The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Beginning from an analysis of nomos, the ordering function of the presocratic concept moira is explored. It is argued that the process of Hegung, like moira, does not just achieve the containment of war, but constitutes the condition of possibility for plural order.Keywords: Carl Schmitt, nomos, moira, Hegung, hedge, recognition, sovereignty, laws of war, international order THE QUESTION OF SOVEREIGNTYSchmitt's definition of national sovereignty is well known: In relation to a unified order such as the state, Schmitt locates sovereignty in the role of a decision maker who is able to decide when to declare a state of exception and whom to identify as the state's friends and enemies. In relation to a plural or international order, however, the location of this 'we', this self-reflexive, boundary-drawing element of order that Schmitt calls However, this did not mean that the decision had now become redundant for Schmitt. Rather than seeing the turn from the decision to concrete order as a turn away from the decision, one should see it as a shift in emphasis from the decision itself to its legitimacy, which Schmitt now located in concrete order. While this emphasis may have been new, the concern with legitimacy was not. As Zarmanian points out, even in his purely decisionistic days Schmitt had not been a formalist. Only if the decision correlated with the underlying order could it produce stability, and was thus legitimate: 'The ability of a decision to produce legal order does not depend on its content or form; rather, the rightness of the content and the form of the decision are deduced from their ability to produce a legal order '. 20 There is hence little evidence to suggest that Schmitt thought that an order could function without a decisional element merely because its nature was determined by concrete order. On the contrary, Schmitt warned that the pluralism associated with an order based on social institutions 21 needed to be tempered with the unifying actions of a 20 Zarmanian, n 2 above, 50. There are, however, two problems with this reading. The first is that Vismann's notion of 'filling in' presumes precisely that which Schmitt rejects, namely space as a universal form of cognition, abstract and empty space waiting to be filled in. For Schmitt, space does not pre-exist the action that establishes its structure. Arbeiten aus den Jahren 1916-1969 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1995 Schmitt thus questions the distinction between nomos (as physis) and law (as logos), a distinction...

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Beginning from an analysis of nomos, the ordering function of the presocratic concept moira is explored. It is argued that the process of Hegung, like moira, does not just achieve the containment of war, but constitutes the condition of possibility for plural order.Keywords: Carl Schmitt, nomos, moira, Hegung, hedge, recognition, sovereignty, laws of war, international order THE QUESTION OF SOVEREIGNTYSchmitt's definition of national sovereignty is well known: In relation to a unified order such as the state, Schmitt locates sovereignty in the role of a decision maker who is able to decide when to declare a state of exception and whom to identify as the state's friends and enemies. In relation to a plural or international order, however, the location of this 'we', this self-reflexive, boundary-drawing element of order that Schmitt calls However, this did not mean that the decision had now become redundant for Schmitt. Rather than seeing the turn from the decision to concrete order as a turn away from the decision, one should see it as a shift in emphasis from the decision itself to its legitimacy, which Schmitt now located in concrete order. While this emphasis may have been new, the concern with legitimacy was not. As Zarmanian points out, even in his purely decisionistic days Schmitt had not been a formalist. Only if the decision correlated with the underlying order could it produce stability, and was thus legitimate: 'The ability of a decision to produce legal order does not depend on its content or form; rather, the rightness of the content and the form of the decision are deduced from their ability to produce a legal order '. 20 There is hence little evidence to suggest that Schmitt thought that an order could function without a decisional element merely because its nature was determined by concrete order. On the contrary, Schmitt warned that the pluralism associated with an order based on social institutions 21 needed to be tempered with the unifying actions of a 20 Zarmanian, n 2 above, 50. There are, however, two problems with this reading. The first is that Vismann's notion of 'filling in' presumes precisely that which Schmitt rejects, namely space as a universal form of cognition, abstract and empty space waiting to be filled in. For Schmitt, space does not pre-exist the action that establishes its structure. Arbeiten aus den Jahren 1916-1969 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1995 Schmitt thus questions the distinction between nomos (as physis) and law (as logos), a distinction...

Within a liberal, 'law of things' understanding of property, the donative trust is seen as a species of gift. Control over trust property passes from the hands of settlors to beneficiaries, from owners to owners. Trust property, like all other property, is silent and passive, its fate determined by its owners. This article questions this understanding of the trust by showing how beneath the facade of ownership, the trust inverts the relation between owner and owned, person and thing. It analyses the relation that trustees, beneficiaries and settlors have to the trust property and argues that the role of each of these parties can be shown to consist in furthering the interests of the trust property rather than their own. It claims that this protects things from their owners at the same time as it ensures these owners' ongoing care towards the things they own. This raises questions about the trust's status within the institution of private property, justified as it is by the human autonomy it is said to enable.

During the Second World War, more than 60,000 Jewish members of the American, British and French armed forces became prisoners of war in Germany. Against all expectations, these prisoners were treated in accordance with the 1929 Geneva Convention, and the majority made it home alive. This article seeks to explain this most astonishing circumstance. It begins by collating the references to the experiences of Western Jewish POWs from the historical literature to provide a hitherto-unseen overview of their treatment in captivity. It then asks what made their protection from persecution possible. To this end, it explores Germany’s wider motivations for its selective application of the Geneva Convention and highlights the role that military identity played in making its application seem necessary for all POWs from the Western front, including Jewish POWs.

No abstract