2007
Kelemen, Daniel; Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
Bringing Federalism Back In Book Chapter
In: Jørgensen, Knud; Pollack, Mark; Rosamond, Ben (Ed.): Handbook of European Union Politics, Chapter 15, pp. 301-316, London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2007.
@inbook{Kelemen2007,
title = {Bringing Federalism Back In},
author = {Daniel Kelemen and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
editor = {Knud Jørgensen and Mark Pollack and Ben Rosamond},
url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Nicolaidis-K-D-Kelemen-Bringing-Federalism-Back-In.pdf},
doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607903.n16},
year = {2007},
date = {2007-00-00},
urldate = {2006-00-00},
booktitle = {Handbook of European Union Politics},
pages = {301-316},
publisher = {London: SAGE Publications Ltd},
chapter = {15},
abstract = {In the past decade, comparative federalism has moved from the periphery of scholarship on the European Union to the mainstream. While pioneering scholars (see for instance Friedrich 1969; Forsyth 1981; Cappelletti et al. 1986; Scharpf 1988; Weiler 1991; Dehousse 1992; Sbragia 1992) have long applied insights from comparative federalism (or confederalism) to describe and explain the dynamics of European integration, the dominant theoretical perspectives on European integration rejected the relevance of federal comparisons. Intergovernmentalists had clear reasons to do so. From the intergovernmentalist perspective, European integration is driven by the same forces that explain the development of other international regimes (Moravcsik 1998), forces which differ in fundamental ways from the forces at work in domestic settings. From this ...},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
In the past decade, comparative federalism has moved from the periphery of scholarship on the European Union to the mainstream. While pioneering scholars (see for instance Friedrich 1969; Forsyth 1981; Cappelletti et al. 1986; Scharpf 1988; Weiler 1991; Dehousse 1992; Sbragia 1992) have long applied insights from comparative federalism (or confederalism) to describe and explain the dynamics of European integration, the dominant theoretical perspectives on European integration rejected the relevance of federal comparisons. Intergovernmentalists had clear reasons to do so. From the intergovernmentalist perspective, European integration is driven by the same forces that explain the development of other international regimes (Moravcsik 1998), forces which differ in fundamental ways from the forces at work in domestic settings. From this ...
Pelabay, Janie; Nicolaidïs, Kalypso
Comment raconter l’Europe tout en prenant la diversité narrative au sérieux? Online
Raison Publique: Ethique, Politique et Société 2007.
@online{Nicolaidïs2007,
title = {Comment raconter l’Europe tout en prenant la diversité narrative au sérieux?},
author = {Janie Pelabay and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},
url = {http://www.raison-publique.fr/article231.html},
year = {2007},
date = {2007-00-00},
journal = {Raison Publique: Ethique, Politique et Société},
volume = {7},
organization = {Raison Publique: Ethique, Politique et Société},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
2006
Meunier, Sophie; Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
The European Union as a Conflicted Trade Power Journal Article
In: Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 906-925, 2006, ISBN: 1466-4429.
@article{Meunier2006,
title = {The European Union as a Conflicted Trade Power},
author = {Sophie Meunier and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/MeunierNicolaidis-EU-conflicted-trade-power.pdf},
doi = {10.1080=13501760600838623},
isbn = {1466-4429},
year = {2006},
date = {2006-09-00},
journal = {Journal of European Public Policy},
volume = {13},
number = {6},
pages = {906-925},
publisher = {Taylor & Francis},
abstract = {The EU is a formidable power in trade. Structurally, the sheer size of its market and its more than forty-year experience of negotiating international trade agreements have made it the most powerful trading bloc in the world. Much more problematically, the EU is also becoming a power through trade. Increasingly, it uses market access as a bargaining chip to obtain changes in the domestic arena of its trading partners, from labour standards to development policies, and in the inter- national arena, from global governance to foreign policy. Is the EU up to its ambi- tions? This article examines the underpinnings of the EU’s power through trade across issue-areas and across settings (bilateral, inter-regional, global). It then analyses the major dilemmas associated with the exercise of trade power and argues that strategies of accommodation will need to be refined in each of these realms if the EU is to successfully transform its structural power into effective, and therefore legitimate, influence.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The EU is a formidable power in trade. Structurally, the sheer size of its market and its more than forty-year experience of negotiating international trade agreements have made it the most powerful trading bloc in the world. Much more problematically, the EU is also becoming a power through trade. Increasingly, it uses market access as a bargaining chip to obtain changes in the domestic arena of its trading partners, from labour standards to development policies, and in the inter- national arena, from global governance to foreign policy. Is the EU up to its ambi- tions? This article examines the underpinnings of the EU’s power through trade across issue-areas and across settings (bilateral, inter-regional, global). It then analyses the major dilemmas associated with the exercise of trade power and argues that strategies of accommodation will need to be refined in each of these realms if the EU is to successfully transform its structural power into effective, and therefore legitimate, influence.
Bunse, Simone; Magnette, Paul; Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
Big versus Small: Shared Leadership in the EU and Power Politics in the Convention Book Chapter
In: Beach, Derek; Mazzucelli, Colette (Ed.): Leadership in the Big Bangs of European Integration, Chapter 8, pp. 134-157, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2006, ISBN: 978-0-230-59964-2.
@inbook{Bunse2006,
title = {Big versus Small: Shared Leadership in the EU and Power Politics in the Convention},
author = {Simone Bunse and Paul Magnette and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
editor = {Derek Beach and Colette Mazzucelli},
url = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230599642_8},
doi = {10.1057/9780230599642_8},
isbn = {978-0-230-59964-2},
year = {2006},
date = {2006-01-00},
booktitle = {Leadership in the Big Bangs of European Integration},
pages = {134-157},
publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan, London},
chapter = {8},
abstract = {The European Union (EU) is a strange mix. A political construct conceived as a guard against the temptation of hegemony by any member state against any other(s), it relies most fundamentally on the ideal of shared leadership. In the EU, therefore, the principle of equality between states is not mainly grounded in the sovereignty norm as in classic intergovernmental organizations, but rather in the attempt to constrain power. At the same time, however, the EU obeys a stringent reality principle, whereby institutions and decisionmaking procedures must reflect power realities in order to be effective and credible. It would thus be hard to argue that the EU has transcended power politics: the taming of power is the best it can do. Thus, behind the ‘big versus small problem’, the conflicting views over institutional design between more and less populated member states, lies an age-old dilemma faced by all political communities, especially federal constructs (Magnette and Nicolaïdis 2004a).},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
The European Union (EU) is a strange mix. A political construct conceived as a guard against the temptation of hegemony by any member state against any other(s), it relies most fundamentally on the ideal of shared leadership. In the EU, therefore, the principle of equality between states is not mainly grounded in the sovereignty norm as in classic intergovernmental organizations, but rather in the attempt to constrain power. At the same time, however, the EU obeys a stringent reality principle, whereby institutions and decisionmaking procedures must reflect power realities in order to be effective and credible. It would thus be hard to argue that the EU has transcended power politics: the taming of power is the best it can do. Thus, behind the ‘big versus small problem’, the conflicting views over institutional design between more and less populated member states, lies an age-old dilemma faced by all political communities, especially federal constructs (Magnette and Nicolaïdis 2004a).
Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
Constitutionalizing the Federal Vision? Book Chapter
In: Menon, Anand; Schain, Martin (Ed.): Comparative Federalism, Chapter 4, pp. 59-92, OUP, 2006, ISBN: 9780199291106.
@inbook{Nicolaïdis2006,
title = {Constitutionalizing the Federal Vision?},
author = {Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
editor = {Anand Menon and Martin Schain},
url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Constitutionalizing-Federal-Vision.pdf},
isbn = {9780199291106},
year = {2006},
date = {2006-00-00},
booktitle = {Comparative Federalism},
pages = {59-92},
publisher = {OUP},
chapter = {4},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
2005
Bunse, Simone; Magnette, Paul; Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
Is the Commission the Small Member States’ Best Friend? Journal Article
In: 2005, vol. 9, 2005, ISSN: 1651-8942.
@article{Bunse2005,
title = {Is the Commission the Small Member States’ Best Friend?},
author = {Simone Bunse and Paul Magnette and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
url = {https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kalypso-Nicolaidis/publication/242514855_Is_the_Commission_the_Small_Member_States%27_Best_Friend/links/0a85e5331756a1cb37000000/Is-the-Commission-the-Small-Member-States-Best-Friend.pdf},
issn = {1651-8942},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-11-00},
urldate = {2005-11-00},
journal = {2005},
volume = {9},
publisher = {Stockholm: Swedish Institute of European Policy Studies},
abstract = {The European Union (EU)’s institutional framework relies on a delicate balance between small, medium and large Member States – a balance that has come under intense scrutiny in the Convention on the Future of Europe and the enlargement process. Within the decision-making triangle, the big states have traditionally favoured the Council to wield their power, while the small states have tended to regard the Commission as their closest ally. The incentives of small states to seek close relations with the Commission stem from the combination of its general role in the institutional balance as guardian of the “common interest” and its specific functions from drafting to implementing EU legislation. The independence of the Commission of- fers small states a potential means to counterbalance the power of the ‘bigs’. This study revisits this assumption and investigates the multidimen- sional nature of the relationship between small states and the Commission: is the Commission really the small Member States’ “best friend”?},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The European Union (EU)’s institutional framework relies on a delicate balance between small, medium and large Member States – a balance that has come under intense scrutiny in the Convention on the Future of Europe and the enlargement process. Within the decision-making triangle, the big states have traditionally favoured the Council to wield their power, while the small states have tended to regard the Commission as their closest ally. The incentives of small states to seek close relations with the Commission stem from the combination of its general role in the institutional balance as guardian of the “common interest” and its specific functions from drafting to implementing EU legislation. The independence of the Commission of- fers small states a potential means to counterbalance the power of the ‘bigs’. This study revisits this assumption and investigates the multidimen- sional nature of the relationship between small states and the Commission: is the Commission really the small Member States’ “best friend”?
Moravcsik, Andrew; Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
The Future of the Constitutional Process in the European Union Online
2005.
@online{Moravcsik2005,
title = {The Future of the Constitutional Process in the European Union},
author = {Andrew Moravcsik and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
url = {http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/nicolaidis-moravcsik_Constitution.pdf},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-10-00},
howpublished = {European Parliament. Constitutional Committee Report},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
Shaffer, Gregory; Nicolaidïs, Kalypso
Transnational Mutual Recognition Regimes: Governance Without Global Government Journal Article
In: 2005.
@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}
}
Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
A Compact Between The United States and Europe Online
Brookings Institute 2005.
@online{Nicolaïdis2005b,
title = {A Compact Between The United States and Europe},
author = {Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/USEUCompact-2.pdf},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-02-17},
organization = {Brookings Institute},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
Globalization with Human Faces: Managed Mutual Recognition and the Free Movement of Professionals Book Chapter
In: Schioppa, F. K. Padoa (Ed.): The Principle of Mutual Recognition in the European Integration Process, pp. 129-189, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
@inbook{Nicolaïdis2005c,
title = {Globalization with Human Faces: Managed Mutual Recognition and the Free Movement of Professionals},
author = {Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
editor = {F. K. Padoa Schioppa},
url = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230524354_4},
doi = {10.1057/9780230524354_4},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-01-00},
booktitle = {The Principle of Mutual Recognition in the European Integration Process},
pages = {129-189},
publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan},
abstract = {While short-term capital flows and foreign direct investment have never moved across borders so freely, neither has the international movement of people been so ‘managed’. This is one of the apparent paradoxes at the heart of today’s pattern of globalization. In an era of much-proclaimed liberalism, rules at the national level governing conditions for the granting of visas, work or residence permits, and ultimately permanent residence and naturalization, constitute perhaps the strongest remaining expression of state power. These rules are hardly subject to any international oversight, or even coordination, save in the restricted realm of asylum, where the national norms relating to the movement of people become subject to international human-rights norms. The paradox, of course, is only apparent. The weight of forces driving the liberalization of capital movement dwarfs those driving the free movement of people. More fundamentally, policies addressing migration, bound up as they are with the ‘who is “us”’, the definition of political as well as economic boundaries, and, ultimately, the flexibility or lack thereof of group identities, escape the sole constraint of economic rationality.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
While short-term capital flows and foreign direct investment have never moved across borders so freely, neither has the international movement of people been so ‘managed’. This is one of the apparent paradoxes at the heart of today’s pattern of globalization. In an era of much-proclaimed liberalism, rules at the national level governing conditions for the granting of visas, work or residence permits, and ultimately permanent residence and naturalization, constitute perhaps the strongest remaining expression of state power. These rules are hardly subject to any international oversight, or even coordination, save in the restricted realm of asylum, where the national norms relating to the movement of people become subject to international human-rights norms. The paradox, of course, is only apparent. The weight of forces driving the liberalization of capital movement dwarfs those driving the free movement of people. More fundamentally, policies addressing migration, bound up as they are with the ‘who is “us”’, the definition of political as well as economic boundaries, and, ultimately, the flexibility or lack thereof of group identities, escape the sole constraint of economic rationality.
Magnette, Paul; Bunse, Simone; Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
Shared Leadership in the EU: Theory and Reality Book Chapter
In: Curtin, Deirdre; Kellerman, Alfred E.; Blockmans, Steven (Ed.): The EU Constitution: The Best Way Forward?, pp. 275-296, T.M.C. Asser Press, 2005, ISBN: 978-90-6704-200-0.
@inbook{Magnette2005,
title = {Shared Leadership in the EU: Theory and Reality},
author = {Paul Magnette and Simone Bunse and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
editor = {Deirdre Curtin and Alfred E. Kellerman and Steven Blockmans},
doi = {10.1007/978-90-6704-543-8_18},
isbn = {978-90-6704-200-0},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-01-00},
urldate = {2005-01-00},
booktitle = {The EU Constitution: The Best Way Forward?},
pages = {275-296},
publisher = {T.M.C. Asser Press},
abstract = {Since the French and Dutch voters rejected the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, in May and June 2005 respectively, politicians and lawyers have been confronted with the question of how to move forward. This book strives to formulate answers on the question of what to do if not all the Member States ratify the Treaty. It brings together contributions from over 50 experts from the 25 Member States, from candidate, potential candidate and neighbouring countries, as well as from Russia and the US. Key topics covered are: the process and impact of EU constitution-making; the democratic life of the EU; improving the efficiency and quality of legislation in the EU; the expansion of executive, judicial and legislative powers; and access to justice.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Since the French and Dutch voters rejected the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, in May and June 2005 respectively, politicians and lawyers have been confronted with the question of how to move forward. This book strives to formulate answers on the question of what to do if not all the Member States ratify the Treaty. It brings together contributions from over 50 experts from the 25 Member States, from candidate, potential candidate and neighbouring countries, as well as from Russia and the US. Key topics covered are: the process and impact of EU constitution-making; the democratic life of the EU; improving the efficiency and quality of legislation in the EU; the expansion of executive, judicial and legislative powers; and access to justice.
Meunier, Sophie; Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
The European Union as a Trade Power Book Chapter
In: Hill, Christopher; Smith, Michael (Ed.): The International Relations of the European Union, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005.
@inbook{Meunier2005,
title = {The European Union as a Trade Power},
author = {Sophie Meunier and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
editor = {Christopher Hill and Michael Smith},
url = {http://aei.pitt.edu/3307/},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-00-00},
booktitle = {The International Relations of the European Union},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
address = {Oxford},
abstract = {The EU is a formidable trade power. While trade liberalization internally and externally have always been the essence of European integration, successive enlargements and the creation of the European Single Market have turned the EU into the world’s largest trade power. The EU is responsible for making trade policy through a complex decisionmaking process that has often been contested politically but allows it to speak on behalf of its members in international trade negotiations. This chapter argues that not only does the EU derive some inherent power from trade, but that it is also increasingly prone to use trade as the backbone of its normative power. As a result the EU is now becoming a world power through trade, as one of the major actors shaping the multilateral trade agenda, and using access to its market strategically in order to obtain political concessions from its commercial partners. This chapter explores the determinants of the EU’s trade power (both inherent and normative) and examines the contribution of trade policy to the power of Europe in the international system, both in the context of the World Trade Organization and in the broader framework of international relations.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
The EU is a formidable trade power. While trade liberalization internally and externally have always been the essence of European integration, successive enlargements and the creation of the European Single Market have turned the EU into the world’s largest trade power. The EU is responsible for making trade policy through a complex decisionmaking process that has often been contested politically but allows it to speak on behalf of its members in international trade negotiations. This chapter argues that not only does the EU derive some inherent power from trade, but that it is also increasingly prone to use trade as the backbone of its normative power. As a result the EU is now becoming a world power through trade, as one of the major actors shaping the multilateral trade agenda, and using access to its market strategically in order to obtain political concessions from its commercial partners. This chapter explores the determinants of the EU’s trade power (both inherent and normative) and examines the contribution of trade policy to the power of Europe in the international system, both in the context of the World Trade Organization and in the broader framework of international relations.
Moravcsik, Andrew; Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
How to Fix Europe’s Image Problem Journal Article
In: Foreign Policy, 2005.
@article{Moravcsik2005b,
title = {How to Fix Europe’s Image Problem},
author = {Andrew Moravcsik and Kalypso Nicolaïdis
},
url = {http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/fixeuroimageprob.pdf},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-00-00},
journal = {Foreign Policy},
abstract = {The European Union must showcase its democracy-building skills while avoiding moral grandstanding and its own version of unilateralism.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The European Union must showcase its democracy-building skills while avoiding moral grandstanding and its own version of unilateralism.
Magnette, Paul; Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
Coping with the Lilliput Syndrome: Large vs. Small Member States in the European Convention Journal Article
In: European Public Law, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 83-102, 2005.
@article{Magnette2005b,
title = {Coping with the Lilliput Syndrome: Large vs. Small Member States in the European Convention},
author = {Paul Magnette and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
url = {http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/lilliputsyndrome2.pdf},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-00-00},
journal = {European Public Law},
volume = {11},
number = {1},
pages = {83-102},
publisher = {Kluwer Law International},
abstract = {Like all former treaty reforms, the Convention ran into deep divisions between large and small states – read more or less populated states – when it discussed institutional issues. This paper examines the impact of this cleavage on the process and outcome of the Convention. First, we recall how the tension was managed under the founding model, and show how successive enlargements made it ever more acute. We then show that, under the Convention, the classic compromises proved impossible, so that new deals needed to be found. We conclude that, despite the consensus proclaimed at the end of the process, the Convention partly failed to settle this problem.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Like all former treaty reforms, the Convention ran into deep divisions between large and small states – read more or less populated states – when it discussed institutional issues. This paper examines the impact of this cleavage on the process and outcome of the Convention. First, we recall how the tension was managed under the founding model, and show how successive enlargements made it ever more acute. We then show that, under the Convention, the classic compromises proved impossible, so that new deals needed to be found. We conclude that, despite the consensus proclaimed at the end of the process, the Convention partly failed to settle this problem.
Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
UE: Un Moment Tocquevillien Journal Article
In: Politique Etrangere, vol. 3, pp. 495-509, 2005.
@article{Nicolaïdis2005,
title = {UE: Un Moment Tocquevillien},
author = {Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
url = {http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/PE3.pdf},
doi = {10.3917/pe.053.0495},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-00-00},
journal = {Politique Etrangere},
volume = {3},
pages = {495-509},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
2004
Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
We, the Peoples of Europe Journal Article
In: Foreign Affairs, vol. 83, no. 6, pp. 97-110, 2004.
@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}
}
Menon, Anand; Nicolaïdis, Kalypso; Walsh, Jennifer
In Defence of Europe: A Response to Kagan Journal Article
In: Journal of European Affairs, vol. 2, no. 3, 2004.
@article{Menon2004,
title = {In Defence of Europe: A Response to Kagan},
author = {Anand Menon and Kalypso Nicolaïdis and Jennifer Walsh},
url = {https://www.academia.edu/473367/In_defence_of_Europe_A_response_to_Kagan},
year = {2004},
date = {2004-08-00},
journal = {Journal of European Affairs},
volume = {2},
number = {3},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Magnette, Paul; Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
The European Convention: Bargaining in the Shadow of Rhetoric Journal Article
In: West European Politics, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 381-404, 2004.
@article{Magnette2004,
title = {The European Convention: Bargaining in the Shadow of Rhetoric},
author = {Paul Magnette and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
url = {http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/magnettenicolaidis.pdf},
year = {2004},
date = {2004-04-00},
journal = {West European Politics},
volume = {27},
number = {3},
pages = {381-404},
abstract = {The European Convention on the Future of Europe was initially presented as a turning point in the history of European integration. This paper argues that, although its composition was broader, its process more transparent and its rules more flexible than classic intergovernmental conferences, the Convention was not Europe’s Philadelphia. Since it took place under the shadow of the IGC and under a leadership especially sensitive to the positions of big member states, the Convention reproduced by enlarge the logic of intergovernmental bargains. Nevertheless, some of the Convention’s outcome – the most formal aspects of its draft treaty with less predictable distributional consequences– can be explained by the ‘social norm’ of constitutional deliberation conveyed by its president and supported by a majority of its members. The advent of constitutional politics, while consistent with prior political dynamics, is thus renewing the language of national interest convergence in the European Union.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The European Convention on the Future of Europe was initially presented as a turning point in the history of European integration. This paper argues that, although its composition was broader, its process more transparent and its rules more flexible than classic intergovernmental conferences, the Convention was not Europe’s Philadelphia. Since it took place under the shadow of the IGC and under a leadership especially sensitive to the positions of big member states, the Convention reproduced by enlarge the logic of intergovernmental bargains. Nevertheless, some of the Convention’s outcome – the most formal aspects of its draft treaty with less predictable distributional consequences– can be explained by the ‘social norm’ of constitutional deliberation conveyed by its president and supported by a majority of its members. The advent of constitutional politics, while consistent with prior political dynamics, is thus renewing the language of national interest convergence in the European Union.
Anastasakis, Othon; Bertrand, Gilles; Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
Getting to Yes: Suggestions for Embellishment of the Annan Plan for Cyprus Online
South East European Studies Programme, European Studies Centre, St Antony’s College, Oxford 2004.
@online{Anastasakis2004,
title = {Getting to Yes: Suggestions for Embellishment of the Annan Plan for Cyprus},
author = {Othon Anastasakis and Gilles Bertrand and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
url = {http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/cyprus_report.pdf},
year = {2004},
date = {2004-02-00},
organization = {South East European Studies Programme, European Studies Centre, St Antony’s College, Oxford},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
Notre Démo-cratie européenne; Cette constitution est-elle une troisième voie pour l’Europe? Journal Article
In: Lignes n°13: L’ Europe en Partage, 2004, ISBN: 978-2849380062.
@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}
}
Nicolaidïs, Kalypso
Notre Démo-cratie européenne; Cette constitution est-elle une troisième voie pour l’Europe? Book Chapter
In: vol. L’ Europe en Partage, Lignes-Léo Scheer, 2004.
@inbook{Nicolaidïs2004,
title = {Notre Démo-cratie européenne; Cette constitution est-elle une troisième voie pour l’Europe?},
author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},
url = {https://www.editions-lignes.com/L-EUROPE-EN-PARTAGE.html
http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/Lignes-Constitution04.pdf},
year = {2004},
date = {2004-02-00},
volume = {L’ Europe en Partage},
publisher = {Lignes-Léo Scheer},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Nicolaidïs, Kalypso
Turkey is European… for Europe’s sake Online
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands 2004.
@online{Nicolaidïs2004f,
title = {Turkey is European… for Europe’s sake},
author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},
url = {http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/turkey_european.pdf},
year = {2004},
date = {2004-01-00},
booktitle = {Turkey and the European Union: From Association to Accession?},
organization = {Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
Nicolaidïs, Kalypso; Messina, Aïcha
Demos et Demoï: Fonder la constitution Journal Article
In: Lignes 1, vol. 1, pp. 88-109, 2004.
@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}
}
Nicolaidïs, Kalypso; Tong, Joyce
Diversity or Cacophony? The Continuing Debate over Sources of International Law Journal Article
In: Michigan Journal of International Law, vol. 24, pp. 1349-1375, 2004.
@article{Nicolaidïs2004h,
title = {Diversity or Cacophony? The Continuing Debate over Sources of International Law},
author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs and Joyce Tong},
url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/25MichJIntlL.pdf},
year = {2004},
date = {2004-00-00},
journal = {Michigan Journal of International Law},
volume = {24},
pages = {1349-1375},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Lacroix, Justine; Nicolaidïs, Kalypso
Quelle justice au-delà de l'État-nation ? Deux paradigmes pour l'Europe Journal Article
In: Mouvements, vol. 5, no. 35, pp. 105-113, 2004.
@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}
}
Nicolaidïs, Kalypso
La Turquie dans l'Union, en miroir de l'Europe Journal Article
In: Mouvements, vol. 1, no. 31, pp. 128-132, 2004.
@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}
}
Nicolaïdis, Kalypso; Nicolaïdis, Dimitri
The EuroMed beyond Civilisational Paradigms Book Chapter
In: Adler, Emanuel; Bicchi, Federica; Crawford, Beverly; Sarto, Raffaella A. Del (Ed.): The Convergence of Civilizations? Constructing a Mediterranean Region, pp. 337-378, Palgrave-Macmillan, 2004, ISBN: 978-1-4426-2112-1.
@inbook{Nicolaïdis2004e,
title = {The EuroMed beyond Civilisational Paradigms},
author = {Kalypso Nicolaïdis and Dimitri Nicolaïdis},
editor = {Emanuel Adler and Federica Bicchi and Beverly Crawford and Raffaella A. Del Sarto},
url = {http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/NicolaidisMedFinal0504rev2.pdf},
isbn = {978-1-4426-2112-1},
year = {2004},
date = {2004-00-00},
booktitle = {The Convergence of Civilizations? Constructing a Mediterranean Region},
pages = {337-378},
publisher = {Palgrave-Macmillan},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
The Power of the Superpowerless Book Chapter
In: Lindberg, Tod (Ed.): Beyond Paradise and Power: Europe, America, and the Future of a Troubled Partnership, pp. 93-120, Routledge, 2004.
@inbook{Nicolaïdis2004d,
title = {The Power of the Superpowerless},
author = {Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
editor = {Tod Lindberg},
url = {http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/powersuperpowerless.pdf},
year = {2004},
date = {2004-00-00},
booktitle = {Beyond Paradise and Power: Europe, America, and the Future of a Troubled Partnership},
pages = {93-120},
publisher = {Routledge},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Fabre, Thierry; Nicolaidïs, Kalypso
L’Union Européenne, puissance post-coloniale en Méditerranée? Journal Article
In: Colonialism et postcolonialism en Méditerranée, 2004.
@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}
}
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.
Nicolaidïs, Kalypso
The new constitution as european ‘demoi‐cracy’? Journal Article
In: Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, vol. 7, pp. 76-93, 2004.
@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}
}
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.
2003
Magnette, Paul; Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
Large and Small Member States: Reinventing the Balance Journal Article
In: Research and European Issues, vol. 25, pp. 1-43, 2003.
@article{Magnette2003,
title = {Large and Small Member States: Reinventing the Balance},
author = {Paul Magnette and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
editor = {Notre Europe-Institut Jacques Delors},
url = {https://institutdelors.eu/content/uploads/2025/04/etud25-en-1.pdf},
year = {2003},
date = {2003-05-19},
urldate = {2003-05-19},
journal = {Research and European Issues},
volume = {25},
pages = {1-43},
organization = {Notre Europe},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Nicolaidïs, Kalypso
Dire Oui au Nom de l’Europe (Saying Yes in the Name of Europe) Online
Radikal 2003.
@online{Nicolaidïs2003g,
title = {Dire Oui au Nom de l’Europe (Saying Yes in the Name of Europe) },
author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},
url = {http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/BertrandNicolaidis.pdf},
year = {2003},
date = {2003-05-13},
address = {Istanbul},
organization = {Radikal},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
What is in a Name: Europe’s Federal Future and the Convention on the Future of Europe” Online
Jurist Europe 2003.
@online{Nicolaïdis2003e,
title = {What is in a Name: Europe’s Federal Future and the Convention on the Future of Europe”},
author = {Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
url = {http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0041/fedunion0303.pdf},
year = {2003},
date = {2003-04-00},
journal = {Jurist Europe},
organization = {Jurist Europe},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
Weatherill, Stephen; Nicolaidïs, Kalypso
Whose Europe? National Models and the Constitution of the European Union Online
Weatherill, Stephen; Nicolaidïs, Kalypso (Ed.): 2003.
@online{Nicolaidïs2003c,
title = {Whose Europe? National Models and the Constitution of the European Union},
author = {Stephen Weatherill and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},
editor = {Stephen Weatherill and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},
url = {https://europaeum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Whose-Europe.pdf},
year = {2003},
date = {2003-04-00},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
Howse, Robert; Nicolaidïs, Kalypso
‘This is my EUtopia…’: Narratives of Power Book
1 edition, Wiley-Blackwell, 2003, ISBN: 978-1-405-11232-1.
@book{Howse2003,
title = {‘This is my EUtopia…’: Narratives of Power},
author = {Robert Howse and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},
editor = {Joseph H H Weiler and John Peterson and Iain Begg},
url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Nic-Howse2002.pdf},
isbn = {978-1-405-11232-1},
year = {2003},
date = {2003-03-00},
urldate = {2003-03-00},
booktitle = {Integration in an Expanding European Union: Reassessing the Fundamentals},
pages = {440p},
publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
edition = {1 edition},
chapter = {11},
series = {Journal of Common Market Studies (Book 7)},
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 = {book}
}
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.
Howse, Robert; Nicolaidïs, Kalypso
Legitimacy through “Higher Law?” Why Constitutionalizing the WTO is a Step Too Far Book Chapter
In: Cottier, Thomas; Mavroidis, Petros C. (Ed.): The Role of the Judge in International Trade Regulation: Experience and Lessons for the WTO, pp. 307-48, University of Michigan Press, 2003.
@inbook{Howse2003c,
title = {Legitimacy through “Higher Law?” Why Constitutionalizing the WTO is a Step Too Far},
author = {Robert Howse and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},
editor = {Thomas Cottier and Petros C. Mavroidis},
url = {https://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/kalypsorobwto.pdf},
doi = {10.3998/mpub.17801},
year = {2003},
date = {2003-00-00},
booktitle = {The Role of the Judge in International Trade Regulation: Experience and Lessons for the WTO},
pages = {307-48},
publisher = {University of Michigan Press},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Howse, Robert; Nicolaidïs, Kalypso
Enhancing WTO Legitimacy: Constitutionalization or Global Subsidiarity? Journal Article
In: Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 73–94, 2003, ISBN: 0952-1895.
@article{Howse2003b,
title = {Enhancing WTO Legitimacy: Constitutionalization or Global Subsidiarity?},
author = {Robert Howse and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},
editor = {Marco Verweij and Tim Josling},
url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-0491.00205},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0491.00205C},
isbn = {0952-1895},
year = {2003},
date = {2003-00-00},
journal = {Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions},
volume = {16},
number = {1},
pages = {73–94},
abstract = {Increasingly, scholars have articulated the challenge of global economic governance in constitutional terms. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is often painted as an incipient global economic constitution. Its legitimacy would be enhanced, some contend, by transforming the WTO treaty system into a federal construct. But the application of the language of constitutionalism to the WTO is likely to exacerbate the fears of the “discontents” of globalization that the international institutions of economic governance are not democratically accountable to anyone. We argue that the legitimacy of the multilateral trading order requires greater democratic contestability. The notion of global subsidiarity would be a more appropriate model for the WTO than that of a “federal” constitution. This notion incorporates three basic principles: institutional sensitivity, political inclusiveness, and top–down empowerment.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Increasingly, scholars have articulated the challenge of global economic governance in constitutional terms. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is often painted as an incipient global economic constitution. Its legitimacy would be enhanced, some contend, by transforming the WTO treaty system into a federal construct. But the application of the language of constitutionalism to the WTO is likely to exacerbate the fears of the “discontents” of globalization that the international institutions of economic governance are not democratically accountable to anyone. We argue that the legitimacy of the multilateral trading order requires greater democratic contestability. The notion of global subsidiarity would be a more appropriate model for the WTO than that of a “federal” constitution. This notion incorporates three basic principles: institutional sensitivity, political inclusiveness, and top–down empowerment.
Nicolaidïs, Kalypso
Living with Our Differences Journal Article
In: The Future Transatlantic Relations, 2003.
@article{Nicolaidïs2003f,
title = {Living with Our Differences},
author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},
editor = {Nikos Kotzias},
url = {https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263104723_Living_with_Our_Differences},
year = {2003},
date = {2003-00-00},
journal = {The Future Transatlantic Relations},
publisher = {Palgrave},
abstract = {It is telling that the war in Iraq has changed the very way the transatlantic question is habitually posed in Europe from 'how to resolve US-EU conflicts?' to 'how should we deal with American power?' Differences that were simply taken as factors in the global and regional orders are now exposed as our central concern: the overwhelming asymmetry of military power between the United States and the European Union (and indeed the rest of the world); and the divisions within the EU as to what to do about it. There is of course a need to patch things up both on the transatlantic and intra-European front—the two are interconnected—and to devise a European global strategy for the new era of American Empire. This is the agenda of the Kastellorizo meeting of EU foreign ministers. My purpose here is to make a simple point: a prerequisite for doing things together is to learn to live with our differences. This is true between the EU and the US where we need to define a constructive and conscious division of labour in tackling some of the most pressing problems before us and creating a more secure and just world. This is also true within the EU where we need to learn to disagree better, and moreover to draw strength from our diversity. Intra-EU diversity in turn can be better exploited to foster transatlantic cooperation. In short, we need to move beyond the universal assumption that pervades for instance our EU constitutional debates that the one and only secret of success and effectiveness on the international scene is to acquire a more unified voice and a more 'common' foreign policy.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
It is telling that the war in Iraq has changed the very way the transatlantic question is habitually posed in Europe from 'how to resolve US-EU conflicts?' to 'how should we deal with American power?' Differences that were simply taken as factors in the global and regional orders are now exposed as our central concern: the overwhelming asymmetry of military power between the United States and the European Union (and indeed the rest of the world); and the divisions within the EU as to what to do about it. There is of course a need to patch things up both on the transatlantic and intra-European front—the two are interconnected—and to devise a European global strategy for the new era of American Empire. This is the agenda of the Kastellorizo meeting of EU foreign ministers. My purpose here is to make a simple point: a prerequisite for doing things together is to learn to live with our differences. This is true between the EU and the US where we need to define a constructive and conscious division of labour in tackling some of the most pressing problems before us and creating a more secure and just world. This is also true within the EU where we need to learn to disagree better, and moreover to draw strength from our diversity. Intra-EU diversity in turn can be better exploited to foster transatlantic cooperation. In short, we need to move beyond the universal assumption that pervades for instance our EU constitutional debates that the one and only secret of success and effectiveness on the international scene is to acquire a more unified voice and a more 'common' foreign policy.
Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
Our European Demoi-cracy: Is this Constitution a third way for Europe? Online
Stephen Weatherill, Kalypso Nicolaidïs (Ed.): European Studies at Oxford 2003.
@online{Nicolaïdis2003d,
title = {Our European Demoi-cracy: Is this Constitution a third way for Europe?},
author = {Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
editor = {Stephen Weatherill, Kalypso Nicolaidïs},
url = {http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/EurDem.pdf},
year = {2003},
date = {2003-00-00},
organization = {European Studies at Oxford},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
Nicolaidïs, Kalypso
Our European Demoi-cracy: Is this Constitution a Third Way for Europe? Book Chapter
In: Nicolaidïs, Kalypso; Weatherill, Stephen (Ed.): vol. Whose Europe?, Oxford University Press, Oxford, European Studies at Oxford Series, 2003.
@inbook{Nicolaidïs2003b,
title = {Our European Demoi-cracy: Is this Constitution a Third Way for Europe?},
author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},
editor = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs and Stephen Weatherill},
url = {http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/EurDem.pdf},
year = {2003},
date = {2003-00-00},
volume = {Whose Europe?},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
address = {Oxford},
edition = {European Studies at Oxford Series},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
2002
Howse, Robert; Nicolaidïs, Kalypso
‘This is my EUtopia…’: Narratives of Power Journal Article
In: Journal Of Common Market Studies, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 767-92, 2002.
@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}
}
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.
Meunier, Sophie; Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
Who Speaks for Europe? The Delegation of Trade Authority in the European Union Journal Article
In: Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 477-501, 2002.
@article{Meunier2002b,
title = {Who Speaks for Europe? The Delegation of Trade Authority in the European Union},
author = {Sophie Meunier and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-5965.00174},
doi = {doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00174},
year = {2002},
date = {2002-00-00},
journal = {Journal of Common Market Studies},
volume = {37},
number = {3},
pages = {477-501},
abstract = {Although the Member States of the European Union (EU) have long since relinquished their power to act as autonomous actors in international trade negotiations, they have now chosen to regain some of their lost trade sovereignty. Neither the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ’s) 1994 opinion, nor the 1997 reform of the trade policy process at Amsterdam delegated full negotiating authority to the Commission over the ‘new trade issues’ of services and intellectual property. Instead, Member States settled on a hybrid form of decision‐making to enable ad hoc rather than structural delegation of competence. Was this a rollback of EU competence? If so, why has it occurred in the EU’s oldest and most successfully integrated, policy sector? A shift in the perceived trade‐off between economic interests and ideological bias on the part of key Member States can explain such a change. This article also explores the consequences for the future conduct of the EU’s trade policy and its influence in shaping the world political economy, as well as for the evolving pattern of federal allocation of jurisdiction in the EU.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Although the Member States of the European Union (EU) have long since relinquished their power to act as autonomous actors in international trade negotiations, they have now chosen to regain some of their lost trade sovereignty. Neither the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ’s) 1994 opinion, nor the 1997 reform of the trade policy process at Amsterdam delegated full negotiating authority to the Commission over the ‘new trade issues’ of services and intellectual property. Instead, Member States settled on a hybrid form of decision‐making to enable ad hoc rather than structural delegation of competence. Was this a rollback of EU competence? If so, why has it occurred in the EU’s oldest and most successfully integrated, policy sector? A shift in the perceived trade‐off between economic interests and ideological bias on the part of key Member States can explain such a change. This article also explores the consequences for the future conduct of the EU’s trade policy and its influence in shaping the world political economy, as well as for the evolving pattern of federal allocation of jurisdiction in the EU.
Meunier, Sophie; Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
Revisiting Trade Competence in the European Union: Amsterdam, Nice, and Beyond Book Chapter
In: Hosli, Madeleine O.; van Deemen, Adrian; Widgren, Mika (Ed.): Institutional Challenges in the European Union, Routledge, London/New York, 2002, ISBN: 9780415251921.
@inbook{Meunier2002,
title = {Revisiting Trade Competence in the European Union: Amsterdam, Nice, and Beyond},
author = {Sophie Meunier and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
editor = {Madeleine O. Hosli and Adrian van Deemen and Mika Widgren},
url = {https://www.routledge.com/Institutional-Challenges-in-the-European-Union/Hosli-Widgren-Deemen/p/book/9780415251921},
isbn = {9780415251921},
year = {2002},
date = {2002-00-00},
booktitle = {Institutional Challenges in the European Union},
publisher = {Routledge},
address = {London/New York},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Nicolaidïs, Kalypso; Lacroix, Justine
Order and Justice Beyond the Nation-State: Europe’s Competing Paradigms Book Chapter
In: Foot, Rosemary; Hurrell, Andrew (Ed.): vol. Order and Justice in IR, Oxford University Press, 2002.
@inbook{Nicolaidïs2002,
title = {Order and Justice Beyond the Nation-State: Europe’s Competing Paradigms},
author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs and Justine Lacroix},
editor = {Rosemary Foot and Andrew Hurrell},
url = {http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/OrderandJustice.pdf},
year = {2002},
date = {2002-00-00},
volume = {Order and Justice in IR},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
2001
Egan, Michelle; Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
Transnational market governance and regional policy externality: why recognize foreign standards? Journal Article
In: Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 454–473, 2001, ISSN: 1350–1763.
@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 specic 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 beneted 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}
}
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 specic 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 beneted 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.
Grabbe, Heather; Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
Fostering Social Inclusion in Central and Eastern Europe: The Role of EU Accession Conditionality Online
World Bank Working Paper 39 2001.
@online{Grabbe2000,
title = {Fostering Social Inclusion in Central and Eastern Europe: The Role of EU Accession Conditionality},
author = {Heather Grabbe and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
url = {http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/NicolaidisGrabbe01.pdf},
year = {2001},
date = {2001-01-00},
organization = {World Bank Working Paper 39},
abstract = {Through the process of eastward enlargement, the European Union has developed a wide range of strategies and techniques to effect institutional change in central and eastern Europe. Conditionality lies at the heart of the EU’s approach, and it has built a structure of incentives and constraints to motivate reformers to transform both democratic and market institutions. This paper explores the instruments used by the EU to strengthen institutions, build organisational capacity, and increase social inclusion in the candidate countries of central and eastern Europe. It concludes that the relative effectiveness of the different mechanisms used depends on how consistently the EU has pursued particular policy goals. The EU’s success in fostering social inclusion has been blunted by the inconsistent messages it has sent to the candidates about social policy. This inconsistency is in turn partly the result of a tension between the EU’s dual roles of aid donor and gatekeeper for club membership.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
Through the process of eastward enlargement, the European Union has developed a wide range of strategies and techniques to effect institutional change in central and eastern Europe. Conditionality lies at the heart of the EU’s approach, and it has built a structure of incentives and constraints to motivate reformers to transform both democratic and market institutions. This paper explores the instruments used by the EU to strengthen institutions, build organisational capacity, and increase social inclusion in the candidate countries of central and eastern Europe. It concludes that the relative effectiveness of the different mechanisms used depends on how consistently the EU has pursued particular policy goals. The EU’s success in fostering social inclusion has been blunted by the inconsistent messages it has sent to the candidates about social policy. This inconsistency is in turn partly the result of a tension between the EU’s dual roles of aid donor and gatekeeper for club membership.
Nicolaidïs, Kalypso
Regulatory cooperation and managed mutual recognition: elements of a strategic model Book Chapter
In: Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation, Legal Problems and Political Prospects, pp. 571-600, 2001.
@inbook{Nicolaidïs2001b,
title = {Regulatory cooperation and managed mutual recognition: elements of a strategic model},
author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},
year = {2001},
date = {2001-00-00},
booktitle = {Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation, Legal Problems and Political Prospects},
pages = {571-600},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Meunier, Sophie; Nicolaïdis, Kalypso
Trade Competence Debate in the Nice Treaty Journal Article
In: ECSA Review, vol. 14, no. 2, 2001.
@article{Meunier2001,
title = {Trade Competence Debate in the Nice Treaty},
author = {Sophie Meunier and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},
url = {http://aei.pitt.edu/65/1/NiceTreatyForum.html},
year = {2001},
date = {2001-00-00},
journal = {ECSA Review},
volume = {14},
number = {2},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Nicolaidïs, Kalypso
Europe’s Tainted Mirror: Reflections on Turkey’s Candidacy Status After Helsinki Book Chapter
In: Keridis, Dimitris; Triantafyllou, Dimitris (Ed.): Greek-Turkish Relations in the Era of Globalization, pp. 245-277, Brassey's, 2001.
@inbook{Nicolaidïs2001,
title = {Europe’s Tainted Mirror: Reflections on Turkey’s Candidacy Status After Helsinki},
author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},
editor = {Dimitris Keridis and Dimitris Triantafyllou},
url = {https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27377534_Greek-Turkish_Relations_in_the_Era_of_Globalization},
year = {2001},
date = {2001-00-00},
booktitle = {Greek-Turkish Relations in the Era of Globalization},
pages = {245-277},
publisher = {Brassey's},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Howse, Robert; Nicolaidïs, Kalypso
The Federal Vision: Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the US and the EU Book
Oxford University Press, 2001, ISBN: 9780199245000.
@book{Howse2001,
title = {The Federal Vision: Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the US and the EU},
author = {Robert Howse and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},
editor = {Robert Howse and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},
url = {https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199245002.001.0001/acprof-9780199245000},
doi = {10.1093/0199245002.001.0001},
isbn = {9780199245000},
year = {2001},
date = {2001-00-00},
publisher = { Oxford University Press},
abstract = {This book is about the complex and changing relationship between levels of governance in the US and the European Union. On the basis of a transatlantic dialogue between scholars concerned about modes of governance on both sides, it is a collective attempt at analysing the ramifications of the legitimacy crisis in these multi‐layered democracies, and possible remedies to this. Starting from a focus on the current policy debates over ‘devolution’ and ‘subsidiarity’, the book engages the reader into the broader tension of comparative federalism. Its authors believe that in spite of the fundamental differences between them, both the EU and the USA are in the process of re‐defining a federal vision for the twenty‐first century. The book is a contribution to the study of federalism and European integration, and seeks to bridge the divide between the two. It also bridges the traditional divide between technical, legal or regulatory discussions of federal governance and philosophical debates over questions of belonging and multiple identities. It is a multi‐disciplinary project, bringing together historians, political scientists and theorists, legal scholars, sociologists and political economists (more than 20 authors are involved), and includes both innovative analysis and prescriptions on how to reshape the federal contract in the USA and the EU. Included are introductions to the history of federalism in the USA and the EU, the current debates over devolution and subsidiarity, the legal framework of federalism and theories of regulatory federalism, as well as innovative approaches to the application of network analysis, principal‐agent models, institutionalist analysis, and political theories of citizenship to the federal context. The introduction and conclusion by the editors draws out cross‐cutting themes and lessons from the thinking together of the EU and USA experiences, and suggest how a ‘federal vision’ could be freed from the hierarchical paradigm of the ‘federal state’ and articulated around concepts of mutual tolerance and empowerment. The seventeen chapters are arranged in five sections: I. Articulating the Federal Vision (two chapters)—views of federalism in its USA and EU versions; II. Levels of Governance in the USA and the European Union: Facts and Diagnosis (four chapters)—an overview of the history and current state of federalism in the USA and EU; III. Legal and Regulatory Instruments of Federal Governance (three chapters); IV. Federalism, Legitimacy, and Governance: Models for Understanding (four chapters); V. Federalism, Legitimacy, and Identity (four chapters)—a discussion of the deeper roots of legitimacy in federal systems; there is also an appendix, which discusses the basic principles for the allocation of competence in the USA and EU.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
This book is about the complex and changing relationship between levels of governance in the US and the European Union. On the basis of a transatlantic dialogue between scholars concerned about modes of governance on both sides, it is a collective attempt at analysing the ramifications of the legitimacy crisis in these multi‐layered democracies, and possible remedies to this. Starting from a focus on the current policy debates over ‘devolution’ and ‘subsidiarity’, the book engages the reader into the broader tension of comparative federalism. Its authors believe that in spite of the fundamental differences between them, both the EU and the USA are in the process of re‐defining a federal vision for the twenty‐first century. The book is a contribution to the study of federalism and European integration, and seeks to bridge the divide between the two. It also bridges the traditional divide between technical, legal or regulatory discussions of federal governance and philosophical debates over questions of belonging and multiple identities. It is a multi‐disciplinary project, bringing together historians, political scientists and theorists, legal scholars, sociologists and political economists (more than 20 authors are involved), and includes both innovative analysis and prescriptions on how to reshape the federal contract in the USA and the EU. Included are introductions to the history of federalism in the USA and the EU, the current debates over devolution and subsidiarity, the legal framework of federalism and theories of regulatory federalism, as well as innovative approaches to the application of network analysis, principal‐agent models, institutionalist analysis, and political theories of citizenship to the federal context. The introduction and conclusion by the editors draws out cross‐cutting themes and lessons from the thinking together of the EU and USA experiences, and suggest how a ‘federal vision’ could be freed from the hierarchical paradigm of the ‘federal state’ and articulated around concepts of mutual tolerance and empowerment. The seventeen chapters are arranged in five sections: I. Articulating the Federal Vision (two chapters)—views of federalism in its USA and EU versions; II. Levels of Governance in the USA and the European Union: Facts and Diagnosis (four chapters)—an overview of the history and current state of federalism in the USA and EU; III. Legal and Regulatory Instruments of Federal Governance (three chapters); IV. Federalism, Legitimacy, and Governance: Models for Understanding (four chapters); V. Federalism, Legitimacy, and Identity (four chapters)—a discussion of the deeper roots of legitimacy in federal systems; there is also an appendix, which discusses the basic principles for the allocation of competence in the USA and EU.