids militairement pendant certainement des décennies. Et de toutes façon, son ambition ne peut être de s’opposer ou de se comparer aux Etats-Unis, ni même de se présenter comme puissance alternative, alors qu’au Sud personne ne regrette le temps de la « mission civilisatrice de l’homme blanc », version archéo. Reste qu’entre les deux écueils, celui d’un hégémonisme américain s’exprimant au travers d’une politique de domination unilatérale, et celui d’une gestion conjointe du monde servant les intérêts propres des deux puissances, l’Europe peut choisir une troisième voie, celle d’être non une puissance mais un modèle alternatif, non pas systématiquement contre ou avec mais à côté des Etats-Unis. Un tel projet s'articulerait autour de quelques principes clés: le principe de cohérence d’une part, entre l’être et le faire, politiques internes et ambitions externes, le principe de réciprocité d’autre part, qui suppose de renverser le regard sur en regard de l’autre, non plus de l’Occident vers l’Orient, mais du Sud vers le Nord. Enfin, il s’agit de donner un contenu fort à la notion d’une Europe réellement et profondément post-coloniale, une Europe qui serait à même de tourner pour de bond la page mal écrite du « clash des civilisations », grille de lecture commode mais si dévastatrice du monde contemporain.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2004g,

title = {La Turquie dans l'Union, en miroir de l'Europe},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://www.cairn.info/revue-mouvements-2004-1-page-128.htm#},

year  = {2004},

date = {2004-00-00},

journal = {Mouvements},

volume = {1},

number = {31},

pages = { 128-132},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2020c,

title = {Bringing Europe Back In: Global IR, Area Studies and the Decentring Agenda (as part of: Does International Relations Need Area Studies?)},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaïdis},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/S3_Nicolaidis_GSarticle.pdf},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-00-00},

journal = {St Antony's International Review (STAIR)},

volume = {16},

number = {1},

pages = {197-206},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2019d,

title = {EU-topia? A critique of the European Union as a model},

author = {Tobias Lenz and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Lenz_Nicolaidis-EUasamodel.pdf},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-00-00},

journal = {Culture, Practice & Europeanization},

volume = {4},

number = {2},

pages = {78-101},

abstract = {The paper critically appraises the idea, both descriptively and normatively, that the Euro- pean Union (EU) system can and should serve as a model for governance beyond its own borders. Engaging the postcolonial literature, it proposes a critical analysis of the idea, dis- course and practice of Europe-as-a-model. We argue for a problematization of the label “model” without denying the value added by EU governance for the rest of the world. We start by developing an analytical heuristic that builds on three semantic meanings of the term model and outline the challenges of interpretation and translation that are associ- ated with each. We then discuss these challenges along the Hegelian three-step of the model idea (thesis), its postcolonial antithesis and our constructive critique that seeks to steer a middle ground. We advocate greater reflexivity on the part of Europeans, that is, to systematically question assumptions behind their discourse and practice. If the cosmo- politan promise is to be retrieved from the radical critique of Eurocentricism, Europeans need to infuse the EU’s message and practice with an ethos of mutual recognition as a crucial feature of a post-colonial agenda for the EU’s role in the world.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Sussman2016,

title = {R2P: State of Play},

author = {Sam Sussman and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/R2P-State-of-Play-SussmanNicolaidis.pdf},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-00-00},

journal = {The International Spectator},

volume = {51},

number = {2},

pages = {9-18},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaïdis2014f,

title = {From Metropolis to Microcosmos: The EU’s New Standards of Civilisation},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaïdis and Claire Vergerio and Nora Fisher Onar and Juri Viehoff},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/From-Metropolis-to-Microcosmos.pdf},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829814541320},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-08-05},

journal = {Millennium},

volume = {42},

number = {3},

pages = {718–745},

abstract = {While some denounce the legacies of colonialism they discern in the EU’s practices and discourse, others believe these accusations to be unfounded, raising the question: how apt is the analogy between the 19th-century standard of civilisation and the EU’s narratives and modes of actions today? In this essay, we address the question by developing a ‘new standards typology’ articulated around two axes: agency denial and hierarchy. These refer respectively to the unilateral shaping of standards applicable to others, and to the salience of Eurocentricism in the way the standards are enforced and structure the international system. Ultimately, we argue that in transforming their ‘continent’ from a metropolis to a microcosmos – from a cluster of colonial capitals to an EU that contains many of the world’s tensions within itself – Europeans have only partially succeeded in transcending their colonial impulses. We conclude by suggesting that the EU’s relevance is grounded in its ability to become a post-colonial power, and that to achieve this, those acting in its name need to remember historical legacies and reflect upon the ‘standards’ that inspire their action.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Macaj2014,

title = {Beyond ‘one voice’? Global Europe's engagement with its own diversity},

author = {Gjovalin Macaj and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2014_BeyondOneVoice.pdf},

doi = {10.1080/13501763.2014.912148},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-06-16},

journal = {Journal of European Public Policy},

volume = {21},

number = {7},

pages = {1067-1083},

abstract = {This contribution stands as a conclusion to this collection, drawing on its empirical contributions as well as other examples of European Union (EU) foreign policy. We take the pursuit of a single voice as a core goal of EU foreign policy and ask under what conditions unity pays and conversely under what con- ditions it may be counterproductive. On this basis, we offer a systematic critique of the ‘one voice mantra’ correlating ‘EU unity’ and ‘EU influence’ in the global arena. We do so by distinguishing between, internally, the degree of convergence of interest between member states and, externally, the type of power relevant in the game being played. Only when interests converge and the external game is one where aggregative power matters is it plausible to assume that the pursuit of one EU voice serves the EU’s interests. At least in some cases, EU unity is not a pre- requisite for EU influence, and diversity can be a source of strength rather than weak- ness, internally as well.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2013d,

title = {The Decentring Agenda: Europe as a post-colonial power},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs and Nora Fisher Onar},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The_Decentering_Agenda_Europe_as_a_Post.pdf},

doi = {10.1177/0010836713485384},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-06-00},

journal = {Cooperation and Conflict},

volume = {48},

number = {2},

pages = {283–303},

abstract = {The aim in this contribution is to amplify the call, articulated across a range of disciplines relevant to international politics, for a paradigm shift that decentres the study and practice of Europe’s international relations. Such a perspective is necessary both to make sense of our multipolar order and to reconstitute European agency in a non-European world. The analytical categories proposed in this article for a decentring agenda – provincialization, engagement and reconstruction(s) – can help to navigate the nexus of the empirical and the normative in such a decentring process. Applying the decentring logic to the EU’s own foundational narrative, the authors suggest that, only by acknowledging the inflections of colonialism in the EU project itself, can the Union reinvent its normative power in the 21st century.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2013bb,

title = {Normative Power Europe Revisited},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs and Richard Whitman},

url = {https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0010836713485537},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-00-00},

journal = {Cooperation and Conflict},

volume = {48},

number = {2},

pages = {167-170},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Bechev2010,

title = {From Policy to Polity: Can the EU’s special relations with its Neighbourhood be Decentred?},

author = {Dimitar Bechev and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2010_FromPolicytoPolity.pdf},

year  = {2010},

date = {2010-06-00},

journal = {Journal of Common Market Studies},

volume = {48},

number = {3},

pages = {475-500},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Fabre2004,

title = {L’Union Européenne, puissance post-coloniale en Méditerranée?},

author = {Thierry Fabre and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/NicolaidisPostcolonialism04.pdf},

year  = {2004},

date = {2004-00-00},

journal = {Colonialism et postcolonialism en Méditerranée},

publisher = {Marseille: éditions Parenthèses},

abstract = {Comment penser une Europe qui pèse vraiment dans les affaires du monde, et de l’espace méditerranéen en particulier? On ne cesse de le répéter : à l’aune de la puissance américaine, l’Union Européenne ne fera pas le poids militairement pendant certainement des décennies. Et de toutes façon, son ambition ne peut être de s’opposer ou de se comparer aux Etats-Unis, ni même de se présenter comme puissance alternative, alors qu’au Sud personne ne regrette le temps de la « mission civilisatrice de l’homme blanc », version archéo. Reste qu’entre les deux écueils, celui d’un hégémonisme américain s’exprimant au travers d’une politique de domination unilatérale, et celui d’une gestion conjointe du monde servant les intérêts propres des deux puissances, l’Europe peut choisir une troisième voie, celle d’être non une puissance mais un modèle alternatif, non pas systématiquement contre ou avec mais à côté des Etats-Unis. Un tel projet s'articulerait autour de quelques principes clés: le principe de cohérence d’une part, entre l’être et le faire, politiques internes et ambitions externes, le principe de réciprocité d’autre part, qui suppose de renverser le regard sur en regard de l’autre, non plus de l’Occident vers l’Orient, mais du Sud vers le Nord. Enfin, il s’agit de donner un contenu fort à la notion d’une Europe réellement et profondément post-coloniale, une Europe qui serait à même de tourner pour de bond la page mal écrite du « clash des civilisations », grille de lecture commode mais si dévastatrice du monde contemporain.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2004g,

title = {La Turquie dans l'Union, en miroir de l'Europe},

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://www.cairn.info/revue-mouvements-2004-1-page-128.htm#},

year  = {2004},

date = {2004-00-00},

journal = {Mouvements},

volume = {1},

number = {31},

pages = { 128-132},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{NICOLAÏDIS2002b,

title = {‘This is my EUtopia…’: Narratives of Power},

author = {Robert Howse and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Nic-Howse2002.pdf},

doi = { https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00397},

year  = {2002},

date = {2002-12-16},

journal = {Journal Of Common Market Studies},

volume = {40},

number = {4},

pages = {767-92},

abstract = {The original comparative mission of JCMS testifies to the propensity of the EU, since its inception, to project its model on to the rest of the world. This article argues that narratives of projection are indeed key to the EU’s global influence and that, in this particular sense, the idea of Europe as a civilian power is more relevant than ever. But such narratives require our engagement with their reflexive nature: what is usually projected is not the EU as is, but an EUtopia. At a time when both the EU and the international trade system are undergoing crises of legitimacy, EU actors can learn a lot from the remedies suggested for the global level by such an EUtopia.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Macaj2014,

title = {Beyond ‘one voice’? Global Europe's engagement with its own diversity},

author = {Gjovalin Macaj and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2014_BeyondOneVoice.pdf},

doi = {10.1080/13501763.2014.912148},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-06-16},

journal = {Journal of European Public Policy},

volume = {21},

number = {7},

pages = {1067-1083},

abstract = {This contribution stands as a conclusion to this collection, drawing on its empirical contributions as well as other examples of European Union (EU) foreign policy. We take the pursuit of a single voice as a core goal of EU foreign policy and ask under what conditions unity pays and conversely under what con- ditions it may be counterproductive. On this basis, we offer a systematic critique of the ‘one voice mantra’ correlating ‘EU unity’ and ‘EU influence’ in the global arena. We do so by distinguishing between, internally, the degree of convergence of interest between member states and, externally, the type of power relevant in the game being played. Only when interests converge and the external game is one where aggregative power matters is it plausible to assume that the pursuit of one EU voice serves the EU’s interests. At least in some cases, EU unity is not a pre- requisite for EU influence, and diversity can be a source of strength rather than weak- ness, internally as well.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}