2015
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3140448
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

From Nomos to Hegung: Sovereignty and the Laws of War in Schmitt's International Order

Abstract: 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 … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Hence, although the European political space was divided by state borders, these entities still constituted a common order characterised by (at least theoretical) equality among its members, whereas no such equality existed in comparison with entities elsewhere (Schmitt, 2003: 52). In fact, one must generally agree with Jacques (2015) that under such circumstances, one should see nomos ‘not as a spatial or legal order but as an order of war ’ (2015: 417). The purpose here is ‘managing war in such a way as to ensure its successful co-existence with peace on the order’s inside’ (Jacques, 2015: 418).…”
Section: A Großraum-based Nomosmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Hence, although the European political space was divided by state borders, these entities still constituted a common order characterised by (at least theoretical) equality among its members, whereas no such equality existed in comparison with entities elsewhere (Schmitt, 2003: 52). In fact, one must generally agree with Jacques (2015) that under such circumstances, one should see nomos ‘not as a spatial or legal order but as an order of war ’ (2015: 417). The purpose here is ‘managing war in such a way as to ensure its successful co-existence with peace on the order’s inside’ (Jacques, 2015: 418).…”
Section: A Großraum-based Nomosmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In fact, one must generally agree with Jacques (2015) that under such circumstances, one should see nomos ‘not as a spatial or legal order but as an order of war ’ (2015: 417). The purpose here is ‘managing war in such a way as to ensure its successful co-existence with peace on the order’s inside’ (Jacques, 2015: 418). In other words, for peace, or at least limited war, to prevail among the powerful states, the tensions between them must be vented elsewhere (see also Marder, 2010: 21–22).…”
Section: A Großraum-based Nomosmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The beneficiary, that is, that which law intended to protect through the institution of war captivity, was therefore war itself and not the prisoners. The latter were merely the living proof that limited war was being conducted, their collective lives constituting the border between limited and unlimited war (Jacques, 2015).…”
Section: In German War Captivitymentioning
confidence: 99%