The changing face of enmity: Carl Schmitt’s international theory and the evolution of the legal concept of war

Abstract

The past few decades have witnessed a renewed interest in the work of Carl Schmitt. Scholars from various disciplines have claimed that Schmitt’s critique of universalism, together with his analysis of irregular warfare, provides useful lenses to make sense of the post 9/11 world. In this article, I will critically assess whether Schmitt’s work is indeed useful for understanding the post 9/11 world. To that end, I will concentrate on one of the core arguments put forward by Schmitt: that the laws of armed conflict are unable to regulate irregular warfare, including acts of terrorism. In order to determine the validity of Schmitt’s arguments, I will focus on one of the instruments used in contemporary counter-terrorism policies: the deliberate killing of specific individuals who are regarded as a security threat (‘targeted killing’). Based on an analysis of US and Israeli practice, the article argues that using Schmitt’s work as an analytical tool yields mixed results. While his analysis of irregular warfare remains relevant for contemporary conflicts, his denouncement of universalism blinds us to the transformational potential of international law.

Carl Schmitt and the mythological dimensions of partisan war

“…Schmitt’s interpreters have devoted a great deal of attention to his account of how states classify irregular fighters as criminals in an effort to delegitimize them (Koskeniemmi, 2002; Werner, 2010). This issue is especially prominent in appropriations that apply Theory of the Partisan to the War on Terror to theorize the Bush administration’s demonization of violent non-state actors (Griffith, 2006; Scheuerman, 2006).…”

“…First, close readings of Theory of the Partisan are primarily directed at uncovering the text’s meaning, usually with the goal of understanding it in relation to Schmitt’s other works or as a commentary on historical changes in the conduct of war (De la Grange, 2004; Gasché, 2004; Hohendahl, 2011; Hooker, 2009; Odysseos and Petito, 2008: 475; Slomp, 2005). Second, many commentators appropriate Theory of the Partisan to analyze current political issues, such as the War on Terror, the exercise of sovereign power beyond the boundaries of international law, and the actions of violent non-state actors (De Benoist, 2007; Griffith, 2006; Kochi, 2006; 2009; Koskeniemmi, 2002; Ralph, 2010; Scheuerman, 2006; Werner, 2010).…”

Targeted Killing in the History of Israel, the United States andInternational Law

“…As Wouter Werner argues, this sets Israel and the United States apart from states that are denying any involvement in targeted killing, states that are not articulating a legal justification for them or are justifying lethal force as an exceptional measure of law enforcement. 31 What makes Israel and the United States…”

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

“…The Nomos , in short, furnished the historical legitimation and accumulated intellectual resources for a sustained neo-Schmittian critique of a revitalized just war tradition, the re-moralization and juridification of international politics, and cosmopolitan humanitarian intervention (Zolo 2002; Rasch 2004; Slomp 2006; Brown 2007), total war and liberal world-ordering, and the end of interstate politics and political geography threatened by the ‘spaceless universalism’ of an Anglo-American imperialism (Žižek 1999; Stirk 2005; Shapiro 2008; Prozorov 2009; Slomp 2009). In addition, it also enabled a new reading of the return to the politics of the exception (Agamben 1998, 2005; Hardt and Negri 2000, 16–18; de Benoist 2007) and a reappraisal of the figure of the partisan, the terrorist, and new modes of irregular warfare (Behnke 2004; Mouffe 2005; Werner 2010). Finally, The Nomos set out an alternative vision of future world order in terms of a pluriverse of regions, revolving around the category of the Großraum (pan-region).…”