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.
Introduction 9<br />
which is a far cry from the one common in the discipline <strong>of</strong> <strong>International</strong> Relations.<br />
Below, we summarise the volume’s evaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Schmitt</strong>’s account <strong>of</strong> the<br />
nomos <strong>of</strong> the earth, and his heterodox international thought more broadly, highlighting<br />
the contributions it makes to theorisations and understandings <strong>of</strong> international<br />
relations and world order. We focus, first, on Part I <strong>of</strong> the book, entitled<br />
‘<strong>Carl</strong> <strong>Schmitt</strong>’s heterodox international thought’, discussing the institutionalist<br />
and geopolitical dimensions <strong>of</strong> his international thought and, second, on Part IV<br />
entitled ‘Critical rereadings <strong>of</strong> <strong>Carl</strong> <strong>Schmitt</strong>’s international thought’, evaluating<br />
the metaphysical structure, mythopoetic characteristics and ‘ethical’ particularities<br />
<strong>of</strong> his approach.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Nomos <strong>of</strong> the earth and beyond: the ‘realist institutionalist’ and<br />
geopolitical aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>Schmitt</strong>’s thought<br />
<strong>The</strong> achievements <strong>of</strong> the global order, which <strong>Schmitt</strong> called the nomos <strong>of</strong> the<br />
earth, all relate, in some sense, to the evolution and rise to dominance <strong>of</strong> the<br />
modern state in European and world political life. In particular, <strong>Schmitt</strong> recognises<br />
that the construction <strong>of</strong> the concept <strong>of</strong> the modern state was essential to the<br />
bracketing <strong>of</strong> war. He interestingly notes, in fact, that ‘all definitions that glorify<br />
the state, and today no longer generally are understood, hark back to this great<br />
accomplishment, whether or not they later were misused and now appear to have<br />
been displaced’ (ibid.: 142). Indeed, for <strong>Schmitt</strong>, the state was the focal point <strong>of</strong><br />
the institutional basis <strong>of</strong> the Westphalian order, a dimension <strong>of</strong>ten missed in<br />
mainstream accounts <strong>of</strong> <strong>International</strong> Relations, be they realist or liberal, as<br />
Alessandro Colombo explores in depth in Chapter 1.<br />
While classical realist and neo-realist accounts recognise the importance <strong>of</strong><br />
the state for Westphalia, they have historically maintained that this centrality <strong>of</strong><br />
the state negates any ‘thick’ institutionalist understandings <strong>of</strong> international politics.<br />
It has been incumbent on liberal institutionalist accounts to call for an<br />
examination <strong>of</strong> the initially precarious, though increasingly significant, institutional<br />
developments <strong>of</strong> international politics. <strong>Schmitt</strong>’s heterodox account <strong>of</strong> the<br />
historical conditions leading to the development <strong>of</strong> the modern international<br />
system, on the contrary, challenges both liberal and realist perspectives as<br />
having failed to consider that the state, in the words <strong>of</strong> Colombo, is the adequate<br />
bearer <strong>of</strong> the European order, the chief institutional component <strong>of</strong> Westphalia.<br />
Colombo criticises both realists and liberals for ignoring ‘the search for the concrete<br />
meaning <strong>of</strong> institutions’ in the densely institutional character <strong>of</strong> Westphalia<br />
and suggests that <strong>Schmitt</strong>ian international thought ‘reveals not a history <strong>of</strong><br />
power politics, but, basically, one <strong>of</strong> institutions’ which nevertheless ensures a<br />
proper consideration <strong>of</strong> geopolitical and power factors. For Colombo, ‘the jus<br />
publicum Europaeum is a monument to the impact <strong>of</strong> institutions on international<br />
life’ and this also explains why <strong>Schmitt</strong>’s image <strong>of</strong> history rejects the<br />
progressive and optimistic perspective <strong>of</strong> contemporary institutionalism.<br />
In Chapter 3 Chris Brown, in a dialectical move, <strong>of</strong>fers a contraposition to<br />
Colombo’s assessment by de facto opposing <strong>Schmitt</strong>’s ‘reversed image <strong>of</strong>