Daniel Naurin

• Naurin, Daniel; Lindholm, Johan & Schroeder, Philipp (2026). Has Political Science Discovered EU Law? In Naurin, Daniel; Šadl, Urška & Zglinski, Jan (Ed.), Empirical Legal Studies in EU Law. Cambridge University Press. ISSN 9781009672580. p. 55–55. doi: 10.1017/9781009672580.004. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Political scientists have discovered the European Court of Justice, but has it discovered law? We address this enduring question, first posed by Armstrong in 1998, by tracing the evolution of law in political science work on the CJEU, from a concept understood in rudimentary terms as an external constraint on judicial behaviour to more recent nuanced accounts of legal concepts, doctrine, and judicial practices. While political science has come closer to the nuts and bolts of CJEU decision-making, we argue that there is untapped potential in exploring the multidimensionality of legal cases and the micro-level details of legal interpretation and adjudication.

• Naurin, Daniel; Lindholm, Johan; Šadl, Urška & Ghavanini, Anna Wallerman (2026). Building Multi-user Databases for Empirical Legal Studies of European Union Law. In Naurin, Daniel; Šadl, Urška & Zglinski, Jan (Ed.), Empirical Legal Studies in EU Law. Cambridge University Press. ISSN 9781009672580. p. 190–190. doi: 10.1017/9781009672580.011. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  The chapter discusses the creation and maintenance of databases offering accurate, research-ready data for multidisciplinary use. It draws on the experience with the IUROPA CJEU Database Project (IUROPA), which has collected data about the decision-makers and the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). IUROPA and similar multi-user databases must live up to four criteria for databases, as proposed by Weinshall and Epstein. First, they must address real-world problems. Second, they must be open and accessible. Third, they must deliver reliable and reproducible data. Fourth, they must be ageless and easily calibrated to research purposes unknown at the time of data collection and cleaning. These criteria involve trade-offs: the quest for reliability may, first, precipitate difficult choices such as whether to discard or improve upon ‘imperfect’ data or tempt creators to endlessly postpone publication of ‘incomplete’ data; second, sustainability and human intervention are inversely proportionate when it comes to database maintenance; finally, a fledgling discipline like empirical legal studies in EU law imposes a disproportionate time commitment and financial responsibility on a small group of researchers.

• Hermansen, Silje Synnøve Lyder & Naurin, Daniel (2026). Shaping the Bench: The Effect of Ideology and Influence on Judicial Reappointments. Journal of Politics. ISSN 0022-3816. doi: 10.1086/740169. Full text in Research Archive
• Lindholm, Johan; Derlén, Mattias & Naurin, Daniel (2025). A Source-Based Theory of Variation in Judicial Reasoning: Evidence from Sweden. Journal of Law & Empirical Analysis. 2(1), p. 141–141. doi: 10.1177/2755323x251335396. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Why do judges disagree about judicial reasoning – i.e., the use of legal reasoning in adjudication – and how can such disagreement be studied empirically? We propose a general theory of variation in judicial reasoning that focuses on a core element of legal analysis – the choice of authoritative sources. In particular, we argue that source-based disagreement is likely to manifest itself on two dimensions: The degree to which extra-national versus national and extra-legislative versus legislative sources should be relied on. Where judges place themselves on these dimensions have important normative implications for the origin of and power over law, and in particular the status and power of the national legislator. We demonstrate the strength and usefulness of our theory with original data from more than 3400 judicial opinions of the Swedish Supreme Court over a 40-year period. We find that Justices’ backgrounds, in terms of when they went to law school and professional pre-appointment experience, are correlated with their placement on these two dimensions in theoretically expected ways.

• Stiansen, Øyvind; Naurin, Daniel; Michailidou, Asimina & Purzycka, Adriana (2024). Enforcing the rule of law in the EU: effects on public opinion. Journal of European Public Policy. ISSN 1350-1763. 32(2), p. 522–549. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2024.2351989. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  How does the European Union's enforcement of democracy and rule-of-law standards influence the domestic public's attitudes toward backsliding governments? On the one hand, enforcement actions by international organisations may increase the costs of supporting backsliding governments and provide informational cues about non-compliance with international norms. On the other hand, scholars and practitioners worry that enforcement actions create ‘rally-around-the-flag’ effects that inadvertently increase support for backsliding regimes. We report descriptive, experimental, and quasi-experimental results from a survey designed to assess the public-opinion effects of EU action in response to rule-of-law backsliding in Poland. The survey results suggest both that Polish citizens perceive the EU as a main critic of measures undermining judicial independence and that these perceptions are correlated with opposing the targeted measures. We find no evidence that additional information about EU actions turns public opinion against the targeted measures but there is also no evidence of any rally-around-the-flag effect. In diagnosing the null findings from our experimental and quasi-experimental designs, we also highlight important challenges associated with using survey-experimental methods to assess the effectiveness of EU interventions in ongoing and salient public debates.

• Blauberger, Michael; Naurin, Daniel; Sedelmeier, Ulrich & Wunsch, Natasha (2024). The multi-level politics of countering democratic backsliding: state of the art and new research directions. Journal of European Public Policy. ISSN 1350-1763. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2024.2418957. Full text in Research Archive
• Brekke, Stein Arne; Fjelstul, Joshua C.; Naurin, Daniel & Hermansen, Silje Synnøve Lyder (2023). The CJEU Database Platform: Decisions and Decision-Makers. Journal of Law and Courts. ISSN 2164-6570. 11(2), p. 389–410. doi: 10.1017/jlc.2022.3. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Abstract This article presents the CJEU Database Platform, which provides scholars with an extensive collection of easily accessible, research-ready data on the the universe of cases, decisions, and judges at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The CJEU Database Platform provides a foundation for the broader CJEU Database currently being developed by The IUROPA Project, a multidisciplinary group of scholars researching judicial politics in the European Union (EU). In this article, we illustrate how the CJEU Database Platform opens the door to new areas of theoretical and empirical research on judicial politics in the EU.

• Boräng, Frida; Naurin, Daniel & Polk, Jonathan (2023). Making space: citizens, parties and interest groups in two ideological dimensions. Journal of European Public Policy. ISSN 1350-1763. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2023.2182819. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  In liberal democracies, interest groups and political parties constitute the primary organizational carriers of citizens’ preferences into the decision-making of the executive and legislative institutions. While political science research has put extensive efforts into understanding both channels of representation, their combined effect for citizen representation has only recently come into focus. In particular, we lack knowledge of the ideological alignment of citizens, parties and interest groups on overarching economic Left-Right and socio-cultural dimensions. We address this gap via an original cross-national survey of interest groups, which includes the self-placement of groups on the Left-Right and Gal-Tan dimensions. The configuration of groups on these dimensions are compared with Chapel Hill Expert Survey data on parties, and information on the preferences of citizens from the European Election Studies. Our findings indicate that interest groups have the potential to supplement multidimensional gaps in representation between the political party system and citizen preferences.

• Brekke, Stein Arne; Naurin, Daniel; Šadl, Urška & López-Zurita, Lucía (2022). That's an Order! How the Quest for Efficiency Is Transforming Judicial Cooperation in Europe. Journal of Common Market Studies. ISSN 0021-9886. p. 58–75. doi: 10.1111/jcms.13346. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Effective procedural arrangements allow courts to reconcile conflicting demands of timely justice and sound legal argument. In the context of the European Union, conflict between these demands emerged most acutely in the face of paralyzing delays in the preliminary reference procedure. It was partly solved by Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure. The provision allowed the European Court of Justice to dispose of repetitive and legally undemanding cases with a reasoned order in lieu of a judgment. This article analyses all published orders of the European Court of Justice to examine the use and the implications of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure. It is the first article to do so. We find that the Court resorts to orders to save time and to halt repeated questions from the courts of a single Member State.

• Licht, Jenny de Fine & Naurin, Daniel (2022). Transparency. In Ansell, Christopher & Torfing, Jacob (Ed.), Handbook on Theories of Governance. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISSN 9781800371965. p. 226–233. Full text in Research Archive
• Lindholm, Johan; Derlén, Mattias & Naurin, Daniel (2022). The Ideal Justice: Who Are Selected to Serve and What Does It Say about Swedish High Courts? Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap. ISSN 0040-7143. 135(4), p. 397–431. doi: 10.18261/tfr.135.4.1. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  The Swedish Supreme Court (‘Högsta domstolen’) has existed since 1789 and in 1909 it was joined by the Supreme Administrative Court (‘Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen’). The function and role of the high courts in Swedish society have indisputably varied over time, but the nature and extent of those shifts are underexplored. The paper seeks to describe the high courts’ role over time by studying the professional background of appointed Justices. We argue that the background of those who are selected to serve reflect the prevailing understanding of the proper functioning of the high courts. To achieve this, we cluster all 453 Swedish Justices (1789–2021) based on professional background into six types and study their distribution over time, as well as measure professional diversity. We conclude that the high courts have become more diverse over time: the general mix of backgrounds on the courts have increased and all Justices tend to have a greater range of experiences. Furthermore, the changes in professional background of the Justices indicate greater importance being placed on high-level, technical legal reasoning rather than practical experience of deciding cases. Finally, and perhaps somewhat counterintuitively, the changes in background also indicate a more deferential attitude to the political institutions.

• Šadl, Urška; López-Zurita, Lucía; Brekke, Stein Arne & Naurin, Daniel (2022). Law and orders: the orders of the European Court of Justice as a window in the judicial process and institutional transformations. European Law Open. 1(3), p. 549–575. doi: 10.1017/elo.2022.32. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Orders are judicial decisions designed to shore up fair and timely resolution of disputes. As written, detailed, and factual documents, they are reliable markers of procedural steps and a unique source of information about the inner working of an institution. This article examines all published orders of the European Court of Justice, drawing lessons from their use. The analysis demonstrates that the pursuit of efficiency and uniform application blurs the lines between the administration and judging. First, it centralises the institution, expanding the duties of the Registry and amplifying the role of the Cabinet of the President of the Court. Second, it bureaucratises the interpretation and the uniform application of European Union law. These processes are common in judicial institutions with no power over their dockets. But the particular European response, authored by the Court, also suggests its reluctance to forfeit the interpretive monopoly.

• Naurin, Nils Daniel & Boräng, Frida (2021). Political Equality and Substantive Representation by Interest Groups. British Journal of Political Science. ISSN 0007-1234. doi: 10.1017/S0007123421000041. Full text in Research Archive
• Huhe, Narisong; Thomson, Robert; Arregui, Javier & Naurin, Daniel (2021). Intergovernmental cooperation networks, national policy positions and partisan ideologies: longitudinal evidence from the Council of the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy. ISSN 1350-1763. 29(1), p. 78–96. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2021.1991980. Full text in Research Archive
• Hofmann, Andreas & Naurin, Nils Daniel (2020). Explaining interest group litigation in Europe: Evidence from the comparative interest group survey. Governance. An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions. ISSN 0952-1895. doi: 10.1111/gove.12556. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Litigation has long been a part of interest groups' lobbying tactics in the U.S. In Europe, by contrast, taking political conflicts to court has traditionally been viewed with skepticism. However, in the wake of an increasing judicialization of politics in Europe, litigation has also become part of the toolbox of European interest groups. Using original survey data from five European countries, we study how they use that tool. We show that European interest groups go to court somewhat less often than their American counterparts, but that the groups that do end up in court have similar characteristics. Overall, we find that the more politically active and resourceful a group is, the more likely it is to turn to the courts. However, a subset of politically active groups, one that deploys distinct outsider tactics, is more likely to use litigation than the rest. Government funding, however, reduces groups' propensity to litigate.

• Stiansen, Øyvind; Naurin, Nils Daniel & Bøyum, Live Standal (2020). Law and Politics in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. A New Database on Judicial Behavior and Compliance in the IACtHR. Journal of Law and Courts. ISSN 2164-6570. 8(2), p. 359–379. doi: 10.1086/709914. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel & He, Qingqian (2020). 英国脱欧与欧盟理事会权力的再分配 [Brexit and Redistribution of EU Power – A Social Network Analysis Based on Survey Data]. Chinese Journal of European Studies. ISSN 1004-9789. 38(2). Full text in Research Archive
• Huhe, Narisong; Naurin, Nils Daniel & Thomson, Robert (2019). Don’t cry for me Britannia: The resilience of the European Union to Brexit. European Union Politics. ISSN 1465-1165. doi: 10.1177/1465116519882096. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  We assess the impact of the United Kingdom’s 2016 decision to leave the European Union on the Council of the European Union, where Brexit is likely to have the clearest observable implications. Using concepts and models from the spatial model of politics and network analysis, we formulate and test expectations regarding the effects of Brexit. We examine two of the most prominent datasets on recent decision-making in the European Union, which include data on cooperation networks among member states before and after the 2016 referendum. Our findings identify some of the political challenges that Brexit will bring, but also highlight the factors that are already helping the European Union’s remaining member states to adapt to Brexit.

• Naurin, Nils Daniel; Naurin, Elin & Alexander, Amy (2019). Gender stereotyping and chivalry in international negotiations. A survey experiment in the Council of the European Union. International Organization. ISSN 0020-8183. doi: 10.1017/s0020818319000043. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Gender stereotypes—stylized expectations of individuals’ traits and capabilities based on their gender—may affect the behavior of diplomats and the processes of international negotiations. In a survey experiment in the Council of the European Union, we find that female representatives behaving stereotypically weak and vulnerable may trigger a chivalry reaction among male representatives, increasing the likelihood that the men will agree to support a bargaining proposal from the women. The effect is conditional on the negotiators’ cultural background—the chivalry reaction is displayed mainly by diplomats from countries with relatively low levels of gender equality. Our study contributes to the research on nonstandard behavior in international relations, and in particular the expression and reception of emotions in diplomacy. We argue that gender stereotypes may have a moderating impact on decision making based on such intuitive cognitive processes. We also add to the broader negotiation literature, both by showing the pervasiveness of gender stereotyping, and by testing at the elite level the generalizability of claims regarding gender effects derived from laboratory experiments. Overall, our findings demonstrate the importance of bringing gender into the study of international negotiations, where it has been largely and surprisingly ignored.

• Olof, Larsson & Naurin, Nils Daniel (2019). Split Vision. Multidimensionality in the European Union’s Legal Policy Space. International Studies Quarterly. ISSN 0020-8833. Full text in Research Archive
• Derlén, Mattias; Lindholm, Johan & Naurin, Nils Daniel (2019). You’re Gonna Miss Me When I’m Gone! The Impact of Brexit on Member States’ Contribution to the Case Law of the CJEU. Europarättslig tidskrift. ISSN 1403-8722. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3427960. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel & Stiansen, Øyvind (2019). The Dilemma of Dissent: Split Judicial Decisions and Compliance With Judgments From the International Human Rights Judiciary. Comparative Political Studies. ISSN 0010-4140. 53(6), p. 959–991. doi: 10.1177/0010414019879944. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  The mutual dependence between courts and their compliance constituencies is a fundamental feature of judicial power. Actors whose rights and interests are reinforced by court decisions may use these as legal ammunitions while contributing to ensuring that court decisions are effectively implemented. We argue that judgments that contain dissenting opinions are less powerful in this regard, compared with unanimous decisions. The reason is that dissent reduces the perceived legal authority of the judgment. Using data from the international human rights judiciaries in Europe and the Americas, we provide evidence of a negative relationship between judicial dissent and compliance. Our findings have important implications for questions relating to the institutional design of courts, for courts’ ability to manage compliance problems, and for understanding the conditions for effective international judicial protection of human rights.

• Naurin, Nils Daniel & Reh, Christine (2018). Deliberative Negotiation. In Bächtiger, André; Dryzek, John S.; Mansbridge, Jane & Warren, Mark E. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford University Press. ISSN 9780198747369. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198747369.013.52. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel (2018). Liberal Intergovernmentalism in the Councils of the EU: A Baseline Theory? Journal of Common Market Studies. ISSN 0021-9886. 56(7), p. 1526–1543. doi: 10.1111/jcms.12786. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  How has the research on the European Council and the Council of the EU engaged with Moravcsik's theory on liberal intergovernmentalism (LI)? This article analyzes 25 years of Council research. Most of this literature does not refer to LI, and a majority of the references that are made raise critique against LI. However, compared to other major works on European integration, LI is by far the most important source in the Council literature. Furthermore, a closer look at the most significant challenges raised against LI indicates that its account of intergovernmental bargaining in the EU is not in serious question. On the other hand, few studies provide systematic tests of the key assumptions of LI with regards to interstate bargaining. As a result, the self‐proclaimed status of LI as a baseline theory is confirmed in the Council literature more by implicit, somewhat reluctant, consent than by overt support.

• Huhe, Narisong; Naurin, Nils Daniel & Thomson, Robert (2017). The Evolution of Political Networks: Evidence from the Council of the European Union. European Union Politics. ISSN 1465-1165. 19(1), p. 25–51. doi: 10.1177/1465116517740228. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel & Julian, Dederke (2017). Friends of the Court? Why EU governments file observations before the Court of Justice. European Journal of Political Research. ISSN 0304-4130. doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12255. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  The preliminary reference procedure under which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) responds to questions from national courts regarding the interpretation of EU law is a key mechanism in many accounts of the development of European integration and law. While the significance of the procedure has been broadly acknowledged, one aspect has been largely omitted: The opportunity for member state governments to submit their views (‘observations’) to the Court in ongoing cases. Previous research has shown that these observations matter for the Court's decisions, and thus that they are likely to have a significant impact on the course of European integration. Still, little is known about when and why member states decide to engage in the preliminary reference procedure by submitting observations. This article shows that there is significant variation, both between cases and between member states, in the number of observations filed. A theoretical argument is developed to explain this variation. Most importantly, a distinction is made between legal and political reasons for governments to get involved in the preliminary reference cases, and it is argued that both types of factors should be relevant. By matching empirical data from inter‐governmental negotiations on legislative acts in the Council of the EU with member states’ subsequent participation in the Court procedures, a research design is developed to test these arguments. It is found that the decision to submit observations can be tied both to concerns with the doctrinal development of EU law and to more immediate political preferences. The conclusion is that the legal (the CJEU) and political (the Council) arenas of the EU system are more interconnected than some of the previous literature would lead us to believe.

• Naurin, Nils Daniel; Huhe, Narisong & Thomson, Robert (2017). With or without you? Policy impact and networks in the Council of the EU after Brexit. European Policy Analysis. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Brexit is likely to be a major chapter in the history of European integration. Clearly, the most important consequences will concern the UK itself, but losing one of its largest members is also a momentous occasion for the EU. What will it mean for the negotiations and outcomes of the intergovernmental Council of the EU – and for the relative influence between the remaining member states – whether the UK is in or out? This analysis show that the policy impact of Brexit is likely to be relatively modest. The findings indicate that some of the remaining member states will be more negatively affected than others, in terms of policy impact and network centrality during the negotiations in the Council of the EU. In particular, some smaller and medium sized Northern European states – Sweden, Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands – confront the toughest challenges with respect to defending their influence in the Council. These are the states with the closest network ties to the UK, and with the most similar policy positions. If (or when) the UK leaves, these states will need to increase their efforts in forming alliances with other member states, in order to defend their (often) liberal positions against pressure for higher subsidies and more regulations of the common market. The network positions of the remaining larger member states, on the other hand, and in particular France, Germany and Poland, are likely to be enhanced by Brexit.

• Naurin, Nils Daniel (2017). The Puzzle of Transparency Reforms in the Council of the EU. Politics and Governance. 5(3), p. 87–90. doi: 10.17645/pag.v5i3.941. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  I argue that the transparency reforms that have been implemented in the Council of the EU in the last decades are unlikely to change the perception of the Council as a non-transparent institution. My argument is based on three distinctions: the distinction between transparency (availability of information) and publicity (spread and reception of information); between transparency in process and transparency in rationale; and between plenary and committee decision-making arenas in legislatures. While national parliaments tend to have all these features, the Council of the EU only has two (transparency in process and committee decision-making). As a consequence, publishing ever more documents and detailed minutes of committee meetings is unlikely to strengthen the descriptive legitimacy of the Council. Furthermore, I argue that the democratic transparency problem is the reverse of what is most often argued: It is not the lack of transparency that causes a democratic deficit, but the (perceived) lack of a democratic infrastructure that makes more serious transparency reforms unthinkable to government representatives.

• Larsson, Olof; Naurin, Daniel; Derlén, Mattias & Lindholm, Johan (2017). Speaking Law to Power: The Strategic Use of Precedent of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Comparative Political Studies. ISSN 0010-4140. 50(7), p. 879–907. doi: 10.1177/0010414016639709. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel & Naurin, Elin (2017). Descriptive Representation and Negotiation: Gender Balance in the Committees of the Council of the European Union. In Aggestam, Karin & Towns, Ann (Ed.), Gendering diplomacy and international negotiation. Palgrave Macmillan. ISSN 9783319586816. p. 213–237. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-58682-3. Full text in Research Archive
• Larsson, Olof & Naurin, Daniel (2016). Judicial Independence and Political Uncertainty: How the Risk of Override Affects the Court of Justice of the EU. International Organization. ISSN 0020-8183. 70(2), p. 377–408. doi: 10.1017/S0020818316000047. Full text in Research Archive
• Licht, Jenny de Fine & Naurin, Daniel (2016). Transparency. In Ansell, Christopher & Torfing, Jacob (Ed.), Handbook on Theories of Governance. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISSN 9781782548492. Full text in Research Archive

View all works in NVA

• Naurin, Daniel; Šadl, Urška & Zglinski, Jan (2026). Empirical Legal Studies in EU Law. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781009672580. doi: 10.1017/9781009672580. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Empirical Legal Studies has arrived in EU law. The past decade has seen the publication of pathbreaking quantitative and qualitative studies, the creation of relevant thematic networks, and the realisation of large-scale empirical research projects. This volume explores the new movement. It features contributions penned by legal and political science scholars working or interested in the field. It is part handbook, for which scholars – experts and novices alike – can reach to get an overview of the state of the art. It is part manifesto, showcasing the need for and potential of this fast-growing area of academic inquiry. Finally, it is a critical reflection, assessing the challenges and limitations of Empirical Legal Studies in the EU context, as well as its interaction with adjacent disciplinary and interdisciplinary endeavours. The book captures the significant contribution which empirical legal research has made to the study of EU law, while facilitating an exchange about the way forward.

View all works in NVA

• Makszimov, Vlagyiszlav; Naurin, Daniel & Stiansen, Øyvind (2025). The Impact of EU Enforcement Actions on Domestic Media Debates on Judicial Independence in Hungary. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Daniel (2025). Identifying the Precedential Value of Case Law of the Court of Justice of the EU – A Machine Learning Approach. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Daniel (2025). Institutional perspectives on rule of law enforcement in the EU. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Daniel (2025). Identifying the Precedential Value of Case Law of the Court of Justice of the EU – A Machine Learning Approach. Full text in Research Archive
• Lindholm, Johan; Naurin, Daniel & Schroeder, Philipp (2025). Negative References to Amicus Briefs in Judicial Reasoning. Journal of Law and Courts. ISSN 2164-6570. 14, p. 616–641. doi: 10.1017/jlc.2025.4. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Daniel (2024). The IUROPA CJEU Database. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Daniel (2024). The EU’s Efforts to Remedy Democratic Backsliding. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Daniel (2023). Has Political Science Discovered EU Law? Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Daniel (2023). Rally around the Rule of Law? How does European Union (in)action affect public opinion in backsliding member states? Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Daniel (2023). Rally around the Rule of Law? How does European Union (in)action affect public opinion in backsliding member states? Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel (2020). The CJEU Database Project. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel & Holmgren, Mikael (2020). Mirroring Politics In International Courts. Full text in Research Archive
• Siv, Cheruvu; Naurin, Nils Daniel & Hermansen, Silje Synnøve Lyder (2019). Does Merit Selection Matter for Judicial Performance? Evidence from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel & Holmgren, Mikael (2019). Justice Delayed: How Ideological Conflict Affects the Court of Justice of the EU? Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel & Larsson, Olof (2018). Appointments of Judges and Judicial Behavior in the Court of Justice of the European Union. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel & Hermansen, Silje Synnøve Lyder (2018). Will Do? Selecting Judges on the Basis of Policy Preferences or Performance Indicators. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel; Polk, Jonathan & Boräng, Frida (2018). Making Space. A Cross-country Comparison of Parties and Interest Groups Positioning in Multiple Policy Dimensions. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel; Huhe, Narisong & Thomson, Robert (2017). Decision-Making and Networks in the Council of the European Union after Brexit. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel & Hofmann, Andreas (2017). When do Interest Groups go to Court? Evidence from a Cross-National Survey. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel & Larsson, Olof (2017). The Effect of Political Preferences among CJEU Judges and their Appointing Governments. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel (2017). Global and Regional Governance workshop. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel (2017). Gender on the Bench. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel (2017). Hur mår EU? Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel & Stiansen, Øyvind (2017). Judicial Dissent and Compliance with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel; Langford, Malcolm & Vibe, Vegard Furustøl (2017). A Different Voice In International Courts? Gender and Judicial Behavior In Sexual And Reproductive Rights. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel; Huhe, Narisong & Thomson, Robert (2017). Decision-Making and Networks in the Council of the European Union after Brexit. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel & Stiansen, Øyvind (2017). Judicial Dissent and Compliance with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel; Boräng, Frida & Polk, Jonathan (2017). Making Space. A Cross-country Comparison of Parties and Interest Groups Positioning in Multiple Policy Dimensions. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel & Stiansen, Øyvind (2017). Judicial Dissent and Compliance with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Nils Daniel & Larsson, Olof (2017). Split Vision. Multi-Dimensionality in the International Legal Policy Space. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Daniel & Dederke, Julian (2016). Friends of the Court? Why EU governments file observations before the Court of Justice. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Daniel; Naurin, Elin & Alexander, Amy (2016). Gender stereotyping and chivalry in international negotiations. A survey experiment in the Council of the European Union. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Daniel & Larsson, Olof (2016). Split Vision. Multi-Dimensionality in the International Legal Policy Space. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Daniel & Boräng, Frida (2016). Lobbying for the people? Measuring substantive representation by interest groups. Full text in Research Archive
• Naurin, Daniel & Stiansen, Øyvind (2016). Judicial Dissent and Compliance with Inter-American Court of Human Rights Judgments. Full text in Research Archive
• Johansson, Markus; Larsson, Olof; Lindahl, Rutger & Naurin, Daniel (2023). Cooperation in the Council of the EU: Explaining network relations among member states. SIEPS. Full text in Research Archive
• Johansson, Markus; Naurin, Nils Daniel & Lindahl, Rutger (2019). Samarbete och inflytande i EU:s ministerråd. SIEPS. Full text in Research Archive
• Cramér, Per; Larsson, Olof; Moberg, Andreas & Naurin, Daniel (2016). See You in Luxembourg? EU Governments´ Observations Under the Preliminary Reference Procedure. The Swedish Institute for European Policy. ISSN 9789186107628. Full text in Research Archive

View all works in NVA