¹ The term “partial international system” has been introduced by Stanley Hoffmann and is here used synonymously with “subsystem.” See Hoffmann, “Discord in Community: The North Atlantic Area as a Partial International System,” in Wilcox, Francis O. and Haviland, H. Field Jr., eds., The Atlantic Community: Progress and Prospects (New York 1964), 3–31Google Scholar.

² Nye, Joseph S. Jr., in the introduction to his International Regionalism: A Reader (Boston 1968Google Scholar).

³ In choosing a systemic framework of analysis we follow the tradition of “historical sociology,” as it has been outlined and partially applied by Raymond Aron and Stanley Hoffmann, rather than “systems theory,” as it has been developed, for example, by David Easton or Morton Kaplan. Hence we are interested in systems as mere tools to analyze concrete historical situations. For the first approach, see , Aron, Peace and War (New York 1967Google Scholar); and , Hoffmann, “International Systems and International War,” in his The State of War (New York 1965), 88–122Google Scholar, and “International Relations: The Long Road to Theory,” World Politics, xi (April 1959), 346Google Scholar–77. Notable examples of systems theory are , Easton, A Framework for Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs 1965Google Scholar); and , Kaplan, System and Process in International Politics (New York 1957). For an up-to-date assessment of the state of systems theory, see Young, Oran R., Systems of Political Science (Englewood Cliffs 1968Google Scholar).

⁴ Deutsch, Karl and others, Political Community in the North Atlantic Area (Princeton 1957Google Scholar).

⁵ In particular, Ernst B. Haas, The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces, 1950–1957 (Stanford 1958), and Beyond the Nation-State: Functionalism and International Organization (Stanford 1964).

⁶ Deutsch and others, Political Community.

⁷ , Rosenau, “Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign Policy,” in Farrell, R. Barry, ed., Approaches to Comparative and International Politics (Evanston 1966), 22–92Google Scholar.

⁸ See, for example, Lindberg, Leon N., The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration (Stanford 1963Google Scholar); Nye, Joseph S. Jr., Pan-Africanism and East African Integration (Cambridge, Mass., 1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar); Scheingold, Stuart A., The Rule of Law in European Integration (New Haven 1965Google Scholar); Scheinman, Lawrence, “Some Preliminary Notes on Bureaucratic Relationships in the European Economic Community,” International Organization, xx (Autumn 1966), 750CrossRefGoogle Scholar–73; Schmitter, Philippe C., The Process of Central American Integration: Spill-Over or Spill-Around?, Monograph Series, Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley (1967Google Scholar), mimeographed.

⁹ See, for example, Ernst B. Haas and Philippe C. Schmitter, “Economics and Differential Patterns: Projections About Unity in America, Latin,” International Organization, xviii (Autumn 1964), 705Google Scholar–37.

¹⁰ See, for example, Haas and Schmitter, “Economics and Differential Patterns,” and their The Politics of Economics in Latin American Regionalism: The Latin American Free Trade Association After Four Years of Operation, University of Denver Monograph Series in World Affairs (Denver, February 1965); Mitchell, Christopher, “The Role of Technocrats in Latin American Integration,” Inter-American Economic Affairs, xxi (Summer 1967), 3–29Google Scholar; Nye, Joseph S. Jr., “Central American Regional Integration,” International ConciliationGoogle Scholar, 562 (March 1967), and his Pan-Africanism; Schmitter, The Process of Central American Integration; Wionczek, Miguel S., “The Latin American Free Trade Association,” International Conciliation, 551 (January 1965Google Scholar); and Wionczek, Miguel S, ed., Latin American Economic Integration (New York 1966Google Scholar). Though its emphasis is less theoretical, see also Dell, Sidney, Trade Blocs and Common Markets' (New York 1963Google Scholar). Some important contributions are collected in International Political Communities: An Anthology (Garden City 1966); and Nye, International Regionalism.

¹¹ Etzioni, Amitai, Political Unification: A Comparative Study of Leaders and Forces (New York 1965Google Scholar). For a framework trying to encompass a spectrum of integration covering urban, regional, national, and international integration, see Jacob, Philip E. and Toscano, James V., eds., The Integration of Political Communities (Philadelphia 1964Google Scholar).

¹² See, in particular, Haas's brilliant review of his earlier propositions in The Uniting of Europe in the light of recent work on Latin America, “The Uniting of Europe and the Uniting of Latin America,” Journal of Common Market Studies, v (June 1967),; 315–43.

¹³ Kaiser, Karl, “The U.S. and the EEC in the Atlantic System: The Problem off Theory,” Journal of Common Market Studies, vi (June 1967), 388–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ Deutsch and his associates had investigated this factor in their earlier work. Though these scholars as well as Etzioni concluded that an outside threat seems to aid integration (the Deutsch study, however, regards it as “nonessential”), we still do not know why some unions survived the initial threat while others dissolved with it. See Deutsch and others, 44–46, 123–61.

¹⁵ E.g., , Hoffmann, “Discord in Community,” and “Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-State and the Case of Western Europe,” Daedalus (Summer 1966), 862–915Google Scholar.

¹⁶ “Patterns and Catalysts in Regional Integration,” International Organization, xix (Autumn 1965), 870Google Scholar–84.

¹⁷ “Nye's own monograph on Central American integration, “Central American Regional Integration,” is a step in this direction, devoting attention to external factors. At the present state of our knowledge, however, concepts like “catalyst” are difficult to operationalize and tend to undermine the conciseness of existing theory.

¹⁸ Marshall D. Shulman, “The Communist States and Western Integration,” in Wilcox and Haviland.

¹⁹ E.g., Dell, Trade Blocs and Common Markets.

²⁰ See, for example, Beloff, Max, The United States and the Unity of Europe (London 1963Google Scholar); and van der Beugel, Ernst, From Marshall Plan to Atlantic Partnership: European Integration as a Concern of American Policy (Amsterdam 1966Google Scholar).

²¹ On this problem see the perceptive observations by Oran R. Young of the Center of International Studies, Princeton University, “The Actors in World Politics,” mimeographed. The term “transnational society” was introduced by Raymond Aron; see his Peace and War, 104.

²² Thus, the application of communication theory to political science has resulted in a number of propositions according to which processes of self-closure seem to appear more frequently than it was assumed they would ten years ago. For references, see Deutsch, Karl, The Nerves of Government, 2nd ed. (New York 1966Google Scholar), x. But these findings, as well as Gunnar Myrdal's thesis of growing international disintegration as a result of the steadily growing welfare functions of the modern state, do not necessarily disprove the postulate of increasing interdependence within the present international system. The two seemingly opposite processes may well work simultaneously on different functional levels. Myrdal elaborates his thesis in Beyond the Welfare State (New Haven 1958Google Scholar).

²³ On this point, see Zartman, I. William, “Africa as a Subordinate State System in International Relations,” International Organization, xxi (Summer 1967), 545CrossRefGoogle Scholar–64.

²⁴ Haas, Ernst B., “International Integration: The European and the Universal Process,” International Organization, xv (Summer 1961Google Scholar).

²⁵ Deutsch and others, Political Community.

²⁶ “International Federalism in Theory and Practice,” in Plischke, Elmer, ed., Systems of Integrating the International Community (Princeton 1964), 117Google Scholar–55.

²⁷ See, however, the remarks on the problematic character of this concept and it) ; usage in Kaiser, 389–404.:

²⁸ For example, Liska, George, International Equilibrium (Cambridge, Mass., 1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar); and Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics among Nations, 4th ed. (New York 1967Google Scholar).

²⁸ On this point, see Zellentin, Gerda, Die Kommunisten und die Einigung Europas (Frankfurt 1964Google Scholar). For a sound warning on the degree of interaction see Korbonski, Andrzej, “COMECON,” in International Political Communities, 351–404Google Scholar.

³⁰ See, e.g., the “Proposals for the Creation of the Latin American Common Market,” submitted to the Latin American governments in 1965 by four leading Latin American personalities, and reprinted in Journal of Common Market Studies, v (September 1966), 83–110Google Scholar.

³¹ See Dell, Sidney, A Latin American Common Market (London 1966Google Scholar); Nye, “Central American Regional Integration”; Mitchell, “The Role of Technocrats in Latin American Integration”; and Schmitter, The Process of Central American Integration.

³² Nye, “Central American Regional Integration.”

³³ Viner, Jacob, The Customs Union Issue (New York 1950Google Scholar).

³⁴ The first volume of a series of such studies has appeared: Friedrich, Carl J., ed., Politische Dimensionen der europdischen Gemeinschajtsbildung (Cologne 1968CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

³⁵ See e.g., Brams, Steven J., “Transaction Flows in the International System,” American Political Science Review , LX (December 1966), 880CrossRefGoogle Scholar–88; Russett, Bruce M., International Regions and the International System (Chicago 1967Google Scholar).

³⁶ But even a mere inventory of social transactions in transnational society is difficult since it presupposes that they lend themselves to quantification, which they rarely do. The inference of certain sociopolitical meanings from the few kinds of messages that can be measured is often problematical. For example, the number of personnel in embassies accredited to foreign countries, used by Brams, is at best an indicator of the salience of mutual relations relative to other countries; it says very little about the nature of bilateral relationship in absolute terms. Shared membership in international organizations, a second indicator used by Brams, is only marginally relevant; it reveals nothing about the most important aspect, namely, what states do inside or outside international organizations. Voting behavior in the UN , one of the areas investigated by Russett, says something about voting behavior in the U N but practically nothing about the rest of the foreign policy of a country; there is no better proof of this contention than Russett's finding that French foreign policy under the Fourth and the Fifth Republics was consistent—in the UN . Th e discovery of subsystems of U N voting blocs therefore has only limited value. But, most important, transaction flow analysis, besides registering and listing some regional phenomena on the basis of often debatable indices, has not yet made any substantial step toward the most essential process in the social sciences, namely, explanation and if-then propositions (a fact that Russett freely admits, pp. 206ff.).

³⁷ “German and European Reunification: Two Problems or One?” Survey, No. 61 (October 1966), 14–37.

³⁸ Zellentin, Gerda, “Intersystemare Beziehungen Zwischen Ostund Westeuropa,” in progress. See also Brown, J. F., The New Eastern Europe (New York 1966), 212Google Scholar–36; and Inonescu, Ghita, The Politics of East European Communist States (New York 1967), 271Google Scholar–90.

³⁹ The Process of Central American Integration, 6.

⁴⁰ See, e.g., the statements quoted in Dell, Trade Blocs and Common Markets, 160ff.

⁴¹ Cf. on this point the Latin American “Proposals for the Creation of the Latin American Common Market.”

⁴² The term was suggested by Ernst Haas in a discussion.

⁴³ On the other hand, EEC was not able to split such an intra-African grouping as the East African Common Market.

⁴⁴ On this point see the research report “Die Kommunisten und der Gemeinsame Markt,” Europa-Archiv, xxii (November 1967), 815–24; see also the sources cited in £n. 38 above.

⁴⁵ On this point see Kaser, Michael, COMECON: Integration Problems of the Planned Economies (London 1967Google Scholar); Korbonski, COMECON; Krengel, Rolf, “Die wirtschaft-lichen Integrationsbestrebungen und Integrationshindernisse im Ostblock” in Boettcher, Erik, ed., Ostblock, EWG und Entwicklungsldnder (Stuttgart 1963Google Scholar); and Pinder, John, “EEC and COMECON,” Survey, No. 58 (January 1966), 101Google Scholar–17.

⁴⁶ Herz, John H., International Politics in the Atomic Age (New York 1962Google Scholar).

⁴⁷ For two perceptive attempts to examine some of the problems involved see Horst Mendershausen, Transnational Society vs. State Sovereignty, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, March 1968, mimeo, and Raymond Vernon, “Multinational Enterprise and National Sovereignty,” Harvard Business Review, March/April 1967, 156–72.

⁴⁸ On this point see Kaiser, Karl, “Strukturwandlungen in der atlantischen Zusam-menarbeit,” Europa-Archiv, XVII (December 1962), 815Google Scholar–30; and the more recent study by Aubrey, Henry G., Atlantic Economic Cooperation: The Case of the OECD (New York 1967Google Scholar).

⁴⁹ On this point see Hoffmann, “International Relations: The Long Road to Theory,” 371.

⁵⁰ See Kaiser, “The U.S. and the EEC in the Atlantic System,” for an effort to review in systematic terms the attempts to change the structure of the European and Atlantic subsystems.

⁵¹ On this point see Cochrane, James D., “United States Attitudes Toward Central American Economic Integration,” Inter-American Economic Affairs, xviii (Autumn 1964Google Scholar); Mitchell, Christopher, “Common Market—The Future of a Commitment: Punta del Este and After,” Inter-American Economic Affairs, xxi (Winter 1967), 73–87Google Scholar; Nye, “Central American Regional Integration.”

⁵² This reluctance was also expressed in President Kennedy's offer of a “Partnership of Equals” since it de facto postponed a genuine “partnership” until the moment Europe had become an equal, which was unlikely to occur in the near future.

⁵³ On this point see Brown; Kaser; Korbonski; and Pinder.

⁵⁴ Mitchell, “Common Market.”