Articles and Book Chapters

@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{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},

urldate = {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{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{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{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{Howse2016,

title = {Toward a Global Ethics of Trade Governance: Subsidiarity Writ Large},

author = {Robert Howse and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Toward-a-Global-Ethics-of-Trade-Governance-Subsidiarity-Writ-Lar.pdf},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-00-00},

journal = {Law and Contemporary Problem},

volume = {79:259},

number = {2},

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{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{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{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}

}