Various Theorists and the Intellectual History of Europe
Various theorists have written about the intellectual history of Europe, and Carl Schmitt is one of the theorists who has discussed the sovereignty and dictatorship of Europe’s intellectual history. Other writers, like as Smith, Pufendorf, and Hobbes, also had a say in the history of the intellectual European world. Carl’s description of intellectual European history raises several questions related to the existence of sovereignty. Schmitt emphasizes the necessity of sovereign authority in legal concerns, and this is what provides the foundation for intellectual European history. Schmitt argues that individualism was the main reason for the opening of the crack in the theoretical justification of the European state that was full of liberalism. He strongly criticized the act of liberalism through pushing blame on Hobbes account of individualism. Carl criticized the liberal cosmopolitanism and parliamentary democracy that existed in the history of Europe. His account of the intellectual European history is based on the idea of legal order. Carl defends sovereignty by stipulating that there cannot be a legal order without sovereign authority. He further outlines that the effectiveness of the law is influenced by the availability of authority which decides how the general legal rules shall be applied to cases. Hobbes account of absolute sovereignty is based on the liberty of individuals being able to choose for themselves regarding all the matters that the authority has not legislated (Koskenniemi, 2016).
Situations with No Suspension of Law
There exist situations where there is no one to suspend the law and such circumstances include the cases where sovereignty is unrecognized in positive law. Carl argues that sovereigns have to consider the prevailing social circumstances for a decision to be made regarding the cases where there is no one to suspend the law. Schmitt explains that if sovereigns were to act based on something else other than the prevailing social attitudes, then it would be difficult for them to suspend the law as well as act against perceived emergencies. Ideological and social conflicts are the major problems in a society that requires a sovereign decision, and Schmitt elaborates that such a decision usually sides with one group of people in a society if there cannot be unanimity among the people of the whole society (Koskenniemi, 2016).
Democracy and Legitimacy
Schmitt’s arguments regarding democracy were equally strong in the sense that he admits to the idea that the principle of democracy is the sole principle that guides legitimacy. This implies that sovereignty in a democratic policy applies to the popular sovereign, which consists of citizens that are equal on political fronts. A popular sovereign according to Carl is one who makes decisions based on the rules of the constitution that exist and, which determine how people can form a unified will as a group. Wollstonecraft’s arguments about the rights of women can be related to Carl’s discussion of democracy. She argued that the men have established a means of taking advantage of their tyranny of numbers over women based on sexual distinction and this made women miss out on activities that would help them cultivate their reasons. This would consequently lead to the women cultivating the false virtues hence resulting in a deformation of their characters. Wollstonecraft was simply trying to fight for the rights of women in her account, and this is in relation to Carl’s argument of democracy because it advocates for the democratic rights of women (Armitage, 2014).
Political Distinction and the Friend-Enemy Duality
Carl’s account of a political distinction is that the difference occurs regarding the friend and the enemy. He elaborates this distinction is public and not private as many writers would think. Schmitt illustrates this by explaining that individuals may have enemies but this does not imply that personal enmity is a political phenomenon. The political arena is full of mutual enemies in forms of groups and who mainly arrive at such situations because of the possibility of killings and war. The willingness of an individual to fight and even die for their counter in the group they are in is what brings the difference in politics between two groups. On the same note, Hume argues that parties are the source of the divide between men. This makes them furious and hence creating the distinction between real and personal. The distinction arises because of the different interests of people and groups. There is a connection between the arguments of Carl and Hume in relation to the distinction between the political activities and views (Armitage, 2014).
Conclusion
Schmitt’s belief is that political enmity has different origins because it is not based on a substantive distinction of its own. He bases his argument on the idea that ethics are distinguished on the basis of what is morally good or bad. Pufendorf, on the other hand, argues on the basis of distinguishing moral theology and natural law. He stipulates that natural law must work from reason alone and if we relate to Carl’s account of the intellectual history, there is a connection because Schmitt argues that what is morally good or bad can be established from people’s behaviors (Armitage, 2014).
References
Armitage, D. R. (2014). “The international turn in intellectual history.” In Rethinking modern European intellectual history eds. Darrin M McMahon and Samuel Moyn: 232-252. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Koskenniemi, M. (2016). Carl Schmitt and international law. In The Oxford Handbook of Carl Schmitt. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199916931.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199916931-e-020
