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.
Against world unity 169<br />
unlikely) possibility <strong>of</strong> the unity <strong>of</strong> the world. In this case, ‘[t]he victor [<strong>of</strong> the<br />
Cold War] would be the world’s sole sovereign. He would appropriate the whole<br />
earth – land, sea, and air – and would divide and manage it in accord with this<br />
plans and ideas’ (<strong>Schmitt</strong> 2003d: 354). A few lines later, <strong>Schmitt</strong> adds: ‘[g]iven<br />
the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> modern technology, the complete unity <strong>of</strong> the world appears<br />
to be a foregone conclusion’ (ibid.). But before turning to <strong>Schmitt</strong>’s analysis <strong>of</strong><br />
this issue – in the final part <strong>of</strong> this chapter – I would like to suggest a reading <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Schmitt</strong>’s three scenarios against the background <strong>of</strong> his own predictions. In the<br />
above-mentioned article on the post-Second World War world order, written in<br />
the early 1960s, <strong>Schmitt</strong> (1990) had presented a sort <strong>of</strong> linear development<br />
scheme: the first ‘monist’ phase <strong>of</strong> the Cold War, from 1942 to 1947, whose<br />
main manifestation was the creation <strong>of</strong> the United Nations based on the common<br />
perception <strong>of</strong> a coming world unity, had been followed by a ‘dualist’ phase with<br />
the emergence <strong>of</strong> the bipolar confrontation, which, because <strong>of</strong> its unstable and<br />
fragile nature, was likely to turn – this was <strong>Schmitt</strong>’s hope – into a third multipolar<br />
phase <strong>of</strong> the pluriverse <strong>of</strong> Großräume (cf. Kervégan 1999: 70; Ulmen<br />
2003: 29). In one <strong>of</strong> his last published articles in 1978, <strong>Schmitt</strong> confirmed his<br />
view, identifying two industrially developed Großräume, the US and the USSR,<br />
whose ‘internal’ political bottlenecks were overcome in the same way as in a<br />
federal state or confederation <strong>of</strong> states, and a third one in fieri, China, not yet<br />
completely capable <strong>of</strong> preventing political interventions by other powers in its<br />
greater space. In this respect, world politics had become again a world balance<br />
<strong>of</strong> power. However, the picture would have been incomplete if what was beyond<br />
the line, to use the Nomos’s wording, was missed: a sphere ‘<strong>of</strong> so called nonaligned<br />
states in which there is still a certain political freedom <strong>of</strong> movement’ but<br />
which had become an area <strong>of</strong> conflict and competition between the three recognized<br />
Großräume (1987: 80–81). <strong>The</strong>se were <strong>Schmitt</strong>’s final written explorations<br />
<strong>of</strong> the issue <strong>of</strong> a new nomos <strong>of</strong> the earth: appropriation had now become a<br />
matter <strong>of</strong> industrial development and markets (cuius industria, eius regio) –<br />
‘only a large industrial sphere allows the possibility <strong>of</strong> a Weltraumnahme<br />
(global appropriation)’ – with the main division <strong>of</strong> the earth being between<br />
industrially developed zones and less developed zones (1987: 79 and fn. 18). 3<br />
It was <strong>Schmitt</strong>’s belief that this ‘trend <strong>of</strong> supra-state spheres <strong>of</strong> industrial<br />
development has thus far not led to world political unity’ (1987: 80). Since,<br />
however, a new nomos had not yet crystallized, <strong>Schmitt</strong> was reasoning in terms<br />
<strong>of</strong> possibilities which, given his own concept <strong>of</strong> the political, could not be disciplined<br />
by and reduced to any sort <strong>of</strong> predetermined and necessary process. That<br />
is why he still kept his critical eye on world unity until the end <strong>of</strong> his life, suggesting<br />
in the same essay that:<br />
[i]t is possible to conceive <strong>of</strong> the political unity <strong>of</strong> humanity through the<br />
victory <strong>of</strong> one industrial power over the other.... This would be a planetary<br />
appropriation <strong>of</strong> industry.... <strong>The</strong> day world politics comes to the earth, it<br />
will be transformed into a world police power.<br />
(ibid.; emphasis in original; cf. Koskenniemi 2002: 419–421)