Some scholars suggest that such a shift in sovereignty would more likely be some form of federalism, where “states and political units recognize the sovereignty of a central government while retaining certain powers for themselves. This is the form of government adopted in the U.S. Constitution” (Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2013, 227). Still, integration, such as that seen in the
Western European states, with their supranational institutions and the formation of an economic community, largely free trade promotion and coordinated economic policies and programs, seemed to defy the realist presumption that states would never voluntarily yield power or sovereignty, and would remain autonomous entities. But there has been push-back against this greater level of integration. Nations and peoples, along with local groups, may want more, not
less, say in their own affairs. Cultures may feel threatened with the centralization of political authority, information and privileges—they might
not wish for homogeneous or melting pot effects. Nationalism has been on the rise over the past decade throughout Europe and elsewhere. Some of this nationalism has led to dis-integration such as that which occurred after the fall of the Soviet Union, especially in the former Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union itself (leaving, technically, Russia as the remaining entity from the original Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics) There is, without question, a tension between integration, no matter at what level, and nationalism.