Qu’entendent les quelques politologues contemporains par « pyropolitique », concept qui vient d’être formé, notamment par le Professeur Michael Marder (cf. infra) ? Pour comprendre le contexte dans lequel ce vocable nouveau a émergé, il convient d’explorer deux domaines particuliers, exploration qui nous permettra de cerner le contenu même de la pyropolitique : le premier de ces domaines est celui de la théologie politique, avec, notamment, les réflexions de Juan Donoso Cortès sur le libéralisme, le socialisme et le catholicisme (posé, dans son œuvre, comme la « Tradition » à l’état pur) ; il faudra aussi, en explorant ce domaine de la théologie politique, relire les textes où Carl Schmitt affirme que tout concept politique moderne recèle en lui-même, quelque part, une racine théologique ; deuxième domaine à explorer dans l’œuvre politologique de Carl Schmitt : le corpus dans lequel le juriste de Plettenberg pose les confrontations du monde contemporain comme un choc permanent entre forces élémentaires brutes, de pré-socratique mémoire, en l’occurrence l’affrontement entre l’élément Terre et l’élément Eau. Toute expression réelle du politique (« das Politische ») étant, dans cette optique, une expression du facteur élémentaire « Terre », le politique en soi ne pouvant avoir qu’un ancrage tellurique, continental. Le véritable homme politique est alors une sorte de géomètre romain, explique Carl Schmitt dans son Glossarium publié après sa mort. Un géomètre qui mesure et organise le territoire qui tombe sous sa juridiction.
Cependant, même si la Terre est aujourd’hui un élément dominé, houspillé, cela ne veut pas dire qu’elle cesse d’exister, de constituer un facteur toujours potentiellement virulent : elle est simplement profondément blessée, elle gémit dans une hibernation forcée. Les forces hydropolitiques cherchent à détruire par tous moyens possibles cette terre qui ne cesse de résister. Pour parvenir à cette fin, l’hydropolitique cherchera à provoquer des explosions sur les lambeaux de continent toujours résistants ou même simplement survivants. L’hydropolitique thalassocratique va alors chercher à mobiliser à son profit l’élément Feu comme allié, un Feu qu’elle ne va pas manier directement mais confier à des forces mercenaires, recrutées secrètement dans des pays ou des zones urbaines en déréliction, disposant d’une jeunesse masculine surabondante et sans emplois utiles. Ces forces mercenaires seront en charge des sales boulots de destruction pure, de destruction de tout se qui ne s’était pas encore laissé submerger. 
Lectures complémentaires (articles du Prof. Michael Marder):
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
What do political scientists mean when they talk about “pyropolitics”? There are two sources to explore in order to understand what they mean; first, you’ll have the whole realm of political theology to investigate, including Donoso Cortés’ thoughts about liberalism, socialism and Catholicism (this last being perceived as Tradition as such) and of course you’ll have to study thoroughly the core idea of Carl Schmitt, having proved that all political ideas have a theological background; second, you’ll have to take into consideration Schmitt’s perception of world politics as a clash between raw elements such as Earth and Water. Real politics, called in his genuine German as “das Politische,” is necessarily Earth-bound, continental and the truly efficient political man is a kind of Roman geometer who organizes the territory coming under his jurisdiction, by simply measuring it.
After both German defeats in 1918 and 1945, Earth is no longer the core element of world politics. It has been replaced by Water: it’s the new subversive and destructive dialectics of “Land und Meer,” of Land and Sea, whereby Water obtains victory in the end. Schmitt’s posthumously edited diary Glossarium insists heavily on the destructive effects of the victorious all-encompassing US-“hydropolitics.” “Pyros” means “fire” in Greek and represents, according to Michael Marder (cf. infra), another raw element combining not only the idea of a devouring/burning flame but also the corollary ones of “light” and “warmth.” Even if Schmitt reduced the possibilities of politics to two main elements (Earth and Water), this does not mean that Fire or Air didn’t exist and didn’t play a role, even less perceptible. “Fire” means therefore several phenomena: the burning force of destruction (that you find in anti-traditional revolutions), the “light-without-warmth” of Enlightenment, or the warmth of silent revolt against untraditional (abstract) institutions derived from several ideological strands of the 18th-century Enlightenment.
As no virgin territories can be conquered anymore (see Toynbee’s thoughts) and subsequently organized according to the very earth-bound principles of Roman geometers, the Earth as structuring element of true politics is gradually replaced not only by Water but also by Fire. Water, as the emblematic element of liberalism, Manchesterism, seapower, or plutocracy, doesn’t know neither clear borders nor positive rest (those who rest on sea sink and are drowned, said Schmitt in his Glossarium). No “otium” (fruitful rest, introspection, meditation) is possible anymore, only “neg-otium” (febrile nervosity of restless materialistic activities) survives and thrives. We live then in societies where only ceaseless acceleration (“Beschleunigung”) rules and cancels all sensible attempts to decelerate things (Ernst Jünger’s brother Friedrich-Georg was the main theorist of “deceleration” or “Entschleunigung,” true ecological thinking being an awkward attempt to bring back the raw element Earth on the world political stage). Domination of hydropolitics (seapower) leads to border dissolution, as we clearly can observe nowadays, and to a worldwide preponderance of economics and anti-political/anti-telluric/anti-traditional rules of moralistic law (e.g. Wilsonism).
Nevertheless, even as a dominated element, Earth cannot be simply wiped out and remains currently silent, as if it were deeply wounded and hibernating. Hydropolitical forces should therefore try other means to destroy definitively the tacitly resisting element Earth and, subsequently, to provoke explosions on the continent, i.e., mobilize Fire as an adjuvant, a Fire they don’t manipulate themselves but leave to mercenary forces hired secretly in countries with a surplus of young jobless men to do the dirty work. The apex of sea and air power could be observed after the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 2003, without the complicity of allies and aliens (the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis). The war against Baathist Iraq didn’t result in a complete victory of the neocon aggressors. Sea powers, as they aren’t earth-bound powers, are reluctant to organize occupied areas like Roman geometers did. Therefore, to keep the defeated and destroyed countries in a state of total dereliction, hydropolitical powers mobilized the element Fire, i.e., terrorism (with its strategy of blowing up people and buildings and its ardent religious fanaticism, “ardent” being derived from the Latin “ardere,” meaning “to burn”). The recurrent terrorist attacks against Baghdad’s Shiite marketplaces are the most appalling actions in this return of violent pyropolitics. The same pattern of total destructive violence would be used later in Libya.
When no geometer’s skills are available and when there is no desire to create a new statehood to replace the broken one, we observe a transition to pyropolitics. The Earth-bound Baathist military elite of former Iraq itself turned also to pyropolitics by partly creating ISIS, that spread in the neighborhood, while being at the same time a revolt against the chaos generated by the neocon Bush war and a manipulation of hydro/thalassopolitical secret forces to set undesirable countries ablaze and eventually spread the devouring terrorist/fanatical Fire to the main competitors’ territories (to Europe as a harbor for refugees among whom terrorists hide and to Russia where Chechen and Daghestani terrorists are directly linked to the Wahhabite networks). The hydro/thalassopolitical strategy to set whole areas ablaze by stirring up revolts, religious hatred, and tribal enmities is surely not new but has recently taken new more gigantic dimensions.
picture: Prof. Michael Marder - http://www.michaelmarder.org/
ISIS’ pyropolitics has as a collateral effect to ridicule the “light-without-warmth” Enlightenment ideologies of the Eurocratic elites. Light alone blinds and doesn’t produce genuine solutions for new problems that were induced by the disguised foe’s hydro- and pyropolitics. A blinding political ideology determined by light alone — that is also bereft of any “warmth-giving” feelings of security — is obviously bound to fail. European states become gradually failed states because they keep to “light-only-ideologies,” being only weakly challenged by so-called “warmth-demanding” populist movements. Europe is now undergoing a double aggression under two threats: the one of “light-without-warmth” ideological systems – leading to what Ernst Jünger defined as “post-history” — and the one of imported pyropolitics from the Muslim world formerly set ablaze by several factors, among which the total destruction of Saddam’s Iraq is the most important. ISIS’s pyropolitics aims at setting ablaze the Western European countries held erroneously responsible for the complete collapse of Near- and Middle Eastern countries. ISIS’ pyropolitics is nevertheless a quite complex problem: the religious element in it rebels savagely against the “light-only” all determining Western and global dominant ideology and promotes a pyropolitical “warmth-based” alternative exactly like a European counterpart of it would also aim at replacing the old-fashioned and bleak “light-only” ideological nuisances by more open-hearted and warmer political systems. The neoliberal avatar of the “light-only” ideology should therefore be replaced by a “warmth-giving” solidarism, i.e., a socialism that should have lost all the “coldness” that was attributed to Soviet or French communism by Kostas Papaioannou, a voice of Communist internal criticism in the ’60s and ’70s in France.
But there is also a savage, destroying “flame-like” aspect in pyropolitics: the burning fire of explosions and machine-gun fire (like in Paris and Brussels) and of some public executions by fire in ISIS-occupied Syria, aiming at sparking fear in Europe through the media effect it has inevitably had. The use of such dimensions of pyropolitics is a declaration of war to the rest of the world, which is set as a worldwide realm of total foes (Dar-el-Harb), what cannot be accepted (as you are inevitably the foe of all those who declare you a foe, as Carl Schmitt and Julien Freund used to stress it very clearly in their works). No one can accept such a radical and fierce rejection without automatically negating themselves, their very right to live. The problem becomes still more acute as the whole system set up by the “light-without-warmth” ideology (Habermas) doesn’t accept the polemical idea of the “enemy.” In the eyes of Habermas’ followers, there is never an enemy, there are only discussion partners. But if the partners refuse to discuss, what happens? Clash is then inevitable. The dominating elite, as followers of poor silly Habermas, don’t have any response to the challenge. They will have to be replaced. It will be the difficult task of those who remember Schmitt’s and Freund’s lectures.
Robert Steuckers
Forest-Flotzenberg, May 2016
Source: Michael Marder, Pyropolitics: When the World is Ablaze (London: Rowman and Littlefield, 2015).
Further readings (articles of Prof. Michael Marder):
"The Enlightenment, Pyropolitics, and the Problem of Evil," Political Theology, 16(2), 2015, pp. 146-158.
"La Política del Fuego: El Desplazamiento Contemporáneo del Paradigma Geopolítico," Isegoría, 49, July-December 2013, pp. 599-613.
"After the Fire: The Politics of Ashes," Telos, 161, Winter 2012, pp. 163-180. (special issue on Politics after Metaphysics)
"The Elemental Regimes of Carl Schmitt, or the ABC of Pyropolitics," Revista de Ciencias Sociales / Journal of Social Sciences, 60, Summer 2012, pp. 253-277. (special issue on Carl Schmitt)
Note à l'attention des lecteurs:
La version originale de ce texte est anglaise et a paru pour la première fois le 6 mai 2016 sur le site américain (Californie): http://www.counter-currents.com dont le webmaster est Greg Johnson qui a eu l'amabilité de relire ce texte et de le corriger. Merci!
Si può comunque affermare con una certa sicurezza che attorno alla fine degli anni ’20 le tesi schmittiane subiscano un’evoluzione da una prima fase incentrata sulla “decisione” a una seconda che volge invece agli “ordini concreti”, per una concezione del diritto più ancorata alla realtà e svincolata non solo dall’eterea astrattezza del normativismo, ma pure dallo “stato d’eccezione”, assenza originaria da cui il diritto stesso nasce restando però co-implicato in essa.
Lo spazio, cardine di quest’impianto teorico, viene analizzato nella sua evoluzione storico-filosofica e con riferimenti alle rivoluzioni che hanno cambiato radicalmente la prospettiva dell’uomo. La modernità si apre infatti con la scoperta del Nuovo Mondo e dello spazio vuoto d’oltreoceano, che disorienta gli europei e li sollecita ad appropriarsi del continente, dividendosi terre sterminate mediante linee di organizzazione e spartizione. Queste rispondono al bisogno di concretezza e si manifestano in un sistema di limiti e misure da inserire in uno spazio considerato ancora come dimensione vuota. È con la nuova rivoluzione spaziale realizzata dal progresso tecnico – nato in Inghilterra con la rivoluzione industriale – che l’idea di spazio esce profondamente modificata, ridotta a dimensione “liscia” e uniforme alla mercé delle invenzioni prodotte dall’uomo quali «elettricità, aviazione e radiotelegrafia», che «produssero un tale sovvertimento di tutte le idee di spazio da portare chiaramente (…) a una seconda rivoluzione spaziale» (Ivi, p.106). Schmitt si oppone a questo cambio di rotta in senso post-classico e, citando la critica heideggeriana alla res extensa, riprende l’idea che è lo spazio ad essere nel mondo e non viceversa. L’originarietà dello spazio, tuttavia, assume in lui connotazioni meno teoretiche, allontanandosi dalla dimensione di “datità” naturale per prendere le forme di determinazione e funzione del “politico”. In questo contesto il rapporto tra idea ed eccezione, ancora minacciato dalla “potenza del Niente” nella produzione precedente, si arricchisce di determinazioni spaziali concrete, facendosi nomos e cogliendo il nesso ontologico che collega giustizia e diritto alla Terra, concetto cardine de Il nomos della terra, che rappresenta per certi versi una nostalgica apologia dello ius publicum europaeum e delle sue storiche conquiste. In quest’opera infatti Schmitt si sofferma nuovamente sulla contrapposizione terra/mare, analizzata stavolta non nei termini polemici ed oppositivi di Terra e mare
La complessa produzione di Carl Schmitt, tanto affascinante quanto labirintica, ha dato un contributo fondamentale alla comprensione del nichilismo e ai processi di secolarizzazione e neutralizzazione che l’hanno provocato. Spinto da un’inesorabile volontà di esorcizzare la crisi e la negatività in cui stava precipitando la decadente Europa d’inizio Novecento, il giurista tedesco si confronta impavidamente con la “potenza del Niente” – esperienza cruciale per la comprensione di quell’epoca e per restare dentro alla filosofia, come ammonivano Jünger ed Heidegger in Oltre la linea –, tentando di opporre all’horror vacui soluzioni di volta in volta sempre più solide, concrete ed elementari, nel corso di un itinerario intellettuale lungo, tortuoso e per certi aspetti contraddittorio.
Di qui la necessità avvertita dal giurista esperto del mondo classico di recuperare l’etimologia autentica del termine νεμειν, che si articola in tre significati: “prendere, conquistare” (da cui i concetti di Landnahme e Seenahme, sviluppati in Terra e mare nel ’42); “dividere, spartire”, ad indicare la suddivisione del terreno e la conseguente nascita di un ordinamento proprietario su di esso; “pascolare”, quindi utilizzare, valorizzare, consumare. Soffermandosi sulla genesi della parola nomos Schmitt vuole restituirle la “forza e grandezza primitiva” salvandola dalla cattiva interpretazione datale dai contemporanei, che l’hanno “ridotta a designare, in maniera generica e priva di sostanza, ogni tipo di regolamentazione o disposizione normativistica”, come afferma polemicamente ne Il nomos della terra, pubblicato nel 1950 e summa del suo pensiero giuridico e politico. L’uso linguistico di “un’epoca decadente che non sa più collegarsi alle proprie origini” funzionalizza il nomos alla legge, non distinguendo tra diritto fondamentale e atti di posizione e facendo scomparire il legame con l’atto costitutivo dell’ordinamento spaziale.
L’irrazionalità della guerra viene dunque confinata nelle amity lines del mare mentre sul suolo continentale, a mo’ di razionalizzazione effettiva del sacrificio, resta la guerre en forme tra Stati che si riconoscono reciprocamente come sovrani e che non mirano all’annichilimento o alla criminalizzazione del nemico. Una delle maggiori conquiste del diritto pubblico europeo è stata infatti la limitazione della guerra (Hegung des Krieges) e la trasformazione dal bellum iustum delle guerre civili di religione in conflitti “giusti” tra pari, tra hostes aequaliter iusti. Quest’atto di contenimento non è stato frutto delle ideologie razionalistiche, bensì della particolare condizione di equilibrio di cui l’Europa moderna ha goduto fino al 1914. Un assetto fondato non solo sulla dialettica vecchio/nuovo mondo – strumentalizzata da Schmitt, secondo alcuni, per difendere l’imperialismo e il colonialismo europeo -, ma anche sul rapporto tra terraferma e libertà del mare che ha fatto in primis le fortune dell’Inghilterra, che ha scelto di diventarne “figlia” trasformando la propria essenza storico-politica ed arrivando a dominare lo spazio liscio e uniforme.
Seine analytisch eingehendste Betrachtung der politischen Nachkriegsordnung ist der Vortrag „Die Ordnung der Welt nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg“, den Schmitt 1962 in Madrid hielt und bei Lebzeiten nur in einer spanischen Fassung publizierte. Nur hier verknüpft er seine Überlegungen auch mit der Entwicklung der UNO. Sein Ausgangspunkt ist die Dekolonialisierung und der „Antikolonialismus“ nach 1945, den Schmitt als „Propaganda“ und „Reflex“ der Zerstörung der alten, europäischen Raumordnung betrachtet. Diese „anti-europäische Propaganda“ begann „leider“, betont Schmitt, als „inner-europäische Kampagne“ (SGN 594). Gegenstück sei der „Nomos des Kosmos“ (SGN 595): „Der Anti-Kolonialismus ist nichts anderes als die Liquidierung einer historischen Vergangenheit auf Kosten der europäischen Nationen. Die Eroberung des Kosmos hingegen ist pure Zukunft“ (SGN 596), schreibt Schmitt. Dazwischen sei der gegenwärtige „Nomos der Erde“ zu suchen. Schmitt nähert sich ihm mit Überlegungen zum Kalten Krieg als „Teil des revolutionären Krieges“. Er rekapituliert hier Überlegungen zur Wiederkehr der Lehre vom „gerechten Krieg“. Deutlicher benennt er nun aber „drei Stadien des Kalten Krieges“ und kennzeichnet die Gegenwart dabei durch ein „pluralistisches Stadium“, in dem sich eine „erstaunliche Zahl neuer afrikanischer und asiatischer Staaten“ (SGN 602) der dualistischen Struktur des Ost-West-Gegensatzes nicht mehr fügten und die UNO zum Forum der politischen Organisation einer „dritten Front“ nutzten. In der „Theorie des Partisanen“ nennt er an dieser Stelle dann China und Maos „pluralistische Vorstellung eines neuen Nomos der Erde“ (TP 62).
Kirchheimer, Neumann und Fraenkel waren Schmitt nicht unkritisch gefolgt. Sie hatten ihn politisch wie rechtstheoretisch abgeklärt rezipiert, so dass Berührungsscheu nach 1949 nicht nötig schien. Aus dem „Fall“ Schmitt ließ sich deshalb auch kein „Fall“ Habermas machen. Der von Ellen Kennedy33 formulierte Verdacht lautete dennoch vereinfacht gesagt, dass Habermas von seinen frühen politischen Schriften bis in die Deutung der „Friedensbewegung“ der 80er Jahre hinein um den Preis ideologischer Verblendung von Schmitt beeinflusst war. Habermas’ Replik „Die Schrecken der Autonomie“ grenzte den eigenen, kommunikationstheoretisch entwickelten Begriff der „normativen Grundlagen der Demokratie“ von Schmitt ab. Demnach hält Habermas nicht Schmitts Liberalismuskritik für fruchtbar, sondern dessen Überlegungen zu den normativen Grundlagen der Demokratie. Er schreibt:
Carl Schmitt consideraba la tierra como un todo único y buscaba su misión global. Este “todo” fue recogido por Schmitt en el concepto de Nomos. Schmitt usó la palabra griega derivada del verbo «nemein», que es idéntico al alemán “nehmen”, “tomar”. El Nomos comprende tres actos del drama: la “toma”, “la división y distribución de lo tomado”, “la explotación y el uso de lo tomado y distribuido”. Según Schmitt, el Nomos de la Tierra existió siempre. El Primer Nomos es descrito como la “tierra prometida” de los pueblos antiguos. Es el Nomos de la antigüedad y la Edad Media. Dejó de existir después de la exploración de los grandes océanos y el continente americano. Así comenzó el Segundo Nomos, el Nomos de los estados nacionales soberanos que tenían estructura eurocéntrica. Los acontecimientos de la Segunda Guerra Mundial condujeron a su destrucción, por lo que la tierra fue dividida en este y oeste, ambos en un estado de “guerra fría”. No se trata de meros opuestos geográficos, sino de contraposiciones más originales y profundas. Carl Schmitt escribió: “Toda la historia de la confrontación planetaria de Oriente y Occidente en su totalidad es reducible al dualismo fundamental de los elementos: la tierra y el agua, la tierra y el mar. Lo que ahora llamamos el Oriente, es una sola masa de sólida tierra: Rusia, China y la India – un enorme pedazo de tierra, la “Tierra Media” [“Middle Earth”], como es llamada por el gran geógrafo inglés Sir Halford Mackinder. Lo que hoy llamamos Occidente, es uno de los océanos mundiales, un hemisferio donde se sitúan los océanos Atlántico y Pacífico. La confrontación de las potencias, de los mundos marítimo y terrestre, es la verdad global que está en el corazón de la explicación del dualismo de civilizaciones que genera constantemente una tensión planetaria y estimula todo el proceso de la historia”. Por lo tanto, el nacimiento de un tercer Nomos fue causado por la división del mundo entre el Oeste y el Este. Sin embargo, fue destruido con la caída del muro de Berlín y el colapso de la Unión Soviética.
Sin embargo, debemos admitir que durante las últimas décadas, Rusia se alejó cada vez más de su propósito original de ser un puente entre Oriente y Occidente. El interregno puede ser nuestra oportunidad de recuperarse, una oportunidad para Rusia para convertirse y ser. La teoría de un mundo multipolar puede ser considerada como el punto de partida del fin de la era unipolar y el de entrada en el período “post-norteamericano”, una característica del cual será la presencia de varios polos (los sujetos del diálogo inter-civilizacional), y la segura eliminación de la crisis de identidad, porque en un mundo multipolar la identidad adquiere un carácter civilizatorio. Hoy nuestro diálogo con Europa es un diálogo de “grandes espacios”; en el nuevo sistema de relaciones internacionales el Großraum [el “Gran espacio” de Carl Schmitt] se convierte en un concepto operativo de la multipolaridad. Alexander Dugin ofrece el modelo “CUATRO polar” o “cuadri-polar” del mundo, que consta de cuatro zonas.
OVER THE past few years, the conviction that the end of the Cold War inaugurated an era of great-power peace to accompany the inevitable spread of democratic capitalism has been shattered. In Georgia and Ukraine, thousands have died as Washington’s attempt to fence in Russia with NATO allies and affiliates has been answered by Moscow’s determination to rebuild a Eurasian sphere of influence. In East Asia, China’s growing assertiveness has alarmed its neighbors and collided with America’s determination to remain the dominant power in the region. Regime-change efforts sponsored by the United States and its allies in Iraq, Libya and Syria have created power vacuums and bloody regional proxy wars, to the benefit of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.
An alternative approach, the so-called Central European approach, favors redrawing arbitrary political boundaries to create more homogeneous ethnic or linguistic groups. Neither doctrine is inherently illiberal. In his Representative Government, John Stuart Mill thus argued that liberal, representative government is most likely to succeed in countries in which most of the citizens share at least a common language, a thesis that the continuing disintegration of multiethnic states in our time would appear to confirm. In Mill’s words, “Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist.” Neither approach to defining the citizens of sovereign states equates political independence of one community from another with inherent and unremitting enmity.
PHILITT : 
David Cumin : Absolument, Le Nomos de la terre et L’Évolution vers un concept discriminatoire de guerre restent deux ouvrages tout à fait incontournables. Le Nomos de la terre est absolument fondamental en droit international, en droit de la guerre. De même que la théorie du partisan, qui pourrait être améliorée, amendée, actualisée, mais demeure incontournable. On peut d’ailleurs regretter que ce ne soit que très récemment que les spécialistes français en droit international se soient intéressés à Schmitt. Pourtant il y a toujours eu chez lui ces deux piliers : droit constitutionnel et droit international. Par exemple, ses écrits sur la Société des Nations sont tout à fait transposables à l’ONU et donc tout à fait d’actualité.
All that should be impressive enough for a discredited, long dead authoritarian thinker. But Schmitt’s dictum also became a philosophical foundation for the exercise of American global power in the quarter century that followed the end of the Cold War. Washington, more than any other power, created the modern international community of laws and treaties, yet it now reserves the right to defy those same laws with impunity. A sovereign ruler should, said Schmitt, discard laws in times of national emergency. So the United States, as the planet’s last superpower or, in Schmitt’s terms, its global sovereign, has in these years repeatedly ignored international law, following instead its own unwritten rules of the road for the exercise of world power.
Dopo la chiamata alle armi contro lo Stato islamico e la conseguente definizione di «guerriero crociato» riferita al nostro ministro degli Affari Esteri (e della cooperazione), e conseguentemente di nazione nemica riferita all’Italia, gli analisti nazionali portavoce degli interessi superiori dell’economia si sono scatenati in una ridda di articoli che tendono a riconfigurare le priorità della politica estera europea, e nazionale, nei termini di una rinnovata «guerra globale contro il terrorismo».
Gerade in Zeiten großer Krisen wie in der Ukraine, im Irak und in Syrien muß die Frage erlaubt sein, wie unsere internationale Ordnung aussehen sollte.
, his short book on the concept of sovereignty, Carl Schmitt states that: “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.”[1] Sovereignty means supreme political authority, as opposed to political subjection. Within a society, the sovereign is the ruler, as opposed to the ruled. A sovereign nation rules itself, as opposed to being ruled by others.