ABSTRACT: With the turn of the 21 st century there was an increase in the introduction of frameworks regarding the EU impact on protracted ethnic conflicts. While most of them acknowledge, directly or indirectly, the existence and importance of a high degree of securitization, the impact of the latter is not necessarily examined to the full potential. Indeed, securitization and its role in conflict environments is under-explored as a theory. What is argued in this paper is that there exists a possibility that certain institutionalized routines could potentially institutionalize (perhaps even inadvertently) securitizing acts. If this hypothesis holds, then there could be significant effect on the timing of securitizing acts, the actor and the audience and, more importantly, on the processes that render securitizing acts successful. The institutionalization of securitizing acts is an issue that the Copenhagen School has not touched upon, despite the potential effect it could have on the theory, especially the Speech Act and the development/emergence and perpetuation of the acts. I conclude that the abovementioned theoretical 'amendments' on securitization should be incorporate in the EU-conflict resolution frameworks (e.g
