This paper proposes a critical analysis of the essential criteria to define the concept of the political as presented by German jurist and philosopher, Carl Schmitt. Based on the essence of the political -i.e. the friend-enemy duality-, the objective is to explore the practical implications resulting from the actual possibilities of confrontation, the key scope being the analysis of a totalitarian potential from a Schmittian´s perspective. In Schmitt´s thought, this distinction is the fundamental reason for the definition of the political. (...) Not every opponent is necessarily the enemy --the other one, the unknown- and likely to be physically destroyed and exterminated but only a public enemy (hostis). Given its indeterminate nature, the enemy may be prescribed according to the sovereign design or, in the context of Nazi Germany where Carl Schmitt lived, in accordance with the President of the Reich´s designs. A hypothetical-deductive methodology is used in this work based on bibliographical research, in particular regarding Carl Schmitt´s theoretical constructions. (shrink)

The paper addresses Giorgio Agamben’s affirmation of post-sovereign politics by analyzing his critical engagement with the Hobbesian problematic of the state of nature. Radicalizing Carl Schmitt’s criticism of Hobbes, Agamben deconstructs the distinction between the state of nature and the civil order of the Commonwealth by demonstrating the ‘inclusive exclusion’ of the former within the latter in the manner of the state of exception, which functions as a negative foundation of any positive order. Since the state of nature is no (...) longer cast as spatially external and temporally antecedent to the former, it cannot be escaped by the perfection of the legal order, nor can it itself be posited in an essentialist manner as a pre-political site uncontaminated by sovereign violence. While denying any way out of the state of exception, Agamben nonetheless argues for the possibility of its appropriation in the way that dissociates anomie from the locus of sovereignty and reclaims it as an attribute of free social praxis. The paper analyzes three central features of this ‘post-sovereign’ politics and concludes with a discussion of the differences between Schmitt and Agamben with regard to the fate of Hobbes ’s Leviathan in late modern politics. (shrink)

En el presente trabajo pretendo mostrar que el pensamiento de Carl Schmitt tiene un carácter marcadamente filosófico. Más precisamente: que en la base de él se halla una teoría de la comprensión. Esa teoría de la comprensión tiene la particularidad de que se desarrolla a partir de una teoría de la comprensión jurídica, pero se extiende, en su obra, a la comprensión en general.

Tärkeä ulottuvuus modernissa tavassa ajatella politiikkaa on erottelu politiikan ja talouden välillä. Tässä artikkelissa käsittelen tätä erottelua konservatiivisen oikeustieteilijä Carl Schmittin poliittisessa teoriassa ja varsinkin hänen talousliberalismin kritiikissään. Liberalismi rajasi Schmittin mukaan talouden omaksi autonomiseksi alueekseen pyrkimällä rajaamaan valtiovallan oikeutta vaikuttaa siihen. Tämä kuitenkin johti hänen mielestään poliittisen siirtymiseen valtiolta talouteen, eli taloudellisten suhteiden politisointiin. Artikkelini analysoi Schmittin kritiikin ohella myös hänen omaa teoriaansa vahvasta valtiosta. Schmitt vastasi liberalismin heikkouteen argumentoimalla, että vain vahva valtio voi ylläpitää talouden autonomisuutta. Argumenttini on, (...) että toimiessaan näin Schmitt ei lopulta ylitä modernille poliittisella ajattelulle ominaista erottelua valtion ja yhteiskunnan välillä. Päinvastoin, Schmittiä ja liberalismia yhdistää pyrkimys tavalla tai toisella erotella talous politiikasta. Artikkelini avulla voidaan monipuolistaa sitä kuvaa, joka poliittisessa filosofiassa ja teoriassa on talouspolitiikan ja -hallinnon historiasta. Argumenttini vahvistaa ajatusta siitä, että käsitteellinen erottelu talouden ja politiikan välillä on perustavanlaatuinen modernille poliittiselle ajattelulle. (shrink)

In The Leviathan in the state theory of Thomas Hobbes, Carl Schmitt puts forward the claim that there is a ?barely visible crack? in Hobbes's theory of the state that opened the door to liberal constitutionalism. This essay claims that Schmitt's ?thesis of the crack? is composed of two elements: first, Schmitt argues that Hobbes makes a concession to individual conscience in his discussion of miracles; second, Schmitt points out that Hobbes's individualism undermines his notion of the absolute state. As (...) Schmitt relies on an unconvincing critique of Hobbes's discourse on miracles in order to justify his more general claim against Hobbes's authoritarianism, this essay suggests that Schmitt's ?thesis of the crack? is untenable in the form that Schmitt presented it in 1938. An attempt, however, is made to salvage ?the thesis of the crack? by turning to concepts found in Schmitt's Concept of the political and in Political theology. Although Schmitt openly approved of the so?called protection/obedience principle, this essay claims that there are a number of crucial differences between Schmitt's formulation of that principle and Hobbes's own version; an examination of these differences enables us (i) to appreciate the consequences of Hobbes's individualism on his theory of the state and (ii) to shed new light on Howard Warrender's famous claim that Hobbes's sovereign is inherently weak. The essay concludes that in spite of Schmitt's fallacious formulation of the ?thesis of the crack? of 1938, his political theory affords us a rare vantage point from which we can clearly see a case against the association of Hobbes with authoritarianism. (shrink)

This article develops a theoretical explanation of the patterns of violence and distribution of conflict in contemporary world. It combines the international political thought of Carl Schmitt with an exploration of the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria and tensions over the South China Sea in order to envisage a new spatialisation of the world based around Großräume – ‘large spaces’, that is, powerful agglomerations of states – and peripheral lands in-between. It is thereby stipulated that while direct violence between Großräume (...) is limited, inter- Großraum competition is channelled towards the periphery, and the three cases presented in this article demonstrate how the exact nature and means of conflict depend on a particular inter- Großraum alignment. This reconceptualisation of the international order is presented in the wider context of Schmitt’s political thought, particularly his notions of the political, sovereignty and the exception in order to elucidate the latent processes behind the formation of state groupings and their willingness to engage in conflict beyond their borders. (shrink)