Postfunctional differentiation, functional reintegration: the Danish case in Justice and Home Affairs

References

• Adler-Nissen, R. (2009). Behind the scenes of differentiated integration: Circumventing national opt-outs in Justice and Home Affairs. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(1), 62–80. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760802453239
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adler-Nissen, R. (2014a). Justice and home affairs: Denmark as an active differential European. In L. Miles & A. Wivel (Eds.), Denmark and the European Union (pp. 65–79). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Adler-Nissen, R. (2014b). Opting out of the European Union: Diplomacy, sovereignty and European integration. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, S. S., & Sitter, N. (2006). Differentiated integration: What is it and how much can the EU accommodate? Journal of European Integration, 28(4), 313–330. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/07036330600853919
   Google Scholar
• Arter, D. (1995). The Folketing and Denmark’s “European policy”: The case of an “authorising assembly”? The Journal of Legislative Studies, 1(3), 110–123. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13572339508420440
   Google Scholar
• Atikcan, E. O. (2015). Asking the public twice: Why do voters change their minds in second referendums on EU treaties? EUROPP. Retrieved May 5, 2020, from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/10/19/asking-the-public-twice-why-do-voters-change-their-minds-in-second-referendums-on-eu-treaties/
   Google Scholar
• Beach, D. (2018). Process tracing methods. In C. Wagemann, A. Goerres, & M. Siewert (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden Der Politikwissenschaft (pp. 1–21). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Retrieved October 6, 2020, from http://link.springer.com/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-16937-4_43-1
   Google Scholar
• Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2019). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, A. (2014). Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bickerton, C. J. (2019). The limits of differentiation: Capitalist diversity and labour mobility as drivers of Brexit. Comparative European Politics, 17(2), 231–245. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-019-00160-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Börzel, T. A. (2005). Mind the gap! European integration between level and scope. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(2), 217–236. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500043860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brexit Agreement. (2020). Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community. Retrieved February 23, 2020, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:22020A0131(01)
   Google Scholar
• Burk, M., & Leuffen, D. (2019). On the methodology of studying differentiated (dis)integration: Or how the potential outcome framework can contribute to evaluating the costs and benefits of opting in or out. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 57(6), 1395–1406. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12958
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chebel d’Appollonia, A. (2019). EU migration policy and border controls: From chaotic to cohesive differentiation. Comparative European Politics, 17(2), 192–208. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-019-00159-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council Decision 2006/188/EC. Retrieved January 28, 2021, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006D0188&from=EN
   Google Scholar
• Curtin, D. (2018). The ties that bind: Securing information-sharing after Brexit. In B. Martill & U. Staiger (Eds.), Brexit and beyond, rethinking the futures of Europe (pp. 148–155). UCL Press. Retrieved May 19, 2020, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt20krxf8.22
   Google Scholar
• Danish Ministry. (2015). The Danish government’s action plan to combat human trafficking. Retrieved April 1, 2020, from http://lastradainternational.org/doc-center/1331/the-danish-governments-action-plan-to-combat-trafficking-in-women
   Google Scholar
• Dawson, M., & Durana, A. (2017). Modes of flexibility: Framework legislation v ‘soft’ law’. In B. De Witte, A. Ott, & E. Vos (Eds.), Between flexibility and disintegration (pp. 92–117). Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• De Witte, B. (2020). Overcoming the single country veto in EU reform? European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2020(5), 983–988. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-8249/408
   Google Scholar
• Duttle, T., Holzinger, K., Malang, T., Schäubli, T., Schimmelfennig, F., & Winzen, T. (2017). Opting out from European Union legislation: The differentiation of secondary law. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(3), 406–428. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1149206
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksen, E. O., & Fossum, J. E. (2015). The European Union’s non-members: Independence under hegemony? Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• European Council. (1992). Denmark and the treaty on European Union. Retrieved October 19, 2020, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:41992X1231
   Google Scholar
• Everson, M., Monda, C., & Vos, E. (2014). EU agencies in Between institutions and member states. Wolters Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Folketing. (2020). EU referenda. EU Information Centre - Home. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from https://english.eu.dk/en/denmark_eu/eu-referenda
   Google Scholar
• Franchino, F. (2007). The powers of the union: Delegation in the EU. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Friis, L. (2002). The battle over Denmark: Denmark and the European Union. Scandinavian Studies, 74(3), 379–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gammeltoft-Hansen, T. (2017). Refugee policy as “negative nation branding”: The case of Denmark and the Nordics. In F. Kristian & H. Mouritzen (Eds.), Foreign Policy Yearbook (Vol. 2017, pp. 97–119). DIIS.
   Google Scholar
• Gänzle, S., Leruth, B., & Trondal, J. (2019). Differentiated integration and disintegration in a post-Brexit era. Taylor & Francis Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Genschel, P., & Jachtenfuchs, M. (2016). More integration, less federation: The European integration of core state powers. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(1), 42–59. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1055782
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerring, J. (2007). Is there a (viable) crucial-case method? Comparative Political Studies, 40(3), 231–253. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414006290784
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerring, J. (2016). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gilardi, F. (2014). Methods for the analysis of policy interdependence. In I. Engeli & C. R. Allison (Eds.), Comparative policy studies: Conceptual and methodological challenges, Research Methods Series (pp. 185–204). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Retrieved February 25, 2021, from https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137314154_9
   Google Scholar
• Grøn, C. (2015). The Nordic countries and the European Union: Still the other European community? (1st ed.). Routledge. Retrieved January 13, 2020, from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315726335
   Google Scholar
• Gschwend, T., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2011). Research design in political science: How to practice what they preach. Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved January 28, 2021, from http://www.dawsonera.com/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractView/S9780230598881
   Google Scholar
• Gutheil, M., Liger, Q., Heetman, A., Henley, M., & Heyburn, H. (2018). The EU-UK relationship beyond Brexit: Options for police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, 110.
   Google Scholar
• Heidbreder, E. G. (2013). European Union governance in the shadow of contradicting ideas: The decoupling of policy ideas and policy instruments. European Political Science Review. Retrieved May 5, 2020, from http://core/journals/european-political-science-review/article/european-union-governance-in-the-shadow-of-contradicting-ideas-the-decoupling-of-policy-ideas-and-policy-instruments/6370A685935A5DE3187ED9DE58DF881E
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Héritier, A. (2015). Covert integration in the European Union. European Union: Power and Policy-Making, 351–370. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315735399-15
   Google Scholar
• Hobolt, S. B., & de Vries, C. E. (2016). Public support for European integration. Annual Review of Political Science, 19(1), 413–432. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-042214-044157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holzinger, K., & Knill, C. (2005). Causes and conditions of cross-national policy convergence. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 775–796. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500161357
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holzinger, K., & Tosun, J. (2019). Why differentiated integration is such a common practice in Europe: A rational explanation. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 31(4), 642–659. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0951629819875522
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2009). A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howarth, D. (1994). Compromise on Denmark and the treaty on European Union: A legal and political analysis. Common Market Law Review, 31, 765. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/07036339408429014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howarth, D., & Quaglia, L. (2020). One money, two markets? EMU at twenty and European financial market integration. Journal of European Integration, 42(3), 433–448. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2020.1730346
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hvidsten, A. H., & Hovi, J. (2015). Why no twin-track Europe? Unity, discontent, and differentiation in European integration. European Union Politics, 16(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116514557964
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ibolya, T. (2015). A vote of no confidence: Explaining the Danish EU referendum. openDemocracy. Retrieved May 5, 2020, from https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/vote-of-no-confidence-explaining-danish-eu-referendum/
   Google Scholar
• Ingebritsen, C. (2000). The Nordic states and European unity. Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, C. B., & Slapin, J. B. (2012). Institutional hokey-pokey: The politics of multispeed integration in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(6), 779–795. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2011.610694
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaunert, C. (2010). Europol and EU counterterrorism: International security actorness in the external dimension. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33(7), 652–671. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2010.484041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelstrup, M. (2014). Denmark’s relation to the European Union: A history of dualism and pragmatism. In L. Miles & A. Wivel (Eds.), Denmark and the European Union (pp. 14–29). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kinzer, S. (1992). Decision for Europe; Danes will vote again on Europe, but treaty may see some changes. The New York Times. Retrieved May 19, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/23/world/decision-for-europe-danes-will-vote-again-europe-but-treaty-may-see-some-changes.html
   Google Scholar
• Kluger Dionigi, M. (2016). Denmark and the EU: Support for a sober and pragmatic membership | think tank EUROPA. Retrieved May 19, 2020, from http://english.thinkeuropa.dk/politics/denmark-and-eu-support-sober-and-pragmatic-membership
   Google Scholar
• Knill, C. (2005). Introduction: Cross-national policy convergence: Concepts, approaches and explanatory factors. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 764–774. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500161332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreichauf, R. (2020). Legal paradigm shifts and their impacts on the socio-spatial exclusion of asylum seekers in Denmark. In B. Glorius & J. Doomernik (Eds.), Geographies of asylum in Europe and the role of European localities (pp. 45–67). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25666-1_3
   Google Scholar
• Leruth, B. (2015). Operationalizing national preferences on Europe and differentiated integration. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(6), 816–835. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1020840
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leruth, B., Gänzle, S., & Trondal, J. (2019a). Differentiated integration and disintegration in the EU after Brexit: Risks versus opportunities. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 57(6), 1383–1394. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12957
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leruth, B., Gänzle, S., & Trondal, J. (2019b). Exploring differentiated disintegration in a post-Brexit European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 57(5), 1013–1030. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12869
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lessing, G. (2017). Police and border controls cooperation at the EU Level: Dilemmas, opporotunities and challenges of a differentiated approach. Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI).
   Google Scholar
• Leuffen, D., Rittberger, B., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2013). Differentiated integration. Macmillan Education UK. Retrieved May 13, 2019, from http://link.springer.com/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-28501-0
   Google Scholar
• Marcussen, M. (2014). Denmark and the Euro opt-out. In L. Miles & A. Wivel (Eds.), Denmark and the European Union (pp. 47–65). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Marti Font, J. M. (1992, June 3). Denmark rejects the Maastricht Treaty and disrupts the process of European Unity, from El País. 3.
   Google Scholar
• Maurice. (2017). Denmark clinches europol “backdoor” deal. EUobserver. Retrieved January 23, 2020, from https://euobserver.com/institutional/137730
   Google Scholar
• McCallion, M. S., & Brianson, A. (2017). How to have your cake and eat it too: Sweden, regional awkwardness, and the European Union strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR). Journal of Baltic Studies, 48(4), 451–464. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01629778.2017.1305194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLaughlin, K. (2007). UPDATE 2-Denmark to ratify EU Treaty without referendum-PM. Reuters. Retrieved May 13, 2020, from https://www.reuters.com/article/denmark-eu-idUSL1153810420071211
   Google Scholar
• Miles, L. (2014). Not quite a painful choice: Reflecting on Denmark and further European integration. In L. Miles & A. Wivel (Eds.), Denmark and the European Union (pp. 217–227). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, L., & Wivel, A. (2013). Justice and home affairs: Denmark as an active differential European. Denmark and the European Union. Retrieved January 23, 2020, from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2015). One step closer to a referendum on the JHA opt-out. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. Retrieved October 19, 2020, from https://um.dk/en/news/newsdisplaypage/?newsid=85867e49-b075-4425-97d5-d6fcf73f4bf4
   Google Scholar
• Møller, B. (2014). Large majority wants Danish participation in EU police cooperation | think tank EUROPA. Retrieved May 5, 2020, from http://english.thinkeuropa.dk/node/140
   Google Scholar
• Monar, J. (2001). The dynamics of Justice and Home Affairs: Laboratories, driving factors and costs. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(4), 747–764. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00329
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monar, J. (2012). Justice and Home Affairs: The treaty of Maastricht as a decisive intergovernmental gate opener. Journal of European Integration, 34(7), 717–734. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2012.726011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller, W. C., Jenny, M., & Ecker, A. (2012). The elites–masses gap in European integration. The Europe of Elites. A Study Into the Europeanness of Europe’s Political and Economic Elites, 167–191. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602315.003.0008
   Google Scholar
• Naurin, D., & Lindahl, R. (2010). Out in the cold? Flexible integration and the political status of Euro opt-outs. European Union Politics. Retrieved January 21, 2020, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116510382463
   Google Scholar
• Neve, J.-E. d. (2007). The European onion? How differentiated integration is reshaping the EU. Journal of European Integration, 29(4), 503–521. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/07036330701502498
   Google Scholar
• Olsen, G. R. (2011). How strong is Europeanisation, really? The Danish defence administration and the opt-out from the European security and defence policy. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 12(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15705854.2011.546141
   Google Scholar
• Oltermann, P., & Boffey, D. (2020). UK making “impossible demands” over Europol database in EU talks. the Guardian. Retrieved October 6, 2020, from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/23/uk-making-impossible-demands-over-europol-database-in-eu-talks
   Google Scholar
• Peers, S. (2011). Mission accomplished? EU Justice and Home Affairs Law after the treaty of Lisbon. 33.
   Google Scholar
• Peers, S. (2014). EU law analysis: Denmark and EU Justice and Home Affairs Law: Really opting back in? EU Law Analysis. Retrieved January 15, 2020, from http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/10/denmark-and-eu-justice-and-home-affairs.html
   Google Scholar
• Peers, S. (2016). EU Justice and Home Affairs Law: EU Justice and Home Affairs Law: Volume I: EU Immigration and Asylum Law. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen, N. (1998). The Danish referendum on the treaty of Amsterdam Europas? ZEI-Zentrum Fur Europaische Ingegrationsforschung.
   Google Scholar
• Schimmelfennig, F. (2014). Efficient process tracing. In A. Bennett & J. T. Checkel (Eds.), Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool, Strategies for Social Inquiry (pp. 98–125). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved October 21, 2020, from https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/process-tracing/efficient-process-tracing/F74FE495B6DE465ED77E0A2D5177A9E5
   Google Scholar
• Schimmelfennig, F. (2018). Brexit: Differentiated disintegration in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(8), 1154–1173. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1467954
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schimmelfennig, F. (2019a). Getting around no: How governments react to negative EU referendums. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(7), 1056–1074. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1619191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schimmelfennig, F. (2019b). The choice for differentiated Europe: An intergovernmentalist theoretical framework. Comparative European Politics, 17(2), 176–191. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-019-00166-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schimmelfennig, F., Leuffen, D., & Rittberger, B. (2015). The European Union as a system of differentiated integration: Interdependence, politicization and differentiation. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(6), 764–782. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1020835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schimmelfennig, F., & Winzen, T. (2014). Instrumental and constitutional differentiation in the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(2), 354–370. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schimmelfennig, F., & Winzen, T. (2020). Ever looser union?: Differentiated European integration. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, V. A. (2019). The future of differentiated integration: A “soft-core,” multi-clustered Europe of overlapping policy communities. Comparative European Politics, 17(2), 294–315. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-019-00164-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schraff, D., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2020). Does differentiated integration strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU? Evidence from the 2015 Danish opt-out referendum. European Union Politics. Retrieved December 7, 2020, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116520949698?icid=int.sj-full-text.citing-articles.1
   Google Scholar
• Siune, K., Svensson, P., & Tonsgaard, O. (1994). The European Union: The Danes said “no” in 1992 but “yes” in 1995: How and why? Electoral Studies, 13(2), 107–116. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-3794(94)90028-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sørensen, C. (2004). Danish and British popular euroscepticism compared. DIIS WORKING PAPER, 2004(25), 31. Retrieved May 1, 2021, from DIIS. https://www.diis.dk/en/research/danish-and-british-popular-euroscepticism-compared
   Google Scholar
• Sørensen, C. (2015). To be in, or to be out: Reflections on the Danish referendum. Retrieved May 5, 2020, from CEPS. https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/be-or-be-out-reflections-danish-referendum/
   Google Scholar
• Stevnsborg, H. (2013). Frontex and Denmark. Journal of Police Studies/Cahiers Politiestudies, 1(2).
   Google Scholar
• Stubb. (2002). Negotiating flexibility in the European Union: Amsterdam, nice, and beyond. Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Trauner, F. (2016). Asylum policy: The EU’s “crises” and the looming policy regime failure. Journal of European Integration, 38(3), 311–325. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2016.1140756
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versluis, E. (2007). Even rules, uneven practices: Opening the “black box” of EU law in action. West European Politics, 30(1), 50–67. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380601019647
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldner, D. (2014). What makes process tracing good? In A. Bennett & J. T. Checkel (Eds.), Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool, Strategies for Social Inquiry (pp. 126–152). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved February 23, 2021, from https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/process-tracing/what-makes-process-tracing-good/98834CC8C99284171CAAA00FE174F01C
   Google Scholar
• Welle, N., & Barnes, J. (2014). Finding pathways: Mixed-method research for studying causal mechanisms. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved April 12, 2021, from http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9781139644501
   Google Scholar
• Winzen, T. (2020). Government euroscepticism and differentiated integration. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(12), 1819–1837.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witte, B. D., Ott, A., & Vos, E. (2017). Between flexibility and disintegration: The trajectory of differentiation in EU law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Wivel, A. (2019). Denmark and the European Union. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Oxford University Press. Retrieved January 20, 2020, from https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1103
   Google Scholar
• Worre, T. (1995). First no, then yes: The Danish referendums on the Maastricht Treaty 1992 and 1993. Journal of Common Market Studies, 33(2), 235–257. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.1995.tb00529.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhelyazkova, A. (2014). From selective integration into selective implementation: The link between differentiated integration and conformity with EU laws. European Journal of Political Research, 53(4), 727–746. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12062
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwaan, J. D., Lak, M., Makinwa, A., & Willems, P. (Eds.). (2016). Governance and security issues of the European Union: Challenges ahead (1st ed.). T.M.C. Asser Press.
   Google Scholar