Talk:Sovereignty

Red Cross - not sovereign

In the article about the IFRC ICRC it is described as association under Swiss law (eg. registered in Swiss courts register, abiding Swiss procedures for legal persons, etc.) with some special priviledges, but this does not make it sovereign (like SMOM and states) - its members only employ SOME priviledges that in general are applied to representatives of sovereign entities. In contrast to SMOM that conducts regular diplomatic relations with the sovereign states, on equal footing, etc.

I think that we should better describe the IFRC ICRC status, but in any case the current line "Another case of sovereign non-state entitiy is the Red Cross" is wrong. Alinor (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The IFRC is not soveriegn the ICRC is, they are two entirely different organizations under international law. In what way is the ICRC not soveriegn, it has diplomatic relations with other states and is treated like a peer by states in international law.XavierGreen (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

IFRC above was a typo, it should read ICRC (the private swiss association), not IFRC (the international federation of national societies) - as corrected. Both are not sovereign. Both doesn't have diplomatic relations with states and are not treated as peers by states. The ICRC is a private association registered in Switzerland (unlike SMOM which is a subject of international law in its own right, on par with Switzerland and other states). It only enjoys some special priviledges given to it by Switzerland and maybe other states and is tasked with some responsibilities by the Geneva conventions. And just saying....this article sux Alinor (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

States' rights and the Civil War

The existing language made it appear as if the South seceded over the abstract ideal of states' rights. In fact, both sides were more concerned with the actual effects of policy on slavery rather than the principle of states' right. I added material that shows that on slavery in the territories and fugitive slave laws it was the North rather than the South that used state sovereignty arguments.

I also replaced the generic phrase "sectional tensions" to describe exactly what the primary source of those tensions were -- the refusal of the South to accept the results of a national election. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The section/article are about federal sovereignty vs. that of a state/republic in a federation. The American Civil War example is given in this section as a reference to a time when a clash over these kinds of sovereignty issues led to war. The mention of slavery was initially removed because it is irrelevant to the topic of state vs. federal sovereignty. It was put back in by North Shoreman to add historical context. It has not been removed. However, I think it is important to keep in mind that the article is generally about sovereignty, not slavery, and the relevance of the USA/CSA example is the sovereignty question, not the slavery question. I don't feel it is necessary to have a discussion of the intricacies of American slave law in this particular section/article.

The citation added by North Shoreman has been retained, although the text of the paragraph has been changed. The changes do not alter the information cited. 131.137.245.209 (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Scott

The material you deleted is not, as you claim, about "the intricacies of American slave law." The concept of popular sovereignty is exactly on point to the issue of where sovereignty lies -- one side (northern Democrats) said it relied with the individual residents of a territory while the other side (both the Republicans and Southerners) defined it as a federal issue (although they disagreed on how the federal government should exercise its power). The exact same issue exists regarding personal liberty laws -- do states or the federal government determine the proper procedures for returning slaves.

Without this clarification, the section suggests that one side held one position on state sovereignty while the other held an opposite position. In fact both sides, depending on political expediency, were comfortable arguing from either position. As a compromise, I am adding a sentence that clarifies this shifting position. (I also took the liberty of indenting your comments for better readability.)Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)