Carl Schmitt and international politics

 

 

Sovereignty has a specific meaning in the Schmitt’s thought, and it has to do with decision. Let’s see what it is.

 

Introduction

 

Today, I want to speak to you about sovereignty in the Schmitt’s thought. It’s something that many authors overlooked, and it is embedded in the way he conceived politics. Indeed, it has a direct relation with the concept of the political.

However, I have to say that it has two different dimensions, which makes it work in a very different way. I refer to the internal and the external realm of the polity. That’s important because of the effects it has, and Schmitt himself stressed in his work. So, we’re going to see what the sovereign is and the role it develops in domestic and international politics.

 

Sovereignty and decisionism

 

As I’ve already said, sovereignty has a direct relation with the concept of the political. If I had to summarize it in a few words, I’d say it is the decision that determines who the enemy is. In this way, it turns out to be a concept that connects with the idea of decisionism. Decisionism is a political, ethical, and jurisprudential doctrine which states that moral or legal precepts are the product of decisions made by political or statutory bodies. What determines the validity of a decision is that it is a decision made by the proper authority, or by using a correct method, not the content of the decision. So, for Schmitt, it is not the current precepts of the law which determine its validity, but rather the proper authority that has made it.

Insofar as the essence of the political is the distinction between friend and enemy, it entails the decision to designate who the enemy is. That choice is what defines sovereignty ultimately. However, it works in a very different way depending on the realm in which its effects take place. Aside from that, sovereignty affects the public sphere because the distinction of the enemy always has to do with the public realm. That enemy is “hostis,” not an “inimicus” or a private enemy.

 

Sovereignty in the internal domain

 

In the internal domain, the principle of sovereignty works differently regarding the distinction of the enemy. In this respect, Schmitt stressed the State’s role as an organized political unit, namely, as a polity. Its role as a cohesive institution of society is to decide by itself who the enemy is. Although Schmitt admitted the possibility of antagonist opposition within the State, that doesn’t deny the existence of the State as a political unit. As such, it encloses all the rest oppositions. In this respect, Schmitt made clear the difference between sovereignty and partisan politics. He recognized the partisan dimension of politics, but the idea of a political unit, such as the State, entails a superior capacity to make binding decisions on the whole society by the distinction of the enemy. So, the polity can make relative its internal oppositions between parties in domestic politics.

That led Schmitt to speak about civil war. When political differences in domestic politics reach an extreme degree, and it involves a violent confrontation is when civil war erupts. In this case, the sovereignty vanishes as a principle of unity that constitutes the polity. Violent clashes between different groupings become the new normal in this situation. Therefore, the polity is sovereign insofar as it can make the distinction between friend and enemy. In this way, it has the power to decide who the enemy is, and then, it is sovereign. However, when that is not the case, the political unit doesn’t exist at all.

Sovereignty rests on the decisive capacity to make the fundamental decision of identifying the enemy. The State is sovereign insofar as it can determine who the enemy is. If it can’t, then it doesn’t exist in Schmitt’s view. In the domestic realm, the political unit is different if we compare it with other human associations. It can determine who the enemy is in the internal sphere, and also in the external realm. That gives it its decisive character to determine the enemy of the whole political community in both fields. It would lead us to the role of the state of exception and the existence of public enemies, namely, the State’s enemies. However, I’m going to leave it for a forthcoming episode, so don’t forget to subscribe.

The State’s role in the internal domain is to grant peace, safety, and order, which constitutes a normal situation that makes law enforcement possible. In this way, the State decides who represents a threat to this normal situation, and its sovereignty rests on that decision.

 

Sovereignty in the external domain

 

Things work differently in the external realm. The international environment’s main characteristic is its geopolitical fragmentation and the absence of a world government. States compete and try to survive. As a result, they get into conflict because of their different interests, goals, and so on. In this context, sovereignty is the capacity to determine who the enemy is because that enemy represents an existential threat. The right to go to war is, in this respect, the result of a decision to define the State’s enemy. So, in this realm, the State decides who is a friend and who is the enemy. That’s the principle sovereignty that we can summarize in that decision that opposes a State with others, and eventually leads it to war.

 

Question of the day

 

Question of the day! What is sovereignty for you? 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.