[Catalyst]

Is anyone familiar with the work of Carl Schmitt and in particular, Political Theology? Cheers.

For any of you who don't know, Carl Schmitt was the leading jurist of the Wiemar Republic (inter-war Germany), he published Political Theology in 1922 which dealt primarily with the notion of Sovereignty, and states of exception (emergency, extreme peril to the order of society and the state). Political Theology also deals with the idea that 'all significant concepts of the modern theory of state are secularized theological concepts'. It's a quick read and available in PDF format here:

http://pdflibrary.files.wordpress.com/2 ... eology.pdf

Here is a copy of my essay so far and the question to which it pertains, I welcome any and all questions, comments and criticisms. Thanks!


1. In Carl Schmitt’s Political Theology we find his famous phrase, ‘sovereign is he who decides on the exception’. Write an analysis of this phrase and provide an interpretation of its meaning. How does this phrase connect to Schmitt’s other famous formulation that ‘all significant concepts of the modern theory of state are secularized theological concepts’?



***

Carl Schmitt begins his work Political Theology with the statement “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.” (P.5) This statement provides a conditional characterization of what it is to be sovereign; to be sovereign is to decide on the exception. Such conditional description begs further questioning and further refining, yet one must first consider the statement itself, disassembling its components in order to identify those that require further elaboration.
The terms ‘sovereign’ and ‘exception’ provide the sentence with its primary components, and additional definition thereof will result in the desired understanding. The definitions of the idea of the sovereign and of the exception as they apply to this statement are dependant on the verb for their true meaning. The verb ‘to decide’ indicates the context in which the primary terms apply; the pronoun ‘he’ indicates that it is an individual which is to be sovereign provided the condition of deciding on the exception is met. A notion of ability –of ‘being able to’- is implied by this condition. He who is ‘able’ to decide is sovereign; this ability in turn implies a notion of power, the ‘power to be able.’ Power is evocative of ‘sovereignty’, the term from which sovereign derives. The notion of what it means to be sovereign demands an understanding of sovereignty and associated matters such as power, authority, and relationship with law. Suffice it to say, at the moment this understanding need only be brief.
Depending on the context, sovereignty can refer to:

“1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign
or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.
4. A territory existing as an independent state.”

It is important to note the distinction made in the first definition, it identifies the source of said ‘supremacy of authority’ as a sovereign. Thus one not only is sovereign through the exercise of authority, one is also the sovereign. Furthermore, said definition distinguishes between a sovereign state and a sovereign. In the modern political sense a sovereign state is a state that has exclusive authority over its affairs vis-à-vis other states. It follows that the governing institutions of such states also have exclusive authority over affairs within the territory of the state. While one might be inclined to conclude from this that the government is the sovereign of the state, a different answer all together is deduced if one shifts focus temporarily from ‘sovereign’ to ‘exception’.
According to Schmitt “The exception, which is not codified in the existing legal order, can at best be characterized as a case of extreme peril, a danger to the existence of the state, or the like.” (P.6) In order to appreciate the significance of this definition it must be examined in relation to the context of Schmitt’s initial statement. One is sovereign if one possesses the power to be able to decide on the exception. To decide on the exception is to declare that a situation of peril to the state has reached such great magnitude that it now exists outside the existing legal order. Meticulous examination of the initial statement has revealed that the primary terms are given exact meaning through the context provided by the verb “to decide”, it is important to note that this context is augmented significantly by the word which follows: “on”. To decide on the exception is \ not only to decide if and when a situation is a state of exception, but also to determine how to respond to and act upon the exception.
Schmitt’s conceptualization of the exception is such that it is impossible to predict the nature of such a state. It follows that any and all means necessary must be employed – or be able to be employed – in order to face such extraordinary circumstances. “The precondition as well as the content of jurisdictional competence in such a case must necessarily be unlimited.” (P.7) Jurisdictional competence in this context essentially refers to the extent of a sovereign’s authority; therefore the sovereign must have absolute latitude to pursue what he deems to be the public interest in the face of such extreme circumstances. (P.6) The implications of this are severe concerning the “…liberal constitutional point of view…” (P.7) as from this view “…there would be no jurisdictional competence at all. The most guidance the constitution can provide is to indicate who can act in such a case.” (P.7) This is due to the fact that from the liberal constitutional view the power of the government is derived from the governed and thus the government is not the sovereign. To this Schmitt adds that “If such action is not subject to controls, if it is not hampered in some way by checks and balances as is the case in a liberal constitution, then it is clear who the sovereign is.” (P.7) Schmitt distinguishes between commissarial and sovereign dictatorship – dictatorship being the necessary response to the state of exception – primarily citing the inability of commissarial power to ‘abrogate the constitution’. It is in this manner that the government of a liberal state is not a sovereign, as it is so entangled in checks and balances.
Schmitt maintains of the sovereign that “Although he stands outside the normally valid legal system, he nevertheless belongs to it, for it is he who decides whether the constitution needs to be suspended in its entirety.” (P.7)