The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt: Terror, Liberal ...

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