ABSTRACT
Institutionalization takes place within the system of states, as we saw in Part I, and different patterns of institutionahzation have different effects on the conduct of international relations. But the system of states is itself a form of institutionalization, the embodiment of deeper and more profound shared practices and expectations about the organization of political life on the planet. It was the aim of various types of integration theory to explore the possible transformation of this form of international institutionalization. For example, Karl Deutsch and his associates examined the possible emergence of international security communities, “in which there is real assurance that the members…will not fight each other physically” but resolve their disputes by peaceful means, “normally by institutionalized procedures” (1957:5). They could be pluralistic in character (maintaining the separate identity of the constituent units), or amalgamated (forming larger units). Neofunctionalism focused on a specific subset of the latter: the processes whereby political expectations, activities, and loyalties may shift to new and larger centers that exercise jurisdiction over the pre-existing nation states (Haas 1958, 1961).
