Articles and Book Chapters

@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{Bercero2021,

title = {The power surplus: Brussels calling, legal empathy and the trade-regulation nexus},

author = {Ignacio Garcia Bercero and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/70675},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-05-00},

journal = {EUI, Technical Report, CEPS Policy Insights, PI 2021/05, STG Report},

abstract = {The EU may not be a superpower but it holds a ‘power surplus’ when it comes to the trade-regulatory nexus. The strategic challenges posed by the deployment of this power surplus are the subject of this paper, which argues that in order to be a responsible regulatory power and positively influence the multilateral agenda, the EU needs to develop a coherent overall approach to the external dimension of its regulatory policies. In this spirit, and in most cases, the EU would be ill advised to project itself as a model or to seek to ‘weaponise’ its regulatory powers in pursuit of unrelated foreign policy goals. Instead, it should wield this power to enhance the regulatory compatibility between its own and others’ jurisdictions through cooperation rather than relying on the passive market-based influence of the so-called Brussels effect. This is simply a way to be faithful to its core defining philosophy of legal empathy. The CEPS Policy Insight by authors Ignacio Garcia Bercero and Kalypso Nicolaides offers a typology of different forms of external EU regulatory impact, a discussion of the risks of either underuse or overuse of the regulatory power surplus, and considers the ‘good global governance’ model implied by a principled geopolitical role. It moves on to discuss a unifying conceptual framework to encompass this approach, under the umbrella of ‘managed mutual recognition’ as the operationalisation of legal empathy. It concludes with six specific suggestions as to how the EU can best exercise its regulatory power through a closer integration of trade and regulatory policies.},

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{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{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{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{Meunier2019,

title = {The Geopoliticization of European Trade and Investment Policy},

author = {Sophie Meunier and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/jcms.12932.pdf},

doi = {10.1111/jcms.12932},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-10-00},

journal = {JCMS},

volume = {57},

pages = {103-113},

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{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{Bellamy2017,

title = {European boundaries in question?},

author = {Richard Bellamy and Joseph Lacey and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/European-boundaries-in-question.pdf},

doi = {10.1080/07036337.2017.1333118},

issn = {1477-2280},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-05-00},

journal = {Journal of European Integration},

volume = {39},

number = {5},

pages = {483-498},

abstract = {This introduction provides a descriptive typology and normative analysis of the ways boundaries are being questioned in Europe. We distinguish between boundary-making (defining or redefining the territorial borders of a polity), boundary-crossing (determining the rules of access to territorial borders) and boundary-unbundling (allowing boundary-making and boundary-crossing to vary between policies and polities), noting each of these categories possesses internal and external dimensions. Cosmopolitans and statists offer contrasting normative evaluations of these processes, favouring weakening and maintaining or strengthening state boundaries respectively. We endorse a demoicratic approach lying between these two as better reflecting how individuals relate to each other and to the EU, a view shared by some but not all contributors to this volume. We conclude by situating the contributions within our topological framework, highlighting how they illustrate the contemporary questioning of European boundaries.},

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{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}

}