Carl Schmitt, an increasingly influential German law professor, developed a provocative and historically oriented model of “political theology” with specific relevance to legal scholarship and the authorship of constitutional texts. His “political theology” is best understood neither as an expressly theological discourse within constitutional law, nor as a uniquely legal discourse shaped by a hidden theological agenda. Instead, it addresses the possibility of the continual resurfacing of theological ideas and beliefs within legal discourses of, for instance, sovereignty, the force of (...) law and states of emergency (or “exception”) that present themselves as relentlessly secular, even—in the case of Kelsenian jurisprudence—”scientific”. This article illustrates and then critically evaluates Schmitt’s theory in terms of the authorship of constitutional texts in particular. It includes two case studies—genocidal colonial land appropriation and Kelsenian positivism in order to illustrate aspects of his political theology. Whilst Schmitt is defended against reductionist interpretations, I show that there remains considerable unfinished business before a Schmittian approach to legal theory merits full acceptance. (shrink)

Journal of International Political Theory, Ahead of Print. Since the end of the Cold War, a number of authors have affirmed the relevance of Carl Schmitt’s concept of Großraum for contemporary international politics. This article reviews those claims and argues that Großraum has little to offer in analytical terms to enhance our understanding of the international political situation in this early twenty-first century. Those authors who wish to revive Großraum for the sake of their theoretical work overlook vitally important components (...) of this concept. Furthermore, their claims fail to meet the criteria of Reinhart Koselleck’s structural iterability. (shrink)