Carl Schmitt and international politics

Friend or enemy? That distinction works perfectly in international politics. It’s time to bring Schmitt’s theory back into world politics.

Introduction

Today, I want to speak to you about the theoretical proposal of Carl Schmitt in international politics with the distinction between friend and enemy. Although his essay on the concept of the political initially aimed for world politics, many people in the left and the right-wing took the core idea of this work and applied it to domestic politics. The reason for this is simple. It turned out to be quite functional in political terms, and especially in processes of politicization. We can’t forget that Schmitt was a specialist in international law, and that field was the source of most of his reflections.

On this occasion, I want to focus on the role of the distinction between friend and enemy in the international realm.

The distinction between friend and enemy

Schmitt spoke about friends and enemies in political terms. He referred to those human groups that combatively oppose each other. So, the enemy is a “hostis” and not an “inimicus.” Hostis is an enemy in the public sphere, and inimicus belongs to the private realm. A hostis is a political enemy because the relationship with them takes place in the public field. That makes it the most intense opposition and antagonism because it includes groups that fight each other. This hostility is the result of perception between groups. They consider each other the mutual negation of their identities.

The determination of the enemy is the result of a fundamental decision. It creates an association and dissociation between individuals who gather in different groupings. Specific common characteristics bind them, but also separate and oppose them. Any difference of any kind may have a political dimension if it makes people group together to fight each other. The political is a conflictive arena in which hostilities between groups develop.

All of this is the core idea of the political. I decided to go over it because it will be helpful for the following discussion. In any case, I spoke about it with more detail on another occasion.

How the distinction between friend and enemy works in international politics

How does this distinction work in the international sphere? That’s what I’m going to address now. Before moving on, I want to remark that it will lead us to deal with different concepts related to international politics’ theory that I hope to discuss in forthcoming episodes.

Schmitt emphasized the capacity of the State to go to war. That right rests on the “ius belli.” It involves the power to decide who the enemy of the State is in the international sphere. Besides, it entails the capability to require people to kill and to be killed in the war. So, the political sovereignty rests on the decision of the State that determines who its enemy is.

Schmitt reflected on warfare and its political implications. In this regard, he connected the hostility principle of the political with the behavior of States on the global stage. He resorted to Clausewitz’s famous quote: “War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means.”

If we follow his logic about the distinction between friend and enemy, we observe there are differences in the international realm that lead States to fight each other because they adopt an existential dimension. It happens when specific issues in different fields are the cause of war and different conflicts. So, States go to war when those differences become a political matter, and they designate their enemy.

We can’t overlook the fact that the international sphere is made of many different political units. It is an anarchic environment, and because of States’ peculiarities, there are many potential reasons to get into a conflict and even start a war. From Schmitt’s perspective, it’s unavoidable the existence of disputes in this realm. They are the result of the existence of political units with the capacity to designate who their enemies are. They have different identities, which means divergent interests, views, values, goals, and so on. That makes them perceive the rest as an enemy, as the negation of their identity. In these cases, conflicts arise, and wars outbreak.

We can’t forget that Schmitt developed his reflections in a historical moment in which the League of Nations intended to stop new wars by peaceful agreements and relations between countries. In this respect, Schmitt criticized the League’s pretensions and stressed the unavoidable conflictive nature of international politics. He also criticized those who advocated for wars in the name of humankind and argued they only try to appropriate a universal concept to use it in their benefit. All in all, Schmitt rejected the League of Nations and the arguments its promoters used to justify its formation, as well as the peace of Versailles.

Although Schmitt was a jurist, his reflections connect with the realist assumptions in international relations theory. That’s clear when we apply the distinction between friend and enemy in world politics. The anarchic trait of this political environment involves the existence of permanent rivalries between political units. That’s the consequence of their different interests, but also goals, capacities, and so on. In brief, they have different identities that make them perceive each other as enemies, as their existential negation. We have to take into account that they strive to stay alive, and in this process, they identify other States as a threat to their existence. Every State chooses its enemy insofar as it represents a serious threat to its survival.

Because of the conflictive nature of the international realm, Schmitt rejected the idea of ending warfare forever. He argued that the League of Nations only changed the conditions for new wars, but it couldn’t stop them. So, the existence of many different States entails the political distinction between friend and enemy, and also conflicts. The League of Nations wasn’t a world government, but an aggregation of States. Thus, it couldn’t change the conflictive nature of their mutual relations, and the political character of the international realm.

Question of the day

Question of the day! Do you think that peaceful international politics is possible or only a contradictory idea if we consider it from Schmitt’s view? Post your opinion in the comments section below, and I’ll check it out.

Bibliography used:

Schmitt, Carl, The Concept of the Political

Disclosure: Some of these links are affiliate links where I’ll earn a small commission if you make a purchase at no additional cost to you. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.