The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt: Terror, Liberal ...
The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt: Terror, Liberal ...
The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt: Terror, Liberal ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
fight a ‘war against terrorism’, and is it possible to construct a new world order<br />
with no common rules? If the rules apply only to one side and not the other, then<br />
the result is mutual suicide. Clearly, that is not a political alternative, but rather a<br />
renunciation <strong>of</strong> the political. <strong>Political</strong>ly speaking, the only logical policy against<br />
international terrorism, especially religious terrorism, is not ‘war’ as commonly<br />
understood, but what <strong>Schmitt</strong> called ‘pest control’, since the situation today<br />
exhibits the characteristics <strong>of</strong> what <strong>Schmitt</strong> called ‘global civil war’ (<strong>Schmitt</strong><br />
2003: 28, 305). <strong>Schmitt</strong> did not approve <strong>of</strong> either ‘pest control’ or ‘global civil<br />
war’, but he always faced squarely the ‘concrete situation’. Given the current<br />
situation, the only possible construct for a new world order at the present time is<br />
a common struggle against this new foe. But this is highly unlikely without a<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>ound understanding <strong>of</strong> the transformation <strong>of</strong> war and enmity.<br />
Notes<br />
Partisan warfare, terrorism and a new nomos 105<br />
1 For a contextualization <strong>of</strong> the core arguments <strong>of</strong> this chapter see my extensive introduction<br />
to <strong>Schmitt</strong> (2003: 9–34).<br />
2 Although unacknowledged in the issue (<strong>Schmitt</strong> 2004a), this is my translation. However,<br />
shortly before publication, there were some editorial disagreements about some passages<br />
<strong>of</strong> my translation, which were changed, so I removed my name. Indicative <strong>of</strong> the<br />
problem is that the last sentence (2004a: 78) is garbled, which is why it differs from the<br />
one quoted here. In its present state, the translation is unreliable. My corrected translation<br />
will soon be published in book form by Telos Press. In the meantime, English-speaking<br />
readers may also consult the translation available in <strong>Schmitt</strong> (2004b).<br />
3 In the introduction to <strong>Schmitt</strong> (2003), I wrote that ‘Globalization and new, larger political<br />
entities require a new political realism and a new political theory dealing with a<br />
new type <strong>of</strong> law regulating “international” relations.’ I deliberately put the word international<br />
in quotation marks, because I was looking beyond the age <strong>of</strong> nation-states.<br />
My focus was on larger political entities, which <strong>Schmitt</strong> had foreseen in his theory <strong>of</strong><br />
Grossraum. <strong>The</strong> events <strong>of</strong> 11 September 2001 caused me to reassess the political situation:<br />
see Ulmen (2001).<br />
4 Crefeld (1991) is on the right track, but he does not go far enough, even though his<br />
book on the transformation <strong>of</strong> war is touted as ‘<strong>The</strong> most radical reinterpretation <strong>of</strong><br />
armed conflict since Clausewitz’.<br />
5 Of course, here I can only indicate the scope <strong>of</strong> the problem. I intend to pursue this<br />
investigation in a monograph tentatively titled ‘<strong>The</strong> Transformation <strong>of</strong> War in the 21st<br />
Century’.<br />
6 Recognition <strong>of</strong> this fact is not an endorsement <strong>of</strong> the thesis presented by Huntington<br />
(1996), which is too simplistic and is certainly not a solution for ‘the remaking <strong>of</strong><br />
world order’.<br />
7 Recognition <strong>of</strong> this fact, however, is not a license for torture, which was <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
French policy during the Algerian war, as described in vivid detail in General Paul<br />
Aussaresses (2002). Despite abuses by the Americans and the British in Iraq, which, in<br />
my opinion, have been duly punished, torture is not <strong>of</strong>ficial American or British<br />
policy. But it is certainly necessary to treat terrorists differently than soldiers, which is<br />
why the incarcerations at Guantanamo are legitimate.<br />
8 It is significant to note that both the Hague and the Geneva conventions occurred after<br />
the collapse <strong>of</strong> the jus publicum Europaeum. See Rosenne (2001) and ‘Geneva Conventions’,<br />
in thefreedictionary.com.<br />
9 As regards the United States in particular, this is evident in two recent books with diametrically<br />
opposed positions by Sands (2006) and Yoo (2006).