Fellows - Schmitt K

8/15/2019 Fellows - Schmitt K

1/62

Schmitt K – ADI


2/62

1NC/Top Shelf


3/62

1NC

Reductions in military presence mask the roader pro!ect of

lieral imperialism – anti"colonial forei#n policy le#itimi$es

American e%orts to produce a #loal homeland and props upthe &empire of ases'

Annmaria Shimauku, 201( (Assistant Professor, Japanese/ComparativeLiterature at University of California Riverside “S!mitt and "ouault on t!e#uestion of Soverei$nty under %ilitary &upation' Poltia om)n *olume +, 20-!ttp.//uodli1umi!edu/p/p/222223000+003/44s!mitt4and4fouault4on4t!e4uestion4of4soverei$nty4under5r$n6main7vie86fullte9t:

;!e po8er t!e oupyin$ state dra8s from is not its o8n, 1ut t!at of t!e oupied state 1eause it is t!e“e9istential form' of t!e state 8!i! is essential (20-: A soverei$n an only stren$t!en !is po8er 1y stren$t!enin$t!e !et!er it is an oupatio 1ellia of a forei$n soverei$n8it!in a vanuis!ed state, or a state of e9eption 8it!in a domesti settin$, soverei$nty in 1ot! ases is de


4/62

)as nothin# ut mere &camou3a#e' (“;!e R!inelands as an &1et of Bnternational Politis' +:>!ile oloniGation as anne9ation in t!e us pu1lium Duropaeum “!ad at least t!e merit of 1ein$ fran and visi1le'

(:, 1y ontrast, Schmitt sa) nothin# ut smoke and mirrors in the a#e of

American imperialism4 other forms of dominion ha+e come into +o#ue,

a+oidin# open political su!ection , maintainin# the political e,istence of

the controlled country* nay* creatin# * if it appears e,pedient* a ne)independent State* )hose lierty and so+erei#nty is e,pressly proclaimed*

so that apparently !ust the re+erse happens of 8!at mi$!t 1e denouned as

de#radin# a people into an o!ect of forei#n policy (M: =ere, S!mitt remained

septially unmoved 1y the 5ilsonian era of &self"determination claimed for all

peoples*' and instead sa) an American attempt to for#e a ne) nomos )ith

itself at center (+: "ollo8in$ >ilsonEs universaliGation of t!e %onroe Fotrine in ?3, 8!ereupon t!e US

interpreted interferene in its sp!eres of inuene as a$$ression reuirin$ intervention, the 2-S-

succeeded in disen#a#in# the delicate alance of the 0uropean nomos

sealed y colonialism Bnstead, S!mitt ar$ued t!at the 2-S- espousal of an

anticolonial policy that reco#ni$es so+erei#nty as re#ulated y t!e Lea$ue of

Hations t!rou$! mandates* protectorates* trusteeships* and e+en independentstatehood ou!ed 8it! seurity treaties t!at allo8 t!e ri$!t of intervention ha+e &come into

+o#ue* a+oidin# open political su!ection-' (M: A parallel transformation ourred undermilitary oupation &upatio 1ellia in t!e us pu1lium Duropaeum 8as supposed to


5/62

&satellites' t!at !e de


6/62

merely anyone, 1ut ultimately e+eryone may e e,cluded from the 8)orld unity9

)ithout any conse.uences for the continuin# deployment of this astract

uni+ersality as an instrument of le#itimation Bn Ty$munt OaumanEs p!rase, Qthe

&international community' has little reality apart from the occasional

military operations undertaken in its name9-? ;!us, for S!mitt, if t!e monisti proet of

li1eralism ever sueeded, it )ould e at t!e ost of t!e transformation of t!e 8orld into a terrifyin$ dystopiaof a self"immanent* totally administered )orld )ithout an outside and

hence )ithout a possiility of 3i#ht- At t!e same time, t!e pratial implementation of su! a

proet is !ardly oneiva1le as enounterin$ no resistane The pro!ect of )orld unity and t!e

eaement of e9teriority is t!erefore ound to ha+e its o)n enemies, insofar as alterity is

ontolo#ically ineradicale ?ettin# the >ther into the #loal 8homeland9

does not eliminate the 8most e,treme possiility9 of +iolent con3ict ut

makes it impossile to mana#e it t!rou$! t!e pluralisti disuntion of t!e Self and t!e &t!er Bn

t!e 8orld in 8!i! t!ere is Qonly a !omelandE, radical alterity has no place* 1ot! literally and

#urati+ely Bn t!is settin$, con3ict appears no lon#er merely possile ut

actually ine+itale, as the >ther is certain to resist its +iolent inclusion into

t!e !omeland of li1eral !umanity et, !avin$ disposed of $enuine politial pluralism, lieralism nds

itself lackin# in any instruments to protect its uni+ersal homeland other

than the asolute e,istential ne#ation of the >ther t!at parallels t!e oneptual

ne$ation of alterity in li1eral monism Thus* the uni+ersalisation of the lieral

disposition to emrace the entire humanity actualises t!e Qmost e9treme possi1ilityE

eit!er 1y e9posin$ t!e Self to t!e resentful violene of t!e &t!er or y annihilatin# the >ther to

eliminate the former e,istential threat It is here that enmity, forelosed in t!e

sym1oli re$ister of li1eralism 8it! its monisti universalism, returns )ith a +en#eance, sine the

sole conse.uence of the deployment of the concept of humanity as the

referent of the lieral political pro!ect is the ine+itale desi#nation of the

ad+ersaries of t!is proet in terms of t!e ne$ation of !umanity as, in a strit sense* inhuman

ein#s. >!en a state


7/62

to innite replication and #eneralisation . 8!ile one of t!e usti


8/62

rame)ork


9/62

State ased ;olicy ails

Bote ne# to produce etter IR scholarship – state ased policy

frame)orks fail – cant account for spatial relations and !ustify

inter+entionism%i!ael Salter, 201 (Professor of La8, Lanas!ire La8 S!ool, UCLan, PrestonUX “La8, Po8er and Bnternational Politis 8it! Speial Referene to Dast Asia. CarlS!mittEs Irossraum Analysis' C!inese Journal of Bnternational La8 (202:, ?V-23 !ttp.//!ineseilo9fordournalsor$/ontent///?fullpdf:

N S!mitt insists t!at acceptance of @rossraum analysis is a precondition for a

+iale and realistic form of international la) scholarship. one that is

recepti+e to sustanti+e spatial .uestions and capale of addressin# a

demarcated or fenced"o% coe,istence on a sensily di+ided"up planet-+

Unlie a1stratly universalisti and osmopolitan alternatives devoid of spatial dierentiations, such analysis

is ale to oth reco#ni$e and ad!ust itself to #eopolitical tendencies thatrst emer#ed )ithin the early


10/62

imperialisti superpo8er approa!es t!at, for reasons already disussed, e9!i1it ontraditory tendenies N-

The astract uni+ersalistic orientation of su! imperialisti approa!es also disre#ards

concrete spatial relations and territorial 1orders alto#ether Bt does so 1y interpretin#

the )orld eyond its o)n orders as an &open frontier' for its le#ally

unrestrainale inter+ention- Bt t!ere1y misses out on 8!at merits partiular reo$nition as ey

t!emes for international la8 s!olars!ipM0 N+ Bn one sense at least, @rossraum analysis ofconcrete and e,tended spatial orders seeks )hat could e called a &third

)ay'4 one that is irreducile to the familiar* if false* either/or alternati+es

et)een State"centric and imperialistic orientations S!mitt furt!er ar$ues t!at, 1yt!e mid to late ?20s, international politis !ad 1e$un to !an$e to t!e point 8!ere a spatial reorderin$ upon t!e1asis of a small num1er of IrossraYume lar$ely !eld in euili1rium 1y a 1alane of po8er, !ad 1eome a real

possi1ilityM


11/62

;olicy akin# ad

;olicy"makin# frame)orks emphasi$in# peace reify a le#alistic

re#ime of +iolence – interro#atin# representations of

statehood* enmity* and peace are a pre"re.uisite to addressin#perpetual state )ar

Heati ;olat, 201< (professor of BR at t!e %iddle Dast ;e!nial University “Peaeas >ar' Alternatives. Ilo1al, Loal, Politial *ol +, Ho -, 200, pp 34-+:

;!at, far from 1ein$ ne$ated 1y no8led$e, po)er enales kno)led#e, is an insi$!t introdued 1y

"ouault into t!e study of t!e systems of t!e prodution of no8led$e As is 8ell no8n, this

understandin# forms a clear contrast )ith the modern discourse on

kno)led#e, in 8!i! kno)led#e is in+oked as the +ery opposite, t!e antit!esis* of

po)er Xno8led$e, pure and present, is understood 8it!in modernity as a ne$ation of anyt!in$ ot!er t!an itself

5hat is ne#ated primarily is po)er, 8!i!, onstantly lurin$ 1e!ind, seeks to

manipulate kno)led#e and smu##le into the system of the production ofkno)led#e various forms of partisans!ip and interest, a move a1orted in modernity 1y t!e “orret' met!odand 1y t!e “o1etive' proedures of t!e validation of no8led$e ;!is modern assumption on no8led$e !as 1een

resisted 1y t8o separate 1ut related traditions, 1ot! e9tendin$ rou$!ly from t!e seond !alf of t!e nineteent!entury. a ritial soial s!olars!ip, 8it! t!e analysis of apitalism at t!e forefront, inreasin$ly sensitive to t!e

operations of po8er7 and a ne8 strain in p!ilosop!y 8it! emp!asis on ontolo$y rat!er t!an epistemolo$y-

Re3ectin# on the nature of kno)led#e )ithin the con+er#in# point of

these t)o traditions* oucault reco#ni$es po)er as oth po)er to control

and as an enalin#* constituti+e po)er- ;!e latter is simply an ineluta1ility, an ontolo$ial

ondition Aordin$ly, rather than repellin# each other* po)er and kno)led#e are

the sides of one and the same coin- ;!is insi$!t 1y "ouault !as 1een e9eptionally re8ardin$ in

appraisals of po8er, of “po)er politics' constituti+e of the epistemolo#ical orders

of modernity, 8!i! seem si#nicantly to under)rite the present"day social

structures- Oy t!e same toen, assessments of po)er as a condition of kno)led#e

on peace* the epistemolo#y of peace* .uite apart from the po)er or

authority on )hich peace ine+italy relies* may ha+e to e treated as +ital

for a proper understandin# of peace in the relations amon# states- A )ell"

understood manifestation of this po)er is the po)er of ideolo#y in

interstate relations in its normali$in#* domesticatin# e%ect* +ia

kno)led#e* of peace* produced in ali#nment )ith po)er - ;!is eet not onlyoneals a struture of po8er and domination t!at is at 8or 1ut also sees onstantly to reprodue and maintain

t!at struture Oy t!is aount, t!e assorted spectacles of peace, from the +ictor9s peace

to the more recent* purportedly non"state"led peace, may ha+e to econsidered as simply &discourses' of peace* indicatin# +arious

#o+ernmentalities in historically specic ali#nments of po)er and peace ;!is is a vie8 of peae t!at departs maredly from t!e mainstream vision in 8!i! diverse disourses are pereived

as p!ases in an evolvin$, pro$ressive, >!i$4lie line of inreasin$ freedom from violene and inreasin$

emanipation The mainstream assumption is in full keepin# )ith the lieral

postulate of tenale social harmony* a society concei+aly at peace )ith

itself- ;!e idea of politis t!at "ouault introdues aims preisely to try and unpa t!is elementary li1eral$esture t!at relies on possi1le !armony in soiety in t!e fae of irredui1le diversity Bnredulous of t!is $esture t!at


12/62

posits a po8er4free, onit4free idea of politis, "ouault famously desri1es politis 1y invertin$ t!e de


13/62

Bf one 1asi form is t!e state, t!e ne$atin$, =e$elian individual in interstate relations, implyin$ a onstant state of8ar, t!en peae may 1e oneived to 1e t!e ot!er eually primary, and per!aps not less insidious, form


14/62

?ink


15/62

:apan – ?e#alism

The aFrmati+e9s unipolar reinterpretation of international

le#al principles le#itimi$es lieral imperialism and the

repression of occupied populations%i!ael Salter, 201 (Professor of La8, Lanas!ire La8 S!ool, UCLan, PrestonUX “La8, Po8er and Bnternational Politis 8it! Speial Referene to Dast Asia. CarlS!mittEs Irossraum Analysis' C!inese Journal of Bnternational La8 (202:, ?V-23 !ttp.//!ineseilo9fordournalsor$/ontent///?fullpdf:

M2 Schmitt also maintains that* at t!e start of t!e 20t! entury and for its o)n

imperialistic reasons* the 2SA encoura#ed :apan to take on the role of an

0ast Asian superpo)er- ;!is 8as to 1e lar#ely at the e,pense of China, 1eause

:apan )as to e,ercise the role of a &leadin# po)er' )ithin a spatially

dened re#ion ain to t!at of t!e US Irossraum 8it!in t!e Amerian ontinent under t!e %onroe

Fotrine.0 As lon$ as Russia 8as Dn$landEs enemy, t!ere 8ere nevert!eless no o1etions to t!e deployment of anAsian %onroe Fotrine 1y Japan As early as ?0+, KUS President ;!eodore Roosevelt, is supposed to !ave

enoura$ed t!e Japanese *isount Xaneo to transfer t!e %onroe Fotrine to Asia Roosevelt o1viously 1ased Kt!is

su$$estion on t!e idea t!at such a transference )ould ensure the economic

de+elopment of 0ast Asia y American capital , t!at is, the application of the

)orld"economic methods of An#lo"Sa,on imperialism to 0ast Asia , espeially toC!ina An Dast Asian %onroe Fotrine 8it! t!is sense and ontent 8ould t!us !ave 1een not!in$ ot!er t!an t!e

openin$ of C!ina for e9ploitation 1y An$lo4Sa9on apital, t!at is, t!e transformation of C!ina into an Amerian4

Dn$lis! olony ;!is 8as perfetly aepta1le M =o8ever, e,hiitin# the hypocrisy and

doule standards that are often characteristic of 2S imperialism* this

apparently &principled' position remained implicitly conditional- >ne

condition )as that its practical results must continually ser+e the current

economic interests of American capital, partiularly 8it! respet to eonomi oloniGation of

C!ina Gence* once chan#in# patterns of international relations* includin#

the #eopolitical reali#nment of Russia and :apanese territorial claims of

anchuria* meant that this material function )as no lon#er the case* then

2S support for a :apanese"centred 0ast Asian @rossraum aruptly

re+ersed into outri#ht opposition- "ar from 1ein$ a pro$ressive, post4imperialist priniple of

universal appliation t!at led t!e rest of t!e 8orld, 2S ideolo#ists )ithin international la)

)ritin#s rapidly reinterpreted the onroe Doctrine9s core elements as

someho) the e,clusi+e property of the 2SA- Bn turn, this re#ime could

e,empt itself from #o+ernance y such supposedly &uni+ersal' principles

)here+er this pro+ed politically e,pedient. et no sooner did it 1eome evident t!at t!ere8as an essential dierene 1et8een t!is An$lo4Sa9on apital interest in C!ina, on t!e one !and, and JapanEs

politial laims upon %an!uria and Kinterest in a reform and reor$aniGation of C!ina, on t!e ot!er, t!an t!eaforementioned literature too up t!e ause and attempted in various 8ays to ast dou1t upon t!e transfera1ility of

t!e %onroe Fotrine and t!e admissi1ility of a Japanese %onroe Fotrine2 M- 5ithin the 2SA*

international la) scholars and political scientists )ere, aordin$ to S!mitt,

actin# as the foremost propa#andists for their re#ime9s ideolo#ical

re+ersal of stance Bn line 8it! t!eir StateEs imperial interests, they supplied a numer of

ideolo#ical !ustications in apparently no less &principled' terms than

those that )ere ad+anced efore to support the +ery opposite case =o8ever,


16/62

t!is time@and in eepin$ 8it! a more $eneral e9ploitation of semanti elastiity 8it!in international treaties@

these ourt scholars con+eniently added that the 2SA alone retained the

ri#ht to e ariter of the meanin#* scope and applicaility of such

supposedly &uni+ersal' international la) principles. ;!ese advoate 8it! $reat ener$yt!e position t!at t!e %onroe Fotrine is a monopoly of t!e United States of Ameria, and t!at it annot 1etransferred to ot!er politial and $eopolitial situations, or an only 1e so transferred 8it! t!e Ke9press permissionand approval of t!e United States M+ Aordin$ to S!mitt, t!e unstated and underlyin$ premise 1e!ind t!e

ideolo$ial defene of t!e USAEs reetion of an Dast Asian Irossraum 8as t!at “only eonomi4apitalisti

imperialism Amerian4style s!ould !ave t!e ri$!t to appeal to t!e %onroe Fotrine'- The imperialist

sute,t )as that the 2SA is entitled to ad+ance its material interests y

reference to the practical meanin# of supposedly uni+ersal le#al* political

and moral principlesHunless and until these e,hiit ne#ati+e implications

5here such implications arise* these principles can then e reinterpreted

strate#ically as essentially particularistic- Bn any event, the 2SA reser+ed to

itself the e,clusi+e ri#ht to decide )hether* in any particular case* these

&principles' are to e taken as either uni+ersally applicale or

conte,tually specic


17/62

>ccupation/ailed States

The a%s attempts to staili$e re#ional politics +ia )ithdra)al

le#itimi$es lieral #loal occupation and administrati+e

+iolencePeter Stirk , 20ar' Constellations *olume , Hum1er -, 200-

et t!ere is anot!er, more positive evaluation of oupation in S!mittEs 8or Bn t!e onludin$ !apter of Homosder Drde !e dre8 on a ontrast 1et8een land 8arfare and maritime 8arfare, 8it! t!e latter supposedly dominatin$

t!e oneptions of t!e interventionist An$lo4Sa9on po8ers ;!is 8as a 8ell4esta1lis!ed t!eme in S!mittEs 8or

;!e ore of t!e ar$ument is t!at the sheer fact of the occupation of enemy territory

#a+e the occupyin# po)er an interest in the maintenance of la) and

pulic order in the occupied territory “=ere,' 8rites S!mitt, “the immediate

connection et)een protection and oedience ecomes e+ident'- Darlier, in t!e1rief setion !eaded &upatio 1ellia im us pu1lium europaeum, !e develops a num1er of t!emes in less t!an adoGen pa$es on t!e la8 of oupation, 8!i! !e desri1es as t!e “last a!ievement in international la8 of t!e us

pu1lium europaeum'+ This la) seeks to #rasp the curious phenomenon of the

e%ecti+e e,ercise of po)er y one state o+er the territory of another

)ithout there ein# any chan#e in so+erei#nty* re#ime* or constitution ;!ate9erise of po8er is !eld, moreover, to 1e le$itimate 1y virtue of a le$al title derived diretly from international la8

Detive po8er and international la8


18/62

le#islation and !urisdiction separated out later This prime+al condition ,

if it is permitted to use t!is 8ord, remains administration ? This ima#e of

undi%erentiated po)er recurs throu#hout Schmitt9s )ork , sometimes 1reain$

t!rou$! ot!er ey distintions, inludin$ t!at 1et8een ommisarial and soverei$n ditators!ip0 It is a

po)er #uided y the technical* o!ecti+e demands of the situation in

)hich #eneral la)s are irrele+ant or )here &la)s' can no lon#er edistin#uished from administrati+e decrees et it is still a political situation

in )hich protection is o%ered and oedience e,pected - Bt is t!e situation 8!i!prevails 1ot! in t!e state of sie$e and 1elli$erent oupation S!mitt 8as not 1ein$ eentri in t!is approa! tooupation ;!e same $eneral traits 8ere identiccupation represents not a constitutional

#o+ernment characterised y a alance of po)ers ut rather a sort of

emer#ency #o+ernment in )hich all forms of po)er are concentrated in

one centralised ody' =e even 8arns a$ainst an e9essively li1eral oupation statute, lest it temptt!e oupyin$ po8er to 1end it to suit t!e irumstanes of t!e moment, as !ad in fat 1een in t!e ase in t!eoupation of t!e R!ineland ;!e main t!rust of "raenelEs ar$ument is, !o8ever, to uestion t!e more e9tremeassertions of unlimited disretion, partiularly t!at assoiated 8it! t!e "ren! !airman of t!e Bnter4Allied R!ineland

Commission, Paul ;irard "raenel notes t!at ;irardEs position 8as an e9tension of t!e po8er laimed for t!e Rei!$overnment 1y S!mitt at t!e time of t!e Prussian oup of ?2, namely an unlimited po8er to at as reuired 1yt!e “irumstanes of t!e moment' Bn t!e ase of ;irard, "raenel ontinues, t!is amounted to t!e laim t!at t!eoupyin$ po8er “an do 8!atever is neessitated 1y !is interests'2 A more overtly ideolo$ial ommentary onoupation 8as oered 1y S!mittEs ontemporary riti, >erner Oest, al1eit 8it!out any e9pliit referene to

S!mitt Oest plays on t!e etymolo$y of t!e Ierman 8ord for administration (*er8altun$: =e 8rites t!atadministration !ad ori$inally si$nialten: t!at !ad $radually 1een narro8ed do8n to

si$nify e9eution of t!e ommands of ot!ers or mere 1ureaurati ativity Administration (*er8altun$: !ad in

partiular 1een separated out from politis and su1ordinated to it Aordin$ to Oest, e,perience of

occupation had demonstrated that this trend had to e re+ersed and

administration (*er8altun$: restored to its ori#inal meanin# of &comprehensi+e

rule (>alten: o+er all pulic a%airs' S!mittEs laims a1out t!e analo$y 1et8een t!e state of sie$e

and elli#erent occupation are losely tied to !is assertion t!at t!e latter e,poses the

fra#ility of the dualistic approach to domestic and international la) Timeand a#ain he plays on the e,ceptional nature of inter+ention y one state

in the a%airs of another to dra) the parallel- Bn part t!is is simply a matter of notin$ t!att!e ontrols over Iermany or ot!er states 8ere supposed to 1e “e9eptional' in some form or anot!er %ore

1roadly, S!mitt ar$ues t!at the principle of inter+ention V a uestion of international la8 V

al)ays presupposes some specic conception of the constitutional order

)ithin states V a .uestion of constitutional state la) Oot! the Goly Alliance

and the onroe Doctrine re+eal ho) closely the t)o are ent)ined - Bn Homos

der Drde S!mitt $ives a some8!at dierent, 1ut related aount. ;!e real state of aairs is t!is, t!at the

military commander of the occupyin# po)er steps into a direct

relationship )ith the population of the occupied territory That is the

indisputale reality* ut it is incompatile )ith the do#matic e,clusi+enessof the so"called dualistic theory of internal and e,ternal relationships or

it is neither pure domestic la) nor pure international la)- ;!e population of t!e

oupied territory does not ount as a le$al su1et + Bn ot!er 8ords, the occupied population is

su!ect to the holder of undi%erentiated po)er )ithout e+en the

protection a%orded to it indirectly y pure international la)* for it is not a

le#al su!ect At t!is point S!mitt refers to t!e “striin$ parallels' 1et8een military oupation and t!estate of sie$e or e9eption


19/62

;ri+ile#in# The >ther

Assi#nin# moral pri+ile#e to the other represses political

a#onism and #enerates the need to eradicate alterity on an

international scale Linda S ehnke, Leturer in t!e Fepartment of Politis and Bnternational

Relations at t!e University of Readin$ and Andreas ishai* Senior Pro$ram

&er in t!e Dduation Pro$ram at t!e United States Bnstitute of Peae, in 20ar, violene and t!e displaement of t!e politial', in ;!e Bnternational Politialt!ou$!t of Carl S!mitt, eds LouiGa &sysseos and "a1io Petito, p$ ?4 2:

"rom a S!mittian perspetive, not!in$ of t!is s!ould ome as a surprise >ne can try to deny*

suppress* or displace the political* yet one can ne+er aolish it ;!e pro1lem is in

8!at fas!ion t!e politial emer$es in dierent ideolo$ies As Iary Ulmen !as pointed out, for S!mitt, the 8key

to the concept of the ;olitical is not enmity ut the distinction itself9

(Ulmen ?N3. N?: The political is t!erefore ased on the reality of di%erence and of

plurality in international society &ne s!ould not e9a$$erate t!is point and romantiiGe t!is reality

too mu! Neither identity nor di%erence can claim moral or ethical priority as

such Gence* no moral pri+ile#e can e assi#ned to the 8other9 , as some Qpost4

modernE et!is !ave tried to do The main concern for realists lie S!mitt is instead to limit

the inherent +iolence in a system of di%erence that has no recourse to a

hi#her political* !udicial or moral authority- Brreonila1le dierenes a1ound, and

+iolence is thus a systemic condition, al)ays implicated in the decisions

et)een self and other, friend and enemy, and al8ays a potentiality in t!e rela4tions 1et8een t!ese

entities "or S!mitt, the distinction et)een friend and enemy estalishes a limit

for con3ict y associatin# it )ith 8!at >illiam Con4 nolly !as alled 8a#onistic respect9 (Connolly ??-. MMVM3: Bn S!mittEs terms, Qaordin$ to traditional international la8, 8ar


20/62

is, the presence of 8otherness9 At 1est, non4demorati re$imes an !ope for toleration V itself aform of onto4 lo$ial violene (Connolly ??-. -: V 1y demorati states Ultimately, !o8ever, t!eir presene,8!i! eeps !istory from ful


21/62

Statehood/2nilateral action

2nilateral representations of statehood as le#itimate or

ille#itimate pa+e the )ay for American Imperialism and

constant inter+ention%i!ael Salter, 201 (Professor of La8, Lanas!ire La8 S!ool, UCLan, PrestonUX “La8, Po8er and Bnternational Politis 8it! Speial Referene to Dast Asia. CarlS!mittEs Irossraum Analysis' C!inese Journal of Bnternational La8 (202:, ?V-23 !ttp.//!ineseilo9fordournalsor$/ontent///?fullpdf:

M3 The Stimson Doctrine t!us asserted that the 2SA possessed an

unrestricted* e+en uni+ersal* ri#ht to deny reco#nition to any #o+ernment

that came to po)er throu#h means other than those fa+oured y current

2S constitutional doctrines-M ;!e irony of denyin$ reo$nition to States reated in a 8ay t!atmimis t!e revolutionary !istorial ori$ins of t!e USA itself appeared to 1e lost on t!ese ideolo$ists ;!e StimsonFotrine also $ave eet to earlier presidential statements ustifyin$ a le$ally unrestrained US interventionism@asif t!is 8ere a priniple of international la8 itself ;aen to$et!er, t!ese developments !elped open t!e door for USinterventions around t!e $lo1e ustieltans!auun$ K8orldvie8- 30 "or present purposes, t!e ruial fator s!apin$ t!esetransformations in US transnational la8 dotrines 8as t!e idea of C!ina as an “open door' for eonomi

oloniGation eit!er 1y means of Japanese ooperation as a US pro9y, or in resistane to Japanese forei$n poliiesBnsofar as Japan remained 8illin$ to failitate su! An$lo4Amerian oloniGation and t!e seurin$ of C!inese ra8

materials t!rou$! apitalisti maret me!anisms, t!en its laims to re$ional superpo8er status, ain to a“Japanese %onroe Fotrine', 8ould 1e reo$niGed 1y t!e USA =o8ever, one Japan t!reatened, 1y means of t!e

proetion of its o8n politial and military po8er, to 1lo Amerian aess to su! ra8 materials in violation of t!elaims and reuirements of An$lo4Amerian neo4li1eralism, t!en, aordin$ to US ideolo$ists 8it!in international


22/62

la8, t!e situation 8as reversed Bn partiular, Japan forfeited its ri$!ts to 1e reo$niGed under international la8 as are$ional superpo8er 3 "or S!mitt, su! r!etorial ar$uments see, for t!eir o8n purposes, to ar era >!ilst t!eori$inal version of t!is dotrine e9!i1ited a “reasona1le lo$i of spatial separation', t!e later imperialisti poliiest!at displaed it represented t!e USAEs “ideolo$ial laim to 8orld interferene'-- 3+ ;!e de1ate over t!einternational le$al si$ni


23/62

Terror RepsRepresentation of an e,istential terrorist threat calcify the

asymmetrical structure that underlies ontolo#ical lieral

+iolence

Ser$ei ;ro$oro+, 20


24/62

present #loal order can e le#itimately opposed . t!e refusal to 1e li1eralismEs Qno1lesava$eE inevita1ly turns one into a 1ar1arian Bf our enemy an only 1e a monster, s!ould 8e 1e surprised t!at t!eats of our enemies are so monstrous5 ;!e unanny eet of t!e li1eral ne$ation of pluralisti anta$onism is t!at in

t!e eyes of its adversaries li1eralism may no lon$er 1e opposed ot!er t!an 1y murderous and meanin$lessdestrution ;o t!e oft4ited empirial laims t!at ontemporary terrorism !as 1een produed as an eet of Cold

>ar poliies of >estern po8ers, 8e must add a oneptual t!esis. terrorism is the practical

e,pression of that mode of enmity )hich the lieral 5est has constituted

as the sole political possiility due to its appropriation of oth nature and

humanity- ;!e Q8ar on terrorE is not an aidental deviation from t!e ma9ims of >estern li1eralism 1ut rat!eran e9emplary model of t!e only ind of Q8arE t!at t!e li1eral forelosure of politial enmity permits, ie a 8ara$ainst an a priori Qunust enemyE Bt s!ould t!erefore not 1e surprisin$ to see t!is model $eneralised 1eyond its

ori$inal artiulation, 8!ere1y it 1eomes a standard response to t!e 8orld8ide e9pressions of anti4li1eral dissent

or this reason* one #ains nothin# y attemptin# to attle terrorism either

on its constituti+e ultra"political terms or, as mu! of ritial t!ou$!t su$$ests, on the

e,tra"political fronts of de+elopment* po+erty relief* ci+ic education*

democratisation* etc Bnstead, any authentic confrontation 8it! terrorism must

lo#ically pass throu#h the sta#e of .uestionin# )hat confrontation*

stru##le and anta#onism actually mean today, 8!o 8e


25/62

5ithdra)al

The A%9s selecti+e condemnation of )ar +ia )ithdra)al

le#itimi$es America9s claim to uni+ersal moral authority and

criminali$es resistance to &peaceful' lieral e,pansionPeter U8e Gohendahl ar and Peae after ?-0 Drnst JZn$er and Carl S!mitt', CulturalCritiue M?, Sprin$ 200N:

Oy ?3, S!mitt 8as onvined t!at t!e era of t!e nation4state !ad ome to an end and 8ould 1e sueeded 1y apolitis of Iro[r\ume, ie, a politis of supranational formations ontrollin$ lar$er areas of t!e $lo1e (S!mitt,

Staat, Iro[raum, Homos, 22+V-N07 Iottfried, Carl S!mitt, NV22: ;!e $lo1e 8ould 1e divided amon$ a smallnum1er of !e$emoni po8ers, ea! of 8!i! ould try to rea! supremay ;!is ne8 re$ime 8ould learly aet

1ot! international relations and t!e ondut of 8ar Bn Land und %eer (?-2:, 8ritten as a !istorial tale for !isdau$!ter, S!mitt fouses on t!e dierene 1et8een land po8ers su! as Iermany and Russia and sea po8ers

su! as Dn$land and, more reently, t!e United States ;!e fundamental division 1et8een land and sea po8ers t!atS!mitt stipulates in Land und %eer determines not only t!e outloo of t!e people in!a1itin$ spei!ile Land

und %eer presents t!e dierene 1et8een land and sea po8ers in t!e form of a narrative 8it!out t!e fore of at!eoretial $roundin$, Fer Homos der Drde (?+0:, 8!ile !oldin$ on to a !istorial or$aniGation of t!e material, is

driven 1y uestions of international la8 At t!e enter of t!e study, 8e orld >ar B It is in this conte,t that the transformation of )arfare

comes into +ie)* ut not so much as a technical or cultural .uestion ut as

a le#al issue Bn S!mittEs opinion, international pu1li la8 under8ent a deisive and onseuentialtransformation in t!e 8ae of t!e Ireat >ar ;!e ;reaty of *ersailles, in 8!i! Ierman responsi1ility for t!e 8ar 8as

odi


26/62

S!mitt reads t!e return of t!e onept of t!e ust 8ar as a serious and ominous set1a, namely a re4emer$eneof premodern norms of 8ar ;!e interstate 8ar 1et8een eual nations 8as transformed into a disriminatin$ 8ar in8!i! t!e defeated nation is treated as a riminal ;o ar$ue !is point, S!mitt spei


27/62

American condemnation of 8ar, for instane, is #rounded in the concrete

de+elopment of t!e Amerian Iro[raum le$itimiGed 1y the onroe Doctrine ;!e e9i1ility oft!e dotrine, 8!i! allo8s eit!er a defensive or an oensive readin$, an serve t!e poliy of t!e United States in

dierent situations and dierent moments of its !istory Schmitt )ants to demonstrate that

the stron# condemnation of KDnd Pa$e 2? )ar, est, demandin$ a rereadin# of the onroe

Doctrine Bn S!mittEs vie8, the rereadin# has to focus on the intensied dialectic

of American isolation and inter+ention, ie, t!e need to remain pure and t!e need to purifyot!ers ;!e !istorial transition from t!e nation4state to t!e Iro[raum implies t!e neessity to ano8led$e and

relate to a num1er of Iro[r\ume (in t!e sense of Realpoliti:, 1ut also t!e ontinued need to up!old t!e status of

moral e9eption The unresol+ed anta#onism results in contradictory positions

)ithin American politics It mo+es ack and forth et)een neutrality )ith

re#ard to forei#n interstate )ars and morally moti+ated decisions tointer+ene in the name of a !ust )ar S!mitt ar$ues t!at t!e onept of t!e ust 8ar le$itimiGedKDnd Pa$e 0 t!e intervention of t!e United States durin$ 1ot! 8orld 8ars, transformin$ t!em from Duropean 8ars

to $lo1al ivil 8ars


28/62

Alternati+e


29/62

Sol+ency " >kina)a

>nly the alternati+e can sol+e – failin# to analy$e the

con+er#ence of :apanese Colonialism and ?ieral imperialism

in American asin# reproduces the >kina)an state ofe,ception and makes colonial occupation ine+itale

Annmaria Shimauku, 201( (Assistant Professor, Japanese/ComparativeLiterature at University of California Riverside “S!mitt and "ouault on t!e#uestion of Soverei$nty under %ilitary &upation' Poltia om)n *olume +, 20-!ttp.//uodli1umi!edu/p/p/222223000+003/44s!mitt4and4fouault4on4t!e4uestion4of4soverei$nty4under5r$n6main7vie86fullte9t:

=o8ever, dierent from Durope, the State Department ultimately dismissed proposals

for an Asian arshall ;lan >!ereas Duropean states 8ere a1le to 1enekina)a )ere handed o+er to the 2-S- throu#h the San rancisco ;eace

Accords, and the island )as occupied under the premise that its so+erei#nty

)as &residually'6(7 present in :apan and hence did not constitute a

colony- "inally, t!e ;rust ;erritory of t!e Pai


30/62

the co+er of national so+erei#nty Understanda1ly, t!ere is mu! am1i$uity as to e9atly 8!atind of Dmpire t!is is. an “Amerian' one, a “Japanese' one, or 1etter yet, a oint “US4Japanese' one 8!ere 1ot!states 8or to$et!er olla1oratively 8!ile some!o8 maintainin$ t!e autonomy of t!eir respetive soverei$n

sp!eres even if only in t!eory The political left in oth the 2-S- and :apan fa+or a

criti.ue of American 0mpire 8!ile more 8ell4read aut!ors mi$!t su$$est a pein$ order in 8!i!

t!e US 1ullies Japan into 1ullyin$ its former olonies ut if there is a colonial aspect to the

2-S- military presence in the Asia ;acic* it is not merely an American one*ut one that also encompasses the le#acy of :apanese 0mpire The fact

that >kina)a today ears the urden of J( of all 2-S- military ases in the

state of :apan e+en thou#h it only makes up kina)a may certainly e an American one, ut it is t!e soverei$n ri$!t of the

:apanese #o+ernment that not only chooses to station military forces

there, ut also #enerously co+ers J-O or ]+0 1illion in asin# costs to

maintain them This #ure is unprecedented in t!e 8orld, makin# it impossile

for the 2-S- not to maintain 2-S- military ases in the :apanese state (Fepartment of Fefense: et to 8!at e9tent an 8e say t!at t!e US military violates t!e soverei$nty of Japan8!en t!e inau$uration of Japanese soverei$nty is prediated on t!e re4oloniGation of &ina8a as an Amerian

military outpost in t!e !en alulated in terms of per4apita IHP, t!e Japanese

eonomy in fat surpassed t!e United States in ?NM (Bto : + "oldin$ t!e Post8ar into t!e Postolonial The

system of so+erei#nty faricated under practices of military occupation

that oth Schmitt and oucault illustrate in t!eir very dierent traetories 8it! remara1le

points of a$reement is !ust as rele+ant today as it 8as in Durope in t!e past &upatio 1ellia per!apsomes t!e losest to e9posin$ S!mittEs dekina)a in ?+M (ara +N: The proportionof 2-S- military ases continued to decrease in :apan )hile increasin# in

>kina)a after ?32 8!en &ina8a formally reverted to t!e Japanese administration (Arasai 2M423: It )as

precisely this char#e of a +iolation of :apanese so+erei#nty that

PreMproduced a 2-S-":apanese system of so+erei#nty in )hich >kina)a

came to occupy a semi"e,trale#al space that falls throu#h the cracks in

international la) and is constantly su!ect to a series of le#al e,ceptions y

oth states- =ene, in a urious turn, t!e ontinuity 1et8een Japanese Dmpire and post8ar US militaryoupation 1reas do8n t!e “do$mati e9lusiveness of t!e so4alled dualisti t!eory of t!e relation 1et8een


31/62

internal and e9ternal' as S!mitt !ad ori$inally !arateriGed it, 1ut in a sli$!tly modikina)a is the simultaneous con+er#ence of four +ectors.

1M :apanese colonialism M American military occupation )ith QM intrastate

la) P)ithin :apanM (M interstate la) Pet)een :apan and the 2-S-M-

>kina)a dissol+es into a +oid precisely at the point in )hich anydiscursi+e strate#y attempts to separate these threads - or >kina)a* it

matters little )ho the so+erei#n or colonial master is@forei$n or domesti, Amerian

or Japanese@for so+erei#nty is characteri$ed as the po)er to susume the

e,trale#al space ack into the faric of this la)-


32/62

Alt Key – Imperialism

The alternati+e9s reco#nition of spatially or#ani$ed po)er

locs opens up critical paths to resistin# American imperialism

and assimilatory repression%i!ael Salter, 201 (Professor of La8, Lanas!ire La8 S!ool, UCLan, PrestonUX “La8, Po8er and Bnternational Politis 8it! Speial Referene to Dast Asia. CarlS!mittEs Irossraum Analysis' C!inese Journal of Bnternational La8 (202:, ?V-23 !ttp.//!ineseilo9fordournalsor$/ontent///?fullpdf:

3N S!mitt developed !is Irossraum t!eory from ??V?-, 8it! modi


33/62

Sol+ency – racketin# Biolence

The riend/0nemy distinction e%ecti+ely rackets +iolence and

creates space for limited e,pressions of po)er – that9s the only

)ay to pre+ent perpetual )ar a#ainst alteritySer$ei ;ro$oro+, 20


34/62

properties or actions of any party could e deemed 8un!ust9* t!us permittin$ t!e

appropriation of t!e usta ausa 1y t!e ot!er party In contrast* the ultrapolitical

constellation, disussed 1y TiGe, is marked precisely y the presence of positi+e

normati+e content in the positions of the opponents, )hose

incommensuraility precludes the e,istence of a common #round 1et8een

t!em In this constellation* the Self ine+italy percei+es the >ther not as ale#itimate e,istential e.ual* ut as a pure ne#ation of the normati+e

principles of the Self , t!e ot!erness of t!e &t!er redued to a mere denial of t!e Self Bnsofar as t!ese

normative priniples are treated 1y t!e Self as unpro1lemati and un!allen$ea1le, the enemy* +ie)ed

in solely ne#ati+e terms of their refusal* ecomes not merely the

ad+ersary in a re$ulated ontest ut an o!ect of hate and re+ulsion, or, in S!mittEsterms, an inimius rat!er t!an a !ostis S!mitt maes a distintion 1et8een !ostis and inimius to stress t!espei


35/62

Impact


36/62

Dehumani$ation

?ieralism e,pands +ia naturali$ation and the +iolent

eradication of alterity as inhuman

Ser$ei ;ro$oro+, 20


37/62

manifestly violates li1eralismEs o8n naturalist presuppositions 1ut is nonet!eless essential to its e9istene,funtionin$ in t!e manner of t!e Ferridean supplement, Qa stran$e dierene 8!i! onstitutes Kli1eralism 1y1rea!in$ itEM Bn FeanEs ar$ument, t!is parado9 maes li1eralism a potentially QtotalE modality of $overnment,Q1eause its pro$ram of self4limitation is lined to t!e failitation and au$mentation of t!e po8ers of ivil soietyand its use of t!ese po8ers, in onuntion 8it! t!e soverei$n, disiplinary and 1iopolitial po8ers of t!e state itself,to esta1lis! a ompre!ensive normalisation of soial, eonomi and ultural e9isteneEM- ;!e naturalisation of a

ertain artefatual oneption of t!e soial permits perpetual interventions in t!e name of its natural values,

disavo8in$ t!e onstitutive and freuently violent !arater of $overnmental praties At the heart oflieral #o+ernment )e may therefore oser+e the aporia )herey the

naturalist ontolo#y is al)ays contaminated y the lo#ic of supplementarity

and e+ery 8natural lierty9 1ears traes of $overnmental QorretiveE interventionsM+ ;!isrelations!ip is at 8or not only in li1eral domesti politis, 1ut also, and 8it! an even $reater intensity, in t!e

international domain, 8!ere lieral #o+ernmentality is deployed in such di+erse

conte,ts as military inter+entions 8in the name of democracy9* neolieral

pro#rammes of de+elopment assistance and economic restructurin#* and

e+en the #loal campai#n for the promotion of 8human ri#hts9 As >illiam Ras!

ar$ues in !is readin$ of t!e disourse of !uman ri$!ts as a form of $eopolitis, Qthe term &human' is

not descripti+e* ut e+aluati+e- To e truly human* one needs to e

correctedEMM It is this o!ect of lieral correcti+e inter+entions, 8!et!er domesti

or international, t!at epitomises the #ure of the foe V a 8not truly human9 ein#

8proscried y nature itself9- The 8incomplete9 humanity of this creature

renders it innitely inferior to the 8fully9 lieral ri#hts"holders, )hich

!usties the deployment of asymmetric su!ect–o!ect relations in peda$o$ialpraties of orretion, 8!ile t!e QunnaturalityE of t!is reature provoes a de$ree of appre!ension. even if t!e foe is

in


38/62

;erpetual 5ar/Inter+ention

The a%9s lieralism !usties +astly more inter+entions +ia the

ideolo#y of &:ust 5ars'

Linda S ehnke, Leturer in t!e Fepartment of Politis and Bnternational Relationsat t!e University of Readin$ and Andreas ishai* Senior Pro$ram &er in t!e

Dduation Pro$ram at t!e United States Bnstitute of Peae, in 20ar, violeneand t!e displaement of t!e politial', in ;!e Bnternational Politial t!ou$!t of CarlS!mitt, eds LouiGa &sysseos and "a1io Petito, p$ ?4 2:

Bt mi$!t appear parado9ial to !at t!is peuliarartiulation of li1eralism 8it!in t!e international onte9t t!erefore reveals are t!e 1oundaries of li1eralism itself, t!elimits it imposes on plurality and dierene, and t!e outline of t!e Qfundamental unityE, t!e Qommon trunE from8!i! diversity may Q1ran! outE (Connolly ??+. ?: Underlyin$ t!e li1eral proet to reartiulate t!e lo$i ofinternational politis and to overome t!e eets of anar!y are t8o entral assumptions a1out t!e identity of itsreferent su1ets and a1out t!e lo$i of !istory Oot! assumptions impose severe limits on t!e e9pressions of

plurality t!at li1eralism an tolerate "irst, Qlieral ideolo#y holds that indi+iduals

e+ery)here are fundamentally the same* and are est o% pursuin# self"

preser+ation and material 8ell41ein$ ;hus all indi+iduals share an interest in

peace* and s!ould )ant )ar only as an instrument to rin# aout peace9 (&8en

2000. --: And furt!er, Qlieral States are elie+ed to e reasonale* predictale*

and trust)orthy, 1eause t!ey are $overned 1y t!eir itiGensE true interests, 8!i! !armoniGe 8it! allindividualsE true interests around t!e 8orldE (i1id. +V+-: Fierene, in ot!er 8ords, is 1ut an appearane t!at!ides a deeper, underlyin$ !armony and identity of QmanindE Politis is t!erefore !ile demoray8it!in li1eral soieties is sup4posed to provide t!e onditions of possi1ility for politial plurality, its artiula4tion int!e t!eoretial onte9t of t!e international soiety resists its o8n pluraliGation As ar$ued a1ove, FP; is 1ased ont!e pro1lemati assumption t!at in t!e international realm, demoray de


39/62

li1eral mind, demoray 1eomes !omolo$ous7 t!e !eterolo$ous on4ditions of t!e anar!ial system are too mu!for it to 1ear


40/62

Terror?ieralism ine+italy produces terrorism y lurrin# the

friend/enemy distinction

De ennoist


41/62

an ima$e of some1ody 8!o 8ill never “1e lie us'E (Ra$aGGi 200-: ;!is is onstantly af


42/62

5Ds

&Asolute 5ar' !usties the use of 5Ds to eradicate an

inhuman other to preser+e #loal order

Xam Shapiro, 20


43/62

AT


44/62

AT 0nemies ad

?ieralism structures ontolo#ical +iolence around the notion of

a naturally human desire for peace – enmity ine+italy returns

and is +iolently repressedSer$ei ;ro$oro+, 20


45/62

AT Alt ails – racketin#

aintance of a friend/enemy distinction is key to truly

racketin# )ar and pre+entin# total )ars of annihilation

>dysseos J (LouiGa, Senior Leturer of BR at t!e University of Susse9, “*ioleneafter t!e State5 A Preliminary e9amination of t!e Conept of Ilo1al Civil >ar,'Prepared for t!e Mt! Pan4Duropean BR Conferene:

;!e


46/62

ecame a type of political relation amon#st states (S!mitt 200. 00: Anyenemy 8!i! !ad t!e form of a state 8as a ust enemy and 8ar ould 1e 8a$eda$ainst it This a+oided )ars of con+iction* creed and reli#ion (t!at is, 1asedon usta ausa: )hich had historically led to unlimited )ar seekin# theenemy9s annihilation As !e 8ould say almost t8o deades later, Q8it! t!e

1raetin$ of 8ar, Duropean !umanity !ad a!ieved somet!in$ e9traordinary.renuniation of t!e riminaliGation of t!e opponent, ie t!e relativiGation of enmity,t!e ne$ation of a1solute enmityE (S!mitt 2003. ?0: "or S!mitt, Qrenounin$ t!edisrimination and defamation of t!eir enemiesE 8as a si$ni


47/62

AT ;erm

The permutation is impossile – )e must choose et)een

uni+ersali$ation of +alues or reco#nition of enmity-

Al1erto oreiras*


48/62

AT Conser+atism

Schmitt9s political analysis is falsely portrayed as the ori#in of

neo"conser+ati+e thou#ht – that destroys its potential for

structurin# criticism of imperialist policiesC!antal ou%e, 20estminster “S!mittEs *ision of a %ultipolar >orld &rder' Sout! Atlanti #uarterly%ar! , 200+ *olume. 0- Bssue. 2 Pa$e. 2-+42+:

Oefore enterin$ into t!e main disussion, it is, !o8ever, neessary olfo8itG Their aim is to make ush9s politics appear

sinister ecause of its supposed intelletual ori#ins in someody deemed to 1e a88Na$i thinker-99 ;!ey laim t!at it is 1eause it envisa$es politis in a S!mittian 8ay t!at t!e approa! oft!e neoonservatives reates a dan$erous polariGation 1et8een t!e QQiviliGed 8orldEE and t!e QQenemies offreedomEE and t!at it needs to 1e !allen$ed Bn ot!er 8ords, Ous!Es 8ar a$ainst terrorism is presented as t!e diretimplementation of a S!mittian understandin$ of t!e politial ;o avoid t!e QQlas! of iviliGationsEE to 8!i! t!is typeof politis is leadin$, 8e are told, t!e solution is to ome 1a to t!e li1eral approa! and to 8or to8ard t!eesta1lis!ment of a osmopolitan 8orld order Bt is, of ourse, not my intention to defend Ous!Es politis a$ainst !is

detrators &n t!e ontrary, B 8ill ar$ue t!at Schmitt can help us to make a much more

incisi+e criti.ue of ush9s politics %ore important, per!aps, a$ainst all t!ose 8!o 1elieve t!atOus!Es politis represents a parent!esis in t!e traditional Amerian perspetive, a parent!esis t!at ould easily 1e

overome 8it! a dierent $overnment in >as!in$ton, B ontend t!at Schmitt allo)s us to #rasp the

continuity e,istin# et)een the traditional perspecti+e and the politics

carried out y the current #o+ernment- As far as Ous!Es politis is onerned, it is lear t!at

there is a profound misunderstandin# at play in the con3ation et)eenSchmitt9s approach and t!e one promoted 1y ush9s administration ;o 1e sure, S!mitt

repeatedly underlined t!at t!e dierentia spei


49/62

in t!e same 8ay as one an misuse peae, ustie, pro$ress and iviliGation to laim t!ese as oneEs o8n and to denyt!e same to t!e enemyEE2 ;!is, in !is vie8, e9plained 8!y 8ars 8a$ed in t!e name of !umanity 8ere partiularly

in!uman, sine all means )ere !ustied once the enemy had een presented as

an outla) of humanity- S!mitt 8ould no dou1t !ave denouned t!e urrent dra8in$ of t!e frontier1et8een friend and enemy as one 1et8een t!e iviliGed 8orld and its enemies as an avatar of t!e li1eral r!etori Bn

fat, far from ustifyin$ Ous!Es strate$y, Schmitt9s approach pro+ides us )ith many

insi#hts to undermine its asic tenets Deunkin# its moralistic discourse*it rin#s to li#ht the rhetorical mo+es used y the urrent 2-S $overnment to

conscate and monopoli$e the idea of ci+ili$ation Oy delarin$, as Ous! did in one of !isspee!es, t!at QQt!ose 8!o are not 8it! us are a$ainst us,EE t!e urrent Amerian strate$y renders ille$itimate all

forms of opposition to t!e attempt to impose a Pa9 Ameriana on t!e 8!ole planet Schmitt9s

perspecti+e re+eals ho) this kind of discourse, far from 1ein$ ne8, has lon# een

at the core of American politics Ge therey helps us locate ush9s strate#y

in the )ider conte,t of the +arious steps taken y the 2nited States to

enforce its #loal he#emony Bn QQ*`lerre!tli!e "ormen des modernen Bmperialismus,EE a te9tpu1lis!ed in ?2 t!at is e9tremely relevant today, S!mitt e9amined t!e ne8 form of imperialism represented 1yt!e United States ;!e ar$umentEs spei


50/62

A% Ans)ers


51/62

;erm

;ermutation do the a% and all non mutually e,clusi+e

components of the alternati+e – a synthesis of realist and

lieral understandin#s of so+erei#nty is critical to producin#e%ecti+e IR analysis specically re#ardin# 2S inter+ention

Jeremy oses, 201Q Senior Leturer in politial siene at t!e university ofCanter1ury, “Soverei$nty as irresponsi1ility5 A Realist ritiue of t!e Responsi1ilityto Protet' Revie8 of Bnternational Studies? (Jan 20:. 4+

;!e underlyin$ ontention of t!is artile is t!at there are t)o parallel discourses of

so+erei#nty that ali#n )ith di%erent theoretical approaches to International

Relations and hence to .uestions of inter+ention and non"inter+ention Bn t!isartile, t!ese dierin$ understandin$s of soverei$nty 8ill 1e !araterised in terms of de ure soverei$nty as

opposed to de fato soverei$nty The key distinction here is et)een those )ho

elie+e that so+erei#nty is an empty si#nier t!at is redened throu#h proesses of social interaction and discourse and those )ho +ie) so+erei#nty

as a timeless feature of social and political or#anisation and de


52/62

t!at impat upon t!e 8ell1ein$ of t!e state -;!is is, t!erefore, a more in8ard4looin$ understandin$ ofresponsi1ility t!at does not insist upon tain$ responsi1ility for t!ose 1eyond one^s o8n soverei$n spae ;!is formof responsi1ility is enapsulated in =o11es^s formulation of soverei$nty as a ^mutual relation of protetion ando1edienê +and in %or$ent!au^s moral defene of t!e ̂ national interest^M>!at an 1e a$reed upon, t!en, is t!at

re#ardless of )hether )e take the lieral or Realist position on the

.uestion of responsiility* maintenance of so+erei#nty is al)ays premised

upon meetin# certain responsiilities to others, 1ut t!e domain of responsi1ility diersenormously "rom t!e RtoP perspetive, priniples of !uman ri$!ts mean t!at all are responsi1le for all, 8!ile fromt!e Realist perspetive, t!e responsi1ilities of t!e soverei$n amount to t!e prudent mana$ement of t!e internal and

e9ternal relations of t!e population 8it!in Bn t!is sense, Lue Ilanville is orret to ar$ue t!at soverei$nty and

responsi1ility !ave al8ays 1een intert8ined to some e9tent J5hat is at issue* ho)e+er* is not

)hether so+erei#ns should responsily mana#e their o)n domains* ut

)hether these responsiilities are enforceale y outside po)ers, and it is ont!is point t!at 8e !at B am ar$uin$ !ere, t!erefore, is t!at a de facto denition of

so+erei#nty does in some measure su##est an inescapale potential for

irresponsile action7 t!at is, ation t!at annot 1e susepti1le to interferene or aounta1ility 1y

anot!er po8er "urt!er, this potential for irresponsiility* or unaccountaility* is

deri+ed from empirical .uestions of po)er rather than norms of non"

inter+ention Bt is in t!is limited sense, as B aim to demonstrate, t!at t!e onept of so+erei#nty as

irresponsiility can e utilised to criti.ue the Rto;- In order to more fully

understand the deciencies of the concept of so+erei#nty as

responsiility it is rst necessary to outline the claims made y Rto;

ad+ocates efore mo+in# on to an analysis of so+erei#nty from a Realist

perspecti+e- ;!is is t!en follo8ed 1y a ritiue of t8o ey elements of t!e RtoP related to t!e de fatode


53/62

so+erei#n po)er remains una%ected and, indeed, a moral license is #i+en to

those )ho are capale of doin# so to interfere further in the a%airs of

smaller* )eaker states Sadly, t!e fat t!at Dd8ard Lu, at t!e 200? UH Ieneral Assem1ly Fe1ate ont!e Responsi1ility to Protet, !ose to open t!e proeedin$s 1y e9pressin$ t!e desire to ̂ dispel some of t!e myt!st!at !ave lun$ to RtoP lie so many un8anted 1arnales from an earlier time and plae^ and inluded amon$ t!ese^myt!s^ ̂ t!e t8isted notion t!at soverei$nty and responsi1ility are some!o8 inompati1le^, NMdoes not $ive mu!ause for !ope t!at t!ese onerns are $oin$ to 1e taen seriously in !i$!4level de1ate >e !ave already seen !o8t!e et!ial Geit$eist of $lo1al responsi1ility an 1e aptured 1y po8erful states, 8it! t!e US neo4onservative laimto ̂ 1enevolent !e$emony^N3and reetion of riteria t!at 8ould limit t!e e9erise of t!eir interventionist po8er att!e 200+ UH >orld SummitNNBndeed, !umanitarian usti!ile 8e may not neessarily aept all t!e onlusions and premises of Realist

Bnternational Relations t!eory, reco#nition of the physical limits presented y de

facto so+erei#nty should e taken seriously y anyone )ho seeks to

promote military inter+ention as a cure to the many ills of the )orld ;o 1e

sure, so+erei#n po)er may e used to #ood or e+il ends , ut the e+ils of

#enocide or ethnic cleansin# are not caused y so+erei#nty ecause it has

no concrete ethical or moral content ;!ere is a star ontrast !ere, t!erefore, 1et8een t!ose8!o vie8 soverei$nty as normative and t!ose 8!o vie8 it as de fato po8er >!at B !ave attempted to s!o8 a1ove,

in t!is onte9t, is t!at a Realist ritiue of t!e li1eral notion of ^soverei$nty as responsi1ility^ !as many ompellin$dimensions t!at s!ould 1e taen seriously 1y t!ose interested in 8orin$ to8ard a more seure 8orld


54/62

Alt ails – racketin# 5ron#

Schmitt9s history is entirely incorrect – limited )ar is a

mystication of a more +iolent and loody time

Oenno Ier!ard Teschke, 2011 (Senior Leturer in Bnternational Relations at t!eUniversity of Susse9, “"atal attration. a ritiue of Carl S!mittEs internationalpolitial and le$al t!eory' Bnternational ;!eory (20:, .2, 3?V223!ttp.//srosusse9au/M3//S!mitt4B;b+Ob+Fpdf:

Bf t!ese o1servations do not per se falsify S!mittEs t!esis of a Q8ar4informE, t!ey are t!ro8n into s!arp relief 8!en

read in onuntion 8it! t!e QrationalityE of 8ar4delarations, aims, and endin$s and t!e atual ondut of 8ar

@i+en that military con3icts )ere essentially inter"dynastic con3icts 1et8een

ma$ni !omines, the predominant contemporary form of con3ict )as, ne9t to naval

trade 8ars, the )ar of succession This appellation indicates t!at the casus elli

)ere rarely, if ever, moti+ated y a rational calculus of costs and enets V aself4limitin$ Clause8itGian move t!at ali1rated t!e 8ar4eort as a rational e9erise to a learly dear4delarations,aims, and endin$s 8ere deisively s!aped 1y t!ese inter4dynasti onits t!at 8ere, at a deeper soiolo$ial level,

property disputes As so+erei#nty )as a personal ad!unct of dynastic houses*

e+ery death of a rei#nin# monarch led to succession crises that turned

immediately into multilateral a%airs, as most royal !ouses 8ere onneted t!rou$! ela1orate

marital strate$ies in 8!i! states married states to a$$randiGe t!eir territory4as4property Correlatively, the

lo#ic of trade )ars* nota1ly t!e seuene of An$loVFut! naval 8ars, )as #rounded in the

mercantilist imperati+es for the militari$ed control of e,clusi+e tradin#

routes- Bn t!is onte9t, )ar aims )ere not 8limited9* ut assumed an imperial*

totali$in# character* as Durope 8as re$arded 1y dynasti rulers as a ind of property4map As ontrolover Qland and peopleE onstituted t!e main soure of inome for rulers in pre4apitalist Durope, even t!ou$! it 8asin


55/62

se.uestration and ransom Armies tended to ransack ci+ilian areas in an eort to feed

t!emselves, causin# plunder* rape* famines* and population displacement- Oellumse ipse alet (8ar feeds o itself: aptures t!is prediament ;!e a1sene of a lear set of rules and po8ers ofenforement onernin$ t!e treatment of prisoners and non4om1atants implied t!eir ransom for money or ot!er

prisoners, if t!ey 8ere not illed outri$!tN orced conscription of ci+ilians )as a common

practice- Any soiolo$y of ontemporary armies s!o8s t!at in spite of all t!e (>e1erian and "ouauldian:

emp!asis on t!e inreasin$ly rationaliGed, professionaliGed, and disiplined !arater of t!e ne8 standin$ armies,soldiers )ere #enerally not salaried ureaucrats* ut 8in pay9 of nole

oFcers )ho had usually themsel+es ou#ht their military commissions

Armies )ere not pulic armies, ut precisely Qthe kin#9s armies97 yet*

essentially eyond their disciplinary control (Xroener 2000, 20+:? 5ar )as not* as

S!mitt su$$ests, an intermittent* temporally limited* and formali$ed a%air of a

polity9s out)ard relations, neatly divored from t!e inner onstitution of pre4e9istin$ entities, ut

the central preoccupation of early modern polities t!at diretly penetrated t!eir internal

onstitution and t!eir very raison dEectre 5ar )as the central a,is of early modern

#eopolitics and money its en#ine (peunia nervus rerum: V and t!e ultimate ar1iter over defeatand vitory Aross Durope, pu1li ar 8as t!e stateEs prima and ultima ratio As )ars #re) e+er costlier, ta9ation4rates inreased,

social discontent mounted, pu1li de1ts multiplied, and royal 1anrupties proliferated, until

re+olution and reform recon#ured property and authority relations, ta9

systems and pu1li


56/62

?ieralism @ood

?ieral )ars of inter+ention are pro+en to e more limited in

scope than the alternati+e – don9t make the #ood the enemy of

the perfectC!ris ro)n ar, and t!e Crisis of Ilo1al &rder' 2003 M3:

Schmitt9s normati+e position is impossile to sympathi$e )ith* ut the

clarity )ith )hich he de+elops his ar#ument is admirale* as is !is reo$nition of t!e

!an$es in 8orld order t!at too plae in t!e seventeent! and a$ain in t!e t8entiet! enturies It is not

necessary to share in Schmitt9s nostal#ia for the !us pulicum 0uropaeum

in order to admire the precision )ith )hich he delineates its

characteristics =e presents an aount of t!e Duropean states4system 8!i! is rat!er more ompellin$

t!an t!e version of international soiety assoiated 8it! Dn$lis! S!ool 8riters (Outteri$!t ?MM7 Oull?33:, or 8it! t!e mu! less learly dealtG ?3?7 Oald8in

??: The Homos of the Earth is a 1oo t!at s!ould 1e on t!e readin$ list of any international relations t!eorist

Still, one mi#ht admire* ut one should not endorse- The picture of the )orld

that Schmitt presents in+ites us to accept that the 8humani$ed )ars9 of

the modern 0uropean states"system represent not simply in practice* ut

also in theory* an ad+ance o+er the 8!ust )arsE t!at preeded t!em, and t!e Q!umanitarian8arsE t!at !ave follo8ed t!em ;!at t!ese !umaniGed 8ars 8ere $enerally less terri1le t!an t!eir predeessors and

suessors is an empirial ud$ement t!at an 1e ontested, 1ut t!at the attempt to control and

limit the role of +iolence in human a%airs is necessarily futile and counter"

producti+e is a normati+e position that deser+es to e re!ected. Ultimately,

Schmitt9s criti.ue of the notion of the :ust 5ar rests upon a shaky

empirical ase and an undesirale normati+e position V 1ut it still represents one oft!e most ompellin$ ritiues of t!e notion availa1le S!mittEs ritiue of t!e Just >ar is not a ritiue t!at is 1asedon ontin$enies V !o8 Just >arriors 1e!ave V 1ut on fundamentals =e taes us to t!e !eart of t!e pro1lem and

demonstrates t!at 1ot! t!e medieval C!ristian and t!e modern, li1eral, le$al/moral aount of Just >ar areunaepta1le V 1ut if 8e 1elieve t!at it is desira1le to redue t!e role of violene in !uman aairs t!is s!ould simply

stimulate us to re8or t!e relevant ate$ories to try to produe a more via1le aount of t!e irumstanes under8!i! t!e resort to fore mi$!t 1e usti


57/62

states are pure at heart the inter+ention in .uestion )ill not count as

properly humanitarian- Since, ex hypothesi, states almost al)ays act for a

+ariety of reasons* some altruistic* most not* this kind of purism #enerally

leads to the conclusion that no humanitarian inter+entions ha+e taken

place* and that the claim of such moti+ation al)ays hides some darker

intent This )ay of lookin# at the issue is, B t!in, mistaken rom the point of+ie) of the +ictims of #enocide or ot!er forms of serious oppression* the moti+es of

their rescuers are not a matter of immediate importance V to tae one o1vious

e9ample, had the "ren! or 2S #o+ernments acted eetively to end the #enocide in

R)anda in ??-, it seems unlikely that those )hose li+es had een sa+ed

therey )ould ha+e )orried too much aout e,actly )hy their rescuers

acted- Bn su! e9treme ases outcomes are )hat matter rather than intentions7indeed, in t!is partiular ase it 8as preisely 1eause any US ation 8ould !ave !ad to !ave 1een motivated 1yaltruism, sine it !ad no su1stantial material interests in R8anda, t!at no su! ation too plae2 =avin$ made t!ispoint, B 8ill simply assert V sine t!e sope of t!is !apter does not allo8 me to disuss in detail t!e fats of ea!

ase V t!at there ha+e een a numer of inter+entions since 1OO< )here

states ha+e used force in circumstances )here action has actually ended ,

or urtailed, or prevented lar#e"scale human ri#hts auses and )here the moti+esof the inter+eners )ere to rin# aout this state of a%airs* or* at a

minimum* )ere not inconsistent )ith this outcome- Such )as, B t!in, the

case in northern Ira. in 1OO1* in osnia in 1OO(/1OO* in Koso+o and 0ast

Timor in 1OOO and* under rather di%erent circumstances* in Sierra ?eone in


58/62

AT rame)ork – Analysis ad

Schmittian analysis is historically misinformed and !ustied the

Na$i )ar of imperialism

Oenno Ier!ard Teschke, 2011 (Senior Leturer in Bnternational Relations at t!eUniversity of Susse9, “"atal attration. a ritiue of Carl S!mittEs internationalpolitial and le$al t!eory' Bnternational ;!eory (20:, .2, 3?V223!ttp.//srosusse9au/M3//S!mitt4B;b+Ob+Fpdf:

;!is artile !as ar$ued t!at attention to S!mittEs politial onte9t and politis of onept4formation provides a

privile$ed vanta$e4point for dislosin$ t!e purpose and limits of Schmitt9s theoretical premises,

8!i! #enerated a determinate* ut defecti+e* reinterpretation of the

history of international la) and order ;!e t!eoretial and !istorial ritiue of Schmitt9s

triple theoretical a,iomatic revealed t!eir one"dimensional P#eoMpolitical cast,

8!i! precludes the incorporation of social relations into Schmitt9s denition

of his research premises

These dual deciencies V

theoretical and historicalV su##est a shift to the alternati+e paradi#m of international historical

sociolo#y- Bnversely, t!e artile !as su$$ested t!at t!e Schmitt"inspired IR literature tends

to dissociate Schmitt9s thou#ht V !istory and t!eory V from his specic political

pro!ect This #enerates a depolitici$ed and de"conte,tuali$ed acceptance

of his conceptual narrati+e of international la8 and order, 8!i! translates into anunderpro1lematiGed proetion of S!mittian ate$ories unto an altered ontemporary $eopolitial on


59/62

dout on the standin# of his international thou#ht as a plausile and

coherent international theory* and raise a lar$e uestion mar 1e!ind attempts to elevate !im to a!it!erto under4appreiated lassi of BR, and ;!e Homos to t!e status of a foundin$ te9t of t!e disipline (&dysseos

and Petito 2003, N: Go) can neo"Schmittians escape these liailitiesL "urt!ermore, itsundi$ested pro1lems manifest t!emselves in a num1er of uestions and !allen$es to ontemporary attempts tomo1iliGe S!mitt as a riti of t!e li1eral proet of modernity


60/62

AT ?ieralism adSchmitt9s #eneral analysis cannot account for the

particularities of modern lieralism

Oenno Ier!ard Teschke, 2011 (Senior Leturer in Bnternational Relations at t!e

University of Susse9, “"atal attration. a ritiue of Carl S!mittEs internationalpolitial and le$al t!eory' Bnternational ;!eory (20:, .2, 3?V223!ttp.//srosusse9au/M3//S!mitt4B;b+Ob+Fpdf:

"or at t!e entre of t!e !eterodo9 V partly post4struturalist, partly realist V neo4S!mittian analysis stands t!e

onlusion of ;!e Homos. t!e t!esis of a strutural and ontinuous relation 1et8een li1eralism and violene (%oue200+, 20037 &dysseos 2003: Bt su$$ests t!at, in s!arp ontrast to t!e li1eral4osmopolitan pro$ramme ofQperpetual peaeE, t!e $eo$rap!ial e9pansion of li1eral modernity 8as aompanied 1y t!e intensieimar and fasist Iermany, t!e assumption t!at t!eir onits 8it! t!e An$loAmerianli1eral4apitalist !eartland 8ere $rounded in an anta$onism 1et8een li1eral modernity and a realitrant Iermany

outside its $eo$rap!ial and oneptual lines runs ounter to t!e !istorial evidene "or t!is readin$ presupposest!at late4>il!elmine Iermany 8as not already su1stantially penetrated 1y apitalism and fully inorporated into t!e

apitalist 8orld eonomy, posin$ t!e uestion of 8!et!er t!e auses of >>B lay in t!e apitalist dynamis of inter4imperial rivalry (Ola1ourn and Dley ?N-:, or in proesses of 1elated and inomplete li1eralapitalist

development, due to t!e survival of Qre4feudaliGedE elites in t!e Ierman state lasses and t!e marria$e 1et8eenQrye and ironE (>e!ler ??3: Bt also assumes t!at t!e late4>eimar and early HaGi turn to8ards t!e onstrution of

an autar!i Ierman re$ionalism V %itteleuropa or Iro[raum V 8as not deeply inuened 1y t!e internationalrami


61/62

5estern fashion, deeply o4determined 1y lon$ !istories of >estern anti4li1eral olonial and post4olonialle$aies Bf t!ese states (or soial fores 8it!in t!em: turn a$ainst t!eir imperial masters, t!e onventional poliy

e9pression is Q1lo81aE And as the Schmittian analytical +ocaulary does not

include a conception of human a#ency and social forces V only friend/ enemy

$roupin$s and olletive politial entities $overned 1y e9eutive deision V it also lacks the

cate#ories of analysis to comprehend the social dynamics that dri+e the

stru##les around so+erei#n po)er and the e+entual o+ercomin#* for

e,ample* of Tunisian and 0#yptian states of emer#ency )ithout 2S"led

)ars for humanity- Similarly, it seems unliely t!at t!e $eneri idea of li1eral 8orld4orderin$ and t!eprodution of li1eral su1etivities an atually e9plain 8!y >estern intervention seems impro1a1le in some ases

(e$ Oa!rain, #atar, emen or Syria: and more liely in ot!ers (e$ Ser1ia, Af$!anistan, Bra, and Li1ya: ?ieral

)orld"orderin# consists of di%erential strate#ies of uildin#* coordinatin#*

and dra)in# lieral and anti"lieral states into t!e >estern or1it, and overtly or overtly

intervenin$ and refas!ionin$ t!em one t!ey step out of line- These are con3icts )ithin a )orld*

)hich seem to push the term lieralism eyond its ori#inal meanin# ;!e$eneri S!mittian idea of a li1eral Qspaeless universalismE sits unomforta1ly 8it! t!e realities of maintainin$ anAmeria4supervised Qinformal empireE, 8!i! !as to mana$e a persistin$ interstate system in diverse and ase4

spei


62/62

""""

Fellows - Schmitt K

Documents

Transcript of Fellows - Schmitt K