I am lowkey afraid International Organization got adopted already. I understand what abbreviation IO is at this point.
- 3
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I am a fan of 'association', full stop. International is too modern, interpolity or interstate a bit too academic. Organization with its z feels very modern. Association is too, but it is a bit softer and vaguer, conjuring up a broader picture. Organization in international relations immediately brings to mind the UN or IMF. And you have to accept a really broad name because IOs are very broad.
- 18
- 3
- 1
The obvious proposal being calling them 'ordo internationalis' or maybe 'multi-populus rem'
- 1
- 1
'z' simply reflects the ultimate etymological origin (Greek) of the -ize suffix, rather than the interstitial etymological origin (French), which is why the Oxford University Press insists on it in their own publications.
- 4
- 1
What do you think about Supranational entities or organizations?
Or go the obscure / mytic route and say "Higher organizations"
Or go the obscure / mytic route and say "Higher organizations"
- 6
- 1
- 1
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
- 21
How on earth are the cardinals not delegates formally representing their countries? The lone polish cardinal in a church council is likely asked to vote in line with the polish king's wishes. Many of the cardinals would be primates for their relative kingdoms
Why should one group of academics be allowed a monopoly on a term? Plastic has widlly varied definitions even within scienceI 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!
- 6
- 1
A Cardinal doesn't have a mandate over a foreign government, and neither their status and stay as cardinal in Rome is dependent on being sustained-sponsored by the far distant king. There's no guarantee that a Cardinal would like their Ruler either, and holds a lot of political power by himself.
Cardinal projecting interests of a specific group usually of their King or Duke is really different from "Delegates Formally Representing their Countries" I burst a vein in there. An American Representative be they a diplomat or etc has a specific mandate defined by contract and by law with the US government and their career was built on being a trustworthy representative voice of what the US gov tells them to vote, and has no political power at all except the specifically vote in the name of the US on that one organization
- 2
What about the word Superposed, Superposing
Superposing Organization
Superposing Association
idk
Superposing Organization
Superposing Association
idk
- 1
How do you easily tell the difference between them and sovereign holy orders.
Never heard that word before, only superimposed
Ambassadors, secretaries, and ministers can try to implement policies contrary to presidents/prime ministers, its often why they end up getting sacked. You cant defrock a cardinal if they take policies contrary to you, but you might lobby to get another bishop elected
Worse than International Organization. International Organization sounds too modern. Superposing Organization sounds too modern AND too technical. It has to be simple, even primitive word. (Stellaris) Federations are too futuristic. (Generic) Alliances and Factions already means something different, much stronger. (Victoria 3) Power Blocks are too modern, and I think too specific. Association seems to be best option, by how weak and meaningless this word is.
- 6
We already have the most generic name ever with "situation" so we can call those "structures".
- 5
- 2
- 1
- 1
did /i/ exist in PIE? I read once it only had /e/ and /o/ (along with their lengthened forms). I thought having only two vowels was pretty cool.
Just "Circle" for me personally sounds the least anachronistic while getting the main idea across.
- 2
