Please change the name of "international organizations" to literally anything else

[Morboth]

For those of us who have studied IR seeing "international organizations" used to cover factions as dissimilar as the HRE, the Papacy or the Guelph and Ghibellines is nothing short of heresy. International organizations do not formally exist until the 19th Century and do not see their heyday until the 20th Century.

Ideas that come to mind:

- International factions.
- International groupings.
- International leagues.

I will literally take almost anything over international organizations, thus any suggestions and inputs would be greatly appreciated!

 

[DukeLeto42]

Those terms are less meaningful, and less accurate, than International Organizations.

Also, unless there's a deeply technical definition for it, whoever said international organizations don't exist prior to the 19th century should be forced to sit in on 100-level pre-modern history classes until they stop.

 

[Arizal]

A few days ago, there was the option of Political Structure, that seems to have had the backing of some people. I disagree with the use of "international", since it relates to "nations", a polity that wasn't accurate to represent countries depicted in the game. And simply organizations is too generic.

 

[Morboth]

Those terms are less meaningful, and less accurate, than International Organizations.

Also, unless there's a deeply technical definition for it, whoever said international organizations don't exist prior to the 19th century should be forced to sit in on 100-level pre-modern history classes until they stop.

Such a claim runs counter to established literature in IR and much more so in Law. International Organizations as such are a sui generis phenomenon that cannot be construed to have existed previous to the Commision of the Danube River.

Moreover, claiming that anyone claiming anything counter to your argument should sit in on "100-level pre-modern history classes until they stop" borders on the pedantic and cannot possibly come from someone with a modicum of knowledge of IR (unless you happen to contest such a well-established narrative, in which case you ought to make a dissertation out of it!).

A few days ago, there was the option of Political Structure, that seems to have had the backing of some people. I disagree with the use of "international", since it relates to "nations", a polity that wasn't accurate to represent countries depicted in the game. And simply organizations is too generic.

That'd be nice and something I could get behind!

 

[Fatherlorris]

I will once again cast my vote for literally anything, so long as it's in Latin.

 

[DukeLeto42]

Such a claim runs counter to established literature in IR and much more so in Law. International Organizations as such are a sui generis phenomenon that cannot be construed to have existed previous to the Commision of the Danube River.

Moreover, claiming that anyone claiming anything counter to your argument should sit in on "100-level pre-modern history classes until they stop" borders on the pedantic and cannot possibly come from someone with a modicum of knowledge of IR (unless you happen to contest such a well-established narrative, in which case you ought to make a dissertation out of it!).

Nah, it's not pedantry, it's just a medievalist real tired of hearing people who don't actually deal with anything outside the modern world announcing how their phenomenon is oh so special and unique and the first time in history despite there being examples going back millennia.

I remind you that at no point do you explain why the Papacy isn't an international organization.

 

[Draky]

I'd argue they should call them institutions, and rename whatever ist he equiualent of the eu4 institutions to something else.

Believe it or not, but the printing press, shockingly, was NOT an institution. Neither was the enlightement to that matter

 

[Morboth]

Nah, it's not pedantry, it's just a medievalist real tired of hearing people who don't actually deal with anything outside the modern world announcing how their phenomenon is oh so special and unique and the first time in history despite there being examples going back millennia.

I remind you that at no point do you explain why the Papacy isn't an international organization.

Problem is that International Organizations as such are defined in a myriad of law texts and peer-reviewed journals both in IR and Law studies which explicitly state that these are supposed to be made up of states, hence their name (inter-national, between nations). The Papacy is not made up of nations; it does not have delegates from countries formally representing said countries in its internal framework. Rather, it is much more akin to a forum if you will, where private citizens (who may or may not have backing from powerful factions) seek to steer the course of that forum's particular area of interest.

I understand your qualm with modernists, but as someone who has been teaching History of International Relations for 8 years I cannot help but take issue with having "international organizations" simply disregarded as some modernist mumbo jumbo. Note that even though since I finished my Master's in IR I have mostly dealt with said discipline when carrying out research, before that I did a Master's in History, so I can understand the feeling of political scientists and IR scholars monopolising some scholarly debates, even if I do not exercise the historian's trade nowadays.

Note, finally, that in my first post I said "International organizations do not formally exist until the 19th Century"; I am fully aware that we can discuss the semantics of international organizations informally existing before the 19th Century, but ultimately this falls within the parameters of contestative narratives. International organizations formally emerge in the 19th Century.

Still, I meant the bit saying that your claim would warrant a dissertation. I, for one, would very much like to read at the very least a good paper on the subject!

 

[prismaticmarcus]

It's worth remembering that this is a game, not a history textbook.

But is the label 'International Organisation' diegetic? If so, I'm sure the hivemind can think of something better. If not, it doesn't matter IMHO.

 

[endersaim]

I will once again cast my vote for literally anything, so long as it's in Latin.

Gentium Coetus

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

It's worth remembering that this is a game, not a history textbook.

But is the label 'International Organisation' diegetic? If so, I'm sure the hivemind can think of something better. If not, it doesn't matter IMHO.

There was a thread about this when they revealed the name. Johan said he wrote down some of the suggestions for internal discussion if I am not mistaken.

 

[Nwaij]

Supranational Organisations.

International, by its very definition, means involving more than one country.
Supranational, by its very definition, means involving more than one country, or having power or authority that is greater than that of single countries.

I am of the oppinion that the second half of "supranational" is a pretty accurate description of a great many of the example IOs we have seen so far:

• The catholic church wielded quite a lot of influence in europe, far more than any single country.
• The HRE as a whole is a LOT more powerful than any individual prince (on the off chance that they can actually agree on anything. Fat chance...)
• Crusades, Jihads and coalitions and the like...

 

[Eraneir]

There was a thread about this when they revealed the name. Johan said he wrote down some of the suggestions for internal discussion if I am not mistaken.

what international organisation should be named

You'll find also some on the TT about Internation Organization. Someone proposed "Associations" here, it catched the eye of Johan and I like it's simplicity.

 

[Ekyman]

Such a claim runs counter to established literature in IR and much more so in Law.

Problem is that International Organizations as such are defined in a myriad of law texts and peer-reviewed journals both in IR and Law studies which explicitly state that these are supposed to be made up of states,

Specific academic disciplines do not have monopolies on the definition of phrases they happen to like to use. To say that International Organizations "cannot be construed to have existed" before some highly specific commission is an eyeroll-inducing claim when we're discussing a game that is not publishing its mechanics in an International Relations journal and whose role in naming those mechanics is to clearly impart to its playerbase, most of whom do not read IR journals, what those mechanics represent. It's not that the phrase is "modernist mumbo-jumbo" that's the problem, it's the assertion that the modern IR definition is the only real definition and that any definitions used by other disciplines or the general public must bend to the practice of IR.

 

[Morboth]

Supranational Organisations.

International, by its very definition, means involving more than one country.
Supranational, by its very definition, means involving more than one country, or having power or authority that is greater than that of single countries.

I am of the oppinion that the second half of "supranational" is a pretty accurate description of a great many of the example IOs we have seen so far:

• The catholic church wielded quite a lot of influence in europe, far more than any single country.
• The HRE as a whole is a LOT more powerful than any individual prince (on the off chance that they can actually agree on anything. Fat chance...)
• Crusades, Jihads and coalitions and the like...

I must confess that I myself have thought from time to time that the HRE (at least, as depicted in EU IV) does bear a striking similarity in its workings to, say, modern supranational organisations such as the EU.

The problem, ontological as it may be, is that neither the HRE nor the Curia can be construed to be supranational organisations, much like religion cannot be understood to be ideology (at least not in EU's timeframe); it is anacronistic.

If anything, supranational organisations are still international organisations which have trascended the horizontal intergovernmental stage and advanced to a more cohesive, vertical supranational stage.

But let us be clear, these are scholarly distinctions. Supranational organisations as such do not exist. They are extremely integrated international organisations. No more, no less.

 

[Vispian]

who gives a fck honestly (someone who has degrees in Pol Sci and Early Modern Hist), there isnt really a better term that isnt something so anachronistic and academic that only people who studied this academically will care and recognise.

IOs get across the simple fact these are organisations that are international and help demonstrate relations between groups of nations. Whether you want to argue that states in the 1300s were nations or not is irrelevant as this game is literally about the birth of a nation state from feudal holdings to imperial empires of the 18th and maybe 19th centuries. It doesnt matter what us nerds think, the name is simple and to the point. Also if it bugs you so much, go mod it and change the name lol

 

[alexkowal123]

Supranational Organisations.

International, by its very definition, means involving more than one country.
Supranational, by its very definition, means involving more than one country, or having power or authority that is greater than that of single countries.

I am of the oppinion that the second half of "supranational" is a pretty accurate description of a great many of the example IOs we have seen so far:

• The catholic church wielded quite a lot of influence in europe, far more than any single country.
• The HRE as a whole is a LOT more powerful than any individual prince (on the off chance that they can actually agree on anything. Fat chance...)
• Crusades, Jihads and coalitions and the like...

Supranational means an entity above the parameter of national, but I completely agree, international makes me think of the UN and international law

 

[Lord Lambert]

Yeah there was a bit of a pushback against the "International" part of the name, as "national" wasnt really a concept at the start of the game.. I wonder if your complaint is similar....

- International factions.
- International groupings.
- International leagues.

huh... guess not...

Either way, Johan did show some like towards the name association;

Thats not a bad name.

"The Catholic Church is an association"

 

[Briloner]

ok, tongue- in-cheek:

* MP - multi-pole

* PP - poly-pole

* TTT - tag-transaction-tag

* TTS - tag-transaction-"smurf" - with smurf to be replaced later

* rag - relationship & association group

* trap - transaction & relationship association protocol

 

[Karalis123]

I think just "Organizations" would sound less technical and "modern" while mantaining almost the same core meaning (just a little bit more vague, which is good in this case).