Check the metadata sheet to make sure that the header information, especially author names and the corresponding affiliations are correctly shown.• Check the questions that may have arisen during copy editing and insert your answers/ corrections.• Check that the text is complete and that all figures, tables and their legends are included. Also check the accuracy of special characters, equations, and electronic supplementary material if applicable. If necessary refer to the Edited manuscript.• The publication of inaccurate data such as dosages and units can have serious consequences.Please take particular care that all such details are correct.• Please do not make changes that involve only matters of style. We have generally introduced forms that follow the journal's style. Substantial changes in content, e.g., new results, corrected values, title and authorship are not allowed without the approval of the responsible editor. In such a case, please contact the Editorial Office and return his/her consent together with the proof.• If we do not receive your corrections within 48 hours, we will send you a reminder.• Your article will be published Online First approximately one week after receipt of your corrected proofs. This is the official first publication citable with the DOI. Further changes are, therefore, not possible.• The printed version will follow in a forthcoming issue.

No abstract

No abstract

In ECE countries, democratisation and Europeanisation seemed to exist in a mutually reinforcing relationship and both concepts provided the main analytical lenses for studying these states. In the light of recent illiberal and anti-EU politics, two different concepts have started to receive increasing scholarly attention, namely the concepts of de-Europeanisation and autocratisation. Their exact meaning, however, remains unclear and the causal link between these specific processes and the rule of law has largely remained understudied. Against this backdrop, this chapter first summarises the state-of-the-art research on autocratisation and de-Europeanisation, and then examines the interaction and causal link between these two phenomena in times of declining democracies in Europe and rule of law problems.

Why do international institutions promote emotional norms? In order to answer this question, the article, first, maps the legitimizing arguments put forward by the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in promoting an emotionally loaded norm vis-à-vis Turkey, i.e., the recognition of the Armenian genocide. Second, the paper explores the reasons behind the promotion of this emotional norm by the European Parliament (EP) as justified by the MEPs. The article theoretically draws on the IR literature on emotions, and empirically, it relies on the data generated from the interventions by the MEPs at the plenary on the centenary of the Armenian genocide on 15 April 2015. Through claims analysis, it is demonstrated that the condemnation of genocide is a shared norm within the EP, which transcends national and ideological differences. Consequently, the MEPs aspire to render it an essential constitutive element of the emotional community at the EU level.