In the Preussen contra Reich case of 1932, Carl Schmitt’s theories on equal chance and law in extreme conditions are interpreted and applied in a court of law, firstly by Schmitt himself, then, going contrary to Schmitt’s interpretation, by Dr. Arnold Brecht and Dr. Hans Peters. This paper will first present the basis of the two theories from Schmitt’s “Legality and Legitimacy,” namely, equal chance and the need for extraordinary measures. Then this paper will focus on the diverging legal interpretations (...) of these two theories, as presented in court by different legal theorists. These divergent interpretations of “equal chance” and “law in extreme conditions,” as presented in the aforementioned case, have yet to reach an international readership, as the case itself has never been fully translated into English. Finally, this paper will question the practical application of the two theories in the reality of the empirical world, which in turn question the relationship between any parliamentary legislative system and law. (shrink)

En el presente trabajo examinaremos la relevancia de la categoría de decisión en el surgimiento del pensamiento impolítico contemporáneo en Italia. Con este objetivo, buscaremos elaborar una exégesis del rol de dicha noción en los desarrollos de Massimo Cacciari de finales de la década de 1970. Nuestro punto de partida se encontrará en su lectura nietzscheana sobre el diagnóstico de crisis de las categorías metafísicas y políticas tradicionales. Tal interpretación nos conducirá a estudiar su análisis de la soberanía desde una (...) “concepción criatural” del orden político. En este sentido, sostendremos que la crítica que Cacciari realiza al concepto de decisión no sólo vertebra desde sus inicios al horizonte impolítico, sino que también nos permite comprender los alcances filosóficos de su perspectiva. (shrink)

This article problematizes the recent comeback of the exceptionalist jargon as it is conjured by both critics and sympathizers. While in the last decades governments across the globe had recourse to emergency measures to cope with far-reaching emergencies, from terrorism to the COVID-19 pandemic, the received view has it that political power takes advantage of states of emergency as they put themselves in the position to circumvent constitutional limitations. Carl Schmitt is claimed to be the major advocate of this conception (...) of emergency politics in that he elaborated on the concept of the state of exception as the heart of the state political power. This article contends that the received view is doubly wrong. First, soon after his espousal of exceptionalism, Schmitt realized that emergency legislation is an ineffective and costly governmental device that should be transitory and is as unstable as the crisis it is meant to overcome. Second, the received view neglects how Schmitt came to his model of ultraconservative substantive constitutionalism as he maintained that the main task of politics is to protect the normative life of a limited set of state-sponsored institutions as well as the substantive contents they produce. (shrink)

Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2020, Page 114-130.