Articles and Book Chapters

@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}

}

@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}

}

@article{Nicolaïdis2004c,

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

author = {Kalypso Nicolaïdis},

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

isbn = {978-2849380062},

year  = {2004},

date = {2004-02-00},

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

publisher = {Léo Scheer},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2003,

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

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

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

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

year  = {2004},

date = {2004-00-00},

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

volume = {7},

pages = {76-93},

address = {Paris},

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

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Fabre2004,

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

author = {Thierry Fabre and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

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

year  = {2004},

date = {2004-00-00},

journal = {Colonialism et postcolonialism en Méditerranée},

publisher = {Marseille: éditions Parenthèses},

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

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2004g,

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

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

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

year  = {2004},

date = {2004-00-00},

journal = {Mouvements},

volume = {1},

number = {31},

pages = { 128-132},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Lacroix2004,

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

author = {Justine Lacroix and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

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

year  = {2004},

date = {2004-00-00},

journal = {Mouvements},

volume = {5},

number = {35},

pages = {105-113},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{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}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs2004bb,

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

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs and Aïcha Messina},

year  = {2004},

date = {2004-00-00},

journal = {Lignes 1},

volume = {1},

pages = {88-109},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{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/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/etud25-en.pdf},

year  = {2003},

date = {2003-05-19},

journal = {Research and European Issues},

volume = {25},

pages = {1-43},

organization = {Notre Europe},

note = {Alternative link: https://www.euractiv.com/section/future-eu/opinion/large-and-small-member-states-in-the-european-union-reinventing-the-balance/

Summary: A real compromise for the EU presidency is still possible. URL: http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/EUPresidency.pdf},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@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}

}

@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}

}

@article{NICOLAÏDIS2002b,

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

author = {Robert Howse and Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

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

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

year  = {2002},

date = {2002-12-16},

journal = {Journal Of Common Market Studies},

volume = {40},

number = {4},

pages = {767-92},

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

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{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}

}

@article{Egan2001,

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

author = {Michelle Egan and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},

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

doi = {10.1080/13501760110056068},

issn = {1350–1763},

year  = {2001},

date = {2001-08-00},

journal = {Journal of European Public Policy},

volume = {8},

number = {3},

pages = {454–473},

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

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{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}

}

@article{Moravcsik1999,

title = {Explaining the Treaty of Amsterdam: Interests, Influence and Institutions},

author = {Andrew Moravcsik and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},

url = {http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Essfc0041/Amsterdam99.pdf},

year  = {1999},

date = {1999-03-00},

journal = {Journal of Common Market Studies},

volume = {37},

number = {1},

pages = {59-85},

abstract = {This article offers a basic explanation of the process and outcome of negotiating the Treaty of Amsterdam. We pose three questions: What explains the national preferences of the major governments? Given those substantive national preferences, what explains bargaining outcomes among them? Given those substantive bargains, what explains the choice of international institutions to implement them? We argue in favour of an explanation based on three elements. Issue-specific interdependence explains national preferences. Inter-state bargaining based on asymmetrical interdependence explains the outcomes of substantive negotiation. The need for credible commitments explains institutional choices to pool and delegate sovereignty. Other oft-cited factors – European ideology, supranational entrepreneurship, technocratic consider- ations, or the random flux and non-rational processes of ‘garbage can’ decision-making – play secondary roles. Remaining areas of ambiguity are flagged for future research.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Moravcsik1998,

title = {Federal Ideals vs Constitutional Realities in the Amsterdam Treaty},

author = {Andrew Moravcsik and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},

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

year  = {1998},

date = {1998-09-00},

journal = {Journal of Common Market Studies, Annual Review},

volume = {36},

pages = {13-38},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Nicolaidïs1998,

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

author = {Kalypso Nicolaidïs},

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

year  = {1998},

date = {1998-08-00},

journal = {Survival, The ISS Quarterly},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Coglianese1998,

title = {Securing Subsidiarity:  Legitimacy and the Allocation of Governing Authority},

author = {Cary Coglianese and Kalypso Nicolaïdis},

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

year  = {1998},

date = {1998-00-00},

journal = {Electronic Working Paper Series in Political Science},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}