Fatal attraction: a critique of Carl Schmitt's international political and legal theory

Abstract

The ongoing Schmitt revival has extended Carl Schmitt's reach over the fields of international legal and political theory. Neo-Schmittians suggest that his international thought provides a new reading of the history of international law and order, which validates the explanatory power of his theoretical premises – the concept of the political, political decisionism, and concrete-order-thinking. Against this background, this article mounts a systematic reappraisal of Schmitt's international thought in a historical perspective. The argument is that his work requires re-contextualization as the intellectual product of an ultra-intense moment in Schmitt's friend/enemy distinction. It inscribed Hitler's ‘spatial revolution’ into a full-scale reinterpretation of Europe's geopolitical history, grounded in land appropriations, which legitimized Nazi Germany's wars of conquest. Consequently, Schmitt's elevation of the early modern nomos as the model for civilized warfare – the ‘golden age’ of international law – against which American legal universalism can be portrayed as degenerated, is conceptually and empirically flawed. Schmitt devised a politically motivated set of theoretical premises to provide a historical counter-narrative against liberal normativism, which generated defective history. The reconstruction of this history reveals the explanatory limits of his theoretical vocabulary – friend/enemy binary, sovereignty-as-exception, nomos/universalism – for past and present analytical purposes. Schmitt's defective analytics and problematic history compromise the standing of his work for purposes of international theory.

Carl Schmitt's postcolonial imagination

“…They are not even acknowledged as passive bearers and victims of the incoming Spaniards and Portuguese, but nullified and written out of history. (Teschke, 2011a(Teschke, , p. 8, 2011b. See also Levinson, 2005, p. 16).…”

“…44For a rejection of Schmitt's history and theory of international law that reduces his work to all the above‐mentioned elements, see Teschke (, pp. 179–227; , p. 76; , pp.…”

The Concept of Sovereignty in Contemporary Continental Political Philosophy

“…Specifically, a certain strand of contemporary continental political philosophy seeks to mobilize for a critique of imperial universalism, humanitarian intervention and the normalization of emergency legislation. While some commentators have cautioned against an appropriation of Schmitt for critical political theory (Scheuerman 2006b, Teschke 2011, some scholars have suggested including Schmitt in the canon of political philosophy (Odysseos andPetito 2007, Hooker 2009). 2 The point of contention in these debates is Schmitt's fierce defense of sovereignty as the only remedy against the ills of liberalism.…”

“…6 6 For critical evaluations of neo‐Schmittian political theory see also Paul Muldoon (2008); Benno Teschke (2011). …”

Russia and Carl Schmitt: the hybridity of resistance in the globalised world

“…Mainly because of his support of the Nazi party and antiSemitism, the twentieth century witnessed Schmitt's work being largely neglected by scholars of global governance. Nonetheless, the revival of Schmittian scholarship in the last two decades suggests that the full potential of his ideas is yet to be discovered (Dyrberg, 2009;Teschke, 2011). Like the modern dissident state, Schmitt experienced Western governance from the receiving end -both in the case of his year-long internment by the American forces for participation in the Nazi "conspiracy to wage aggressive war" and in the wider post-war context of West Germany (Drolet, forthcoming).…”