Talk:Sovereign immunity

message: The passage from Pope Gelasius appears totally irrelevant to me - it is plainly about the submission of the crown authority to that of the Church. There is no mention of immunity, sovereign or otherwise, explicit or implied.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.5.185 (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Middle Ages

message: user:24.211.157.189 added an observation that "[m]any cities continue to cite sovereign immunity in cases where city officials partake in negligent acts causing damage to citizens." But the Supreme Court has held -- as this article acknowledges -- that only states and their arms can claim sovereign immunity. See Jinks v. Richland County, 538 U.S. 456 (2003); Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 401 (1977) ("the Court has consistently refused to construe the [Eleventh] Amendment to afford protection to political subdivisions such as counties and municipalities, even though such entities exercise a "slice of state power"). 
Of course, there is a manifest difference between saying that the Supreme Court does not recognize sovereign immunity claims by municipalities, on the one hand, and on the other, denying user:24.211.157.189's assertion that municipalities continue to cite it (no matter how futilely) as a defense. However, assertions in wikipedia should cite sources when it is "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged," and is "especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue" (any text under the heading "Critique of sovereign immunity" is per se within the latter category), see ; surely this incumbency applies a fortiori when the assertion in question has been specifically refjected, time and time again, by the Supreme Court of the United States. 
For the foregoing reasons, I have reverted user:24.211.157.189's edit without prejudice, and note that if the assertion is replaced, it should be supported by either primary source examples, or secondary sources citing specific examples.  Simon Dodd 14:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Critique section: cities claiming immunity

message: Dear fellow editors: The following verbiage was inserted by an anonymous user on 20 October 2006:
::Supreme Court cases involving soverign [sic; sovereign] immunity have often been among the most devisive [sic; divisive], in many instances decided by a 5-4 vote.  Ironically, it is the conservative wing of the court that has fought to maintain and even strengthen a state's immunity from suit in federal court or pursuant to federal law.  Given that the Eleventh Amendment on its face does not prohibit these suits against a state by one of its own citizens, it is strange that the very justices who espouse the "original intent" of the Framers would read such a broad meaning into the Eleventh Amendment. 
The phrase "among the most devisive" is non-neutral point of view and possibly unverifiable for purposes of Wikipedia. The phrase "in many instances decided by a 5-4 vote" may well be correct, but we would need some examples (actual citations). A sentence beginning with the word "Ironically" is probably, for purposes of Wikipedia, non-neutral point of view. Same for the clause beginning with "it is strange that". Anyone have any additional ideas on this passage? I didn't want to just delete it without saying why. Yours, Famspear 21:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Material under "Critique"

message: Foreign sovereigns (=foreign states), under international law, and subject to some conditions, are immune from legal proceedings in another state. As far as I know, this stems from customary international law, I don't know if it is codified anywhere. The US, e.g., recognize this concept under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. --JensMueller (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immunity of foreign sovereign states. 

message: Much better than merger, I would say the following steps would be more advised:
1. Rename State immunity as [Sovereign Immunity (International Law)].
2. Rename Sovereign Immunity as [Sovereign Immunity (Municipal Law)].
3. Disambiguate "Sovereign Immunity" between the two above.
4. Redirect State immunity to the new Disambiguation page per 3.
The reason/s:
The genesis of the doctrines is common; but the principles, development and application are distinct; and in International Law its application is more universal - as a reading together of both articles as standing at present will also show.
The more commonly used term in case of both branches of the doctrine is "Sovereign" and the term "State" is used, if at all, in respect to the doctrine as applicable to a State within itself.
Thus, a State may be immune from process within its own (municipal/territorial) limits by reason of the doctrine if (and as) applicable according to its own (municipal/domestic) law; but a Sovereign State is immune from process in any other "Sovereign State" pursuant to international law, as limited by any relevant law of that other Sovereign.
VivekM (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not really proposing a merger then, just renaming the two articles. A quick search in Google reveals that a search for "state immunity" is likely to produce results relating to international law, whilst "sovereign immunity" is likely to produce results relating to municipal law. On that basis I'd oppose renaming the articles and suggest using hatnotes on each article as appropriate. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 13:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, Thanks. That does the job nicely. And then perhaps the WikiProjects:International Relations box should move to the State Immunity article. Meanwhile, I'm removing the merger proposal box from both articles. VivekM (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

text:  The difference between the two is really murky at best as they're written now.  Here's a description from one article: "It is a principle of international law which exempts a sovereign state from the jurisdiction of foreign national courts."  And the other: "The rules developed at a time when it was thought to be an infringement of a state's sovereignty to bring proceedings against it or its officials in a foreign country."  They sound the same, and I suspect that at least one of the articles is incorrect or misleading. Nasch (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge this article with [[State immunity]] 

message: I don't know anything about this subject, but shouldn't there be some mention in this article about the ICC's jurisdiction over certain crimes committed by heads of state and others that formerly had sovereign immunity?  It seems to me one of the more hopeful things in recent world history is the establishment of the ICC to hold members of governments individually accountable for the horrible crimes they commit, for which there was formerly no avenue to prosecute them due to sovereign immunity.  --ChetvornoTALK 11:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about International Criminal Court? 

message: Doesn't the Civil Rights Act of 1964 give people the right to sue the federal and state governments for discrimination? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if a private right to sue exists in Title III (public facilities) or Title IV (public education), but Title VI of the Civil Rights Act allows people to sue recipients of federal funds that discriminate, including state governments (presumably because by accepting federal funds that are conditioned on nondiscrimination, the state waives its sovereign immunity). But either way, Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity when enforcing the Reconstruction Amendments, and it did so when it enacted , which allows people to sue states for violating federal constitutional or statutory rights. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil rights laws in the USA 

message: Just to let everyone know, I edited the small section of Malaysia by adding a citation and rewording the last sentence. This section was previously lacking a source so after conducting some research, I found a reliable article that backed up the previously unsupported sentences. I also rewrote the last sentence because it mirrored one of the sentences from the source I found too closely. Hopefully, the changes I made make sense and add to the discussion in some way. If they don't, though, please feel free to change them!--NoFace23 (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating Malaysia section