Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:25:20.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The changing face of enmity: Carl Schmitt’s international theory and the evolution of the legal concept of war

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2010

Wouter G. Werner
Wouter G. Werner*
Affiliation:
Law Faculty, Department of Transnational Legal Studies, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
E-mail: w.werner@rechten.vu.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The past few decades have witnessed a renewed interest in the work of Carl Schmitt. Scholars from various disciplines have claimed that Schmitt’s critique of universalism, together with his analysis of irregular warfare, provides useful lenses to make sense of the post 9/11 world. In this article, I will critically assess whether Schmitt’s work is indeed useful for understanding the post 9/11 world. To that end, I will concentrate on one of the core arguments put forward by Schmitt: that the laws of armed conflict are unable to regulate irregular warfare, including acts of terrorism. In order to determine the validity of Schmitt’s arguments, I will focus on one of the instruments used in contemporary counter-terrorism policies: the deliberate killing of specific individuals who are regarded as a security threat (‘targeted killing’). Based on an analysis of US and Israeli practice, the article argues that using Schmitt’s work as an analytical tool yields mixed results. While his analysis of irregular warfare remains relevant for contemporary conflicts, his denouncement of universalism blinds us to the transformational potential of international law.

Keywords

Schmittirregular warfareterrorismtargeted killinglaws of warhuman rights
Type
Original Papers
Information
International Theory , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , November 2010 , pp. 351 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bendersky, J.W. (2007), ‘Carl Schmitt’s path to nuremberg: a sixty-year reassessment; The “Fourth” (Second) Interrogation of Carl Schmitt at Nuremberg’, Telos 139(Summer): 35–43.Google Scholar
Best, G. (2001), War and Law Since 1945, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bugnion, F. (2002), ‘Just wars, wars of aggression and international humanitarian law’, International Review of the Red Cross 84(847): 523–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvo, C. (1870), Le droit international théorique et practique, A. Durand & Pedone-Lauriel Paris, 802–803.Google Scholar
Cassese, A. (1984), ‘The Geneva protocols of 1977 on the humanitarian law of armed conflict and customary international law’, UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal 3: 55–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darcy, S. (2007), Collective Responsibility under International Law, Brill, Leiden: Transnational Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, S.R. (2002), Fatal Choices: Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing, The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Mideast Security and Policy Studies, No. 51, September 2002.Google Scholar
Duffy, H. (2005), The War on Terror and the Framework of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moodrick-Even Khen, H. (2007), ‘Can we now tell what direct participation in hostilities is?’, Israel Law Review 40(1): 213–244.Google Scholar
Fleck, D. (2008), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, F. (1985), Political Murder: From Tyrannicide to Terrorism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Greenwood, C. (2002), ‘International law and the “war against terrorism” ’, International Affairs 78(2): 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, O.Werner, W. (2008), ‘Extrajudicial killing as risk-management’, Security Dialogue 39(2–3): 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleffner, J. (2007), ‘From ‘Belligerents’ to ‘fighters’ and civilians directly particpating in hostilities- on the principle of distinction in non-international armed conflicts one hundred years after the second hague peace conference’, Netherlands International Law Review 54(2): 315–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kochi, T. (2006), ‘The Partisan: Carl Schmitt and Terrorism’, Law and Critique 17(3): 267–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskeniemmi, M. (2002), The Gentle Civilizer of Nations, The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870-1960, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, M. (2004), ‘International law as political theology: how to read Nomos der Erde?’, Constellations 11(4): 492–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kretzmer, D. (2005), ‘Targeted killing of suspected terrorists: extra-judicial executions or legitimate means of defence’, European Journal of International Law 16(2): 171–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melzer, N. (2008), Targeted Killing in International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melzer, N. (2009), Interpretative Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law, Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.Google Scholar
Meron, T. (2000), ‘The humanization of humanitarian law’, American Journal of International Law 94(2): 239–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, J.W. (2003), A Dangerous Mind: Schmitt in Post war European Thought, New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, J.W. (2007), ‘An irregularity that cannot be regulated; Carl Schmitt’s theory of the partisan and the war on terror’, p. 2. Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.princeton.edu/~jmueller/Schmitt-WarTerror-JWMueller-March2007.pdfGoogle Scholar
Münkler, H. (1992), Gewalt und Ordnung: Das Bild des Krieges im politischen Denken, Frankfurt: Fischer.Google Scholar
Münkler, H. (2002), The brutal logic of terror: the privatization of war in modernity, Constellations 9(1): 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff, S. (2000), The Rights and Duties of Neutrals: A general History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff, S. (2005), War and the Law of Nations, A General History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orakhelashvili, A. (2007), ‘Overlap and convergence: the relationship between jus ad bellum and jus in bello’, Journal of Conflict and Security Law 12(2): 157–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orford, A. (ed.) (2006), International Law and Its Others, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pocar, F. (2002), Protocol I additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Customary International Law, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 31: 145–159.Google Scholar
Rousseau, J.-J. (1978), On the Social Contract, New York: St. Martins.Google Scholar
Sandoz, Y., Swinarski, C.Zimmerman, B. (1987), Commentary on the additional protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva conventions of 12 August 1949, Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.Google Scholar
Schabas, W.A. (2007), ‘Lex Specialis? belts and suspenders? The parallel operation of human rights law and the law of armed conflict, and the conundrum of Jus ad Bellum’, Israel Law Review 40(2): 592–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheuerman, W.E. (1999), Carl Schmitt, The End of Law, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, W.E. (2006), ‘Carl Schmitt and the road to Abu Ghraib’, Constellations 13(1): 108–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, C. (1926), Die Kernfrage des Völkerbundes, Berlin: Dümmler.Google Scholar
Schmitt, C. (1938), Die Wendung zum Diskriminierenden Kriegsbegriff, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, Berlin.Google Scholar
Schmitt, C. (1963), Theorie des Partisanen. Zwischenbemerkung zum Begriff des Politischen, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Schmitt, C. (2006), The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum, (translated by G.L. Ulmen). New York: Telos Press Publishing.Google Scholar
Schmitt, C. (2007a), The Concept of the Political (expanded edn, translated by G. Schwab), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, C. (2007b), Theory of the Partisan (translated by G.L. Ulmen), New York: Telos Press.Google Scholar
Schwab, G. (1989), The Challenge of the Exception: An Introduction to the Political Ideas of Carl Schmitt between 1921 and 1936 (2nd edn, with a New Introduction), Westport: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Slomp, G. (2005), ‘The theory of the partisan: Carl Schmitt’s neglected legacy’, History of Political Thought 26(3): 502–519.Google Scholar
Slomp, G. (2009), Carl Schmitt and the Politics of Hostility, Violence and Terror, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, T. (2008), ‘Can human rights build a better war?’, Paper for the 2008 ISA Conference, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Stimson, H.L. (1932), The pact of Paris: three years of development, Foreign Affairs 11: I–ix.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutter, P. (2008), ‘The continuing role for belligerent reprisals’, Journal of Conflict and Security Law 13(1): 93–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telos (1987), ‘Special Issue: Carl Schmitt: Enemy or Foe’, Telos 72, Summer 1987.Google Scholar
Thomas, W. (2001), The Ethics of Destruction, Norms and Force in International Relations, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar