While lecturing on the philosophy of history at the University of Berlin, Hegel was asked by a student if the United States ought to be considered the country of the future. Obviously irritated, he answered: “As the country of the future, America does not concern me … Philosophy deals with the eternal, or with reason, and with that there is enough to do.” In his famous lecture on science as a vocation, addressed to students at the University of Munich at (...) the end of the First World War, Max Weber responded to insistent questions on his views as to the future of Germany: “The classroom is neither for demagogues nor for prophets.”. (shrink)

In the case of Schmitt, much of recent scholarship in English has overlooked or even denied the radical conservatism of his Weimar writings. The approach pursued here will, I hope, put his works into more historically accurate perspective. In the case of both Freyer and Schmitt, their intellectual and rhetorical gifts helped undermine support for liberal democracy in Germany, and indeed were intended to do so; this paper, however, focuses on their social and political thought rather than on their influence.

Carl Schmitt's critique of liberalism includes a specific attack on the philosophical coherence of the rule of law as a component of constitutional sovereignty, a view he identifies with the wider liberal tradition. Despite his associations with Nazism it has been taken up recently by post-modern critics of Liberalism. This article analyses Schmitt's claims and then compares them with what representative liberals actually say about the rule of law. The finding is that at least two major thinkers -- Locke and (...) Burke -- show none of the ignorance or naivete with which Schmitt charges the tradition. Concepts such as the exception are recognised and included in their political analyses -- but, unlike Schmitt, not in their prescriptions. (shrink)

This article pays special attention to the large number of references to political theology by Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt, particularly in the interwar period, and seeks to interpret these references in a new way. While Schmitt's analogies between God and state are to be expected considering his strong Catholic roots, such comparisons are much more surprising for a positivist like Hans Kelsen, who always tried to relieve state and law from transcendental elements. The article concludes that, far from being (...) marginal in the doctrinal dispute between Schmitt and Kelsen, references to political theology express and summarize their major controversy about the relation between state and law, as well as about the sources of the state's unity. The heart of the disputatio between the two jurists concerned the ability of the political power to emancipate itself from the juridical order. The ‘legal miracle’—in this context meaning the occasional autonomization of the state from law—was for Schmitt the manifestation of sovereign power. However, for Kelsen it represented the negation of the state's essence, whose actions must be determined only by the legal order. (shrink)

Well known as a theorist of law as well as the main drafter of the 1920 Austrian Constitution, Hans Kelsen's contribution to political theory has been paid considerably less attention. Yet not only do his writings on politics offer a significant picture of the 1920s political dilemmas of both the German Weimar Republic and post- war Austria, they also can be of considerable importance for contemporary political theory in as far as Kelsen opens up new perspectives on the links between (...) ethical principles and political institutions. Political institutions rest on ethical principles that define the legitimate expectations that citizens nourish towards them. Such a relationship becomes manifest when claims are raised in public communication. The article aims to sketch the key aspects of Kelsen's political theory, to highlight the historical context in which it was developed, and to highlight the insights that it promises for current political research. (shrink)