Carl Schmitt

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Carl Schmitt as a student in 1912

Carl Schmitt (at times also Carl Schmitt-Dorotić ) (* July 11, 1888 in Plettenberg ; † April 7, 1985 ibid) was a German constitutional lawyer who is also received as a political philosopher . He is one of the most famous and at the same time most controversial German heads of state and international law of the 20th century. Schmitt became involved in the Nazi regime from 1933 : on May 1, 1933, he joined the NSDAP and was a member of it until the end of Nazi rule. Schmitt justified the so-called Röhm Putsch of 1934 with his legal principle of the “Führer order”. He called the anti-Semitic Nuremberg Laws of 1935 a “constitution of freedom”. In 1936 he was also accused of opportunism from within the NSDAP. He lost his party offices, but remained a member of the NSDAP and the Prussian State Council until 1945. He also kept his professorship in Berlin.

His thinking, rooted in Catholicism , revolved around questions of power , violence and the realization of law. In addition to constitutional law, his publications touch on numerous other disciplines such as political science , sociology , theology , German studies and philosophy . In addition to legal and political work, his wide-ranging oeuvre includes other types of text such as satires, travel notes, investigations into the history of ideas, and German text interpretations. As a lawyer, he coined a number of terms and concepts that have entered scientific, political and general usage, such as “ constitutional reality ”, “ political theology ”, “friend-foe distinction” or “ dilatory formula compromise”.

Schmitt is today widely rejected because of his constitutional commitment to National Socialism as an opponent of parliamentary democracy and liberalism and as the “prototype of the unscrupulous scientist who serves every government when it benefits his own career”. However, due to its indirect effect on constitutional law and the jurisprudence of the early Federal Republic, it is sometimes referred to as a “classic of political thought”.

Schmitt drew formative influences on his thinking from political philosophers and state thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes , Niccolò Machiavelli , Aristotle , Jean-Jacques Rousseau , Juan Donoso Cortés and contemporaries such as Georges Sorel and Vilfredo Pareto . His anti-Semitic worldview was shaped by the theses of Bruno Bauer .


Childhood, youth, marriage

Carl Schmitt with his school class in 1904

Carl Schmitt, son of a health insurance administrator, came from a Catholic, middle-class family in the Sauerland . He was the second of five children. The boy lived in the Catholic Konvikt in Attendorn and attended the state high school there. After graduating from high school, Schmitt first wanted to study philology ; on the urgent advice of an uncle, he studied law.

Schmitt began his studies in Berlin in the summer semester of 1907 . In the cosmopolitan city, as an “obscure young man of modest origin” from the Sauerland, he encountered a milieu from which a “strong repulsion ” emanated for him . In the summer semester of 1908 he moved to the University of Munich .

From the winter semester of 1908/09, Schmitt continued his studies in Strasbourg , where he received his doctorate from Fritz van Calker in 1910 with his thesis on guilt and types of guilt , and in the spring of 1915 he passed the assessor exam. In February 1915 Schmitt joined as a volunteer in the Bavarian Infantry Leibregiment one in Munich, but did not come to the front line because it is already the end of March 1915 to service the Deputy General Command of the I. Bavarian Army Corps commanded was.

In the same year Schmitt married Pawla Dorotić, a supposed Croatian aristocratic daughter who Schmitt initially thought to be a Spanish dancer and who later - in the course of an embarrassing scandal for Schmitt - turned out to be an impostor. In 1924 the marriage was annulled under civil law by the Bonn Regional Court . In 1925 he married a former student, the Serb Duška Todorović , although his previous marriage had not been officially canceled. As a Catholic he remained excommunicated until the death of his second wife in 1950 . The second marriage resulted in his only child, his daughter Anima (1931–1983).

Art and bohemian, beginning of academic career, first publications

Political theology. Four Chapters on the Doctrine of Sovereignty, 1922.
Carl Schmitt, Munich 1917.

Schmitt showed an artistic streak early on. He came out with his own literary attempts ( Der Spiegel , Die Buribunken , Schattenrisse , he is even said to have thought of a cycle of poems entitled The Great Battle at Midnight ) and wrote a study on the well-known contemporary poet Theodor Däubler ( Theodor Däubler's 'Northern Lights') . At that time he can be seen as part of the “Schwabinger Bohème ”.

The constitutional lawyer later referred to his literary work as "Dada avant la lettre". He was friends with one of the founding fathers of Dadaism , Hugo Ball , as well as with the poet and editor Franz Blei , a patron of Robert Musil and Franz Kafkas . The aestheticizing lawyer and the politicizing fiction writer regularly exchanged views, and mutual influences can be observed. At this time, Schmitt maintained particularly close contacts with poets, such as the now forgotten poet of political Catholicism, Konrad Weiß . Together with Hugo Ball, Schmitt visited the writer Hermann Hesse - a contact that could not be maintained. Schmitt later became friends with Ernst Jünger and the painter and writer Richard Seewald .

Schmitt completed his habilitation in 1914 with the thesis The Value of the State and the Importance of the Individual for Constitutional and Administrative Law , International Law and State Theory . After teaching at the Munich Commercial College (1920), Schmitt accepted calls to Greifswald (1921), Bonn (1921), the Berlin Commercial College (1928), Cologne (1933) and again Berlin ( Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität 1933– ) at short intervals. 1945). The habilitation thesis was followed shortly afterwards by other publications, such as Political Romanticism (1919) or The Dictatorship (1921) by the Duncker & Humblot publishing house under the editing of Ludwig Feuchtwanger . Schmitt owed his first academic position in Munich and later a call to the Berlin School of Commerce to the Jewish economist Moritz Julius Bonn .

Schmitt also quickly became known among non-lawyers for his eloquent and colorful formulations. His style was new and was considered spectacular in circles far beyond the scientific milieu. He did not write like a lawyer, but staged his texts poetically and dramatically and provided them with mythical images and allusions.

His writings were mostly small brochures, which, in their theses-like intensification, forced a discussion. Schmitt was convinced that "the first sentence often decides the fate of a publication". Many of the opening sentences of his publications - for example: "There is an anti-Roman affect", "The concept of the state presupposes the concept of the political" or " Whoever decides on a state of emergency is sovereign " - quickly became famous.

The extensive correspondence that can be viewed and successively published in his estate today - one of the largest collections ever stored in German archives - is evidence of the breadth and variety of reactions that Schmitt triggered.

In Bonn the constitutional lawyer cultivated contacts with young Catholicism (he wrote for Carl Muth's magazine Hochland , among others ) and showed an increased interest in canon law issues. This brought him together in 1924 with the Protestant theologian and later convert Erik Peterson , with whom he was close friends until 1933. The preoccupation with canon law was reflected in writings such as Political Theology (1922) and Roman Catholicism and Political Form (1923, in the second edition with ecclesiastical imprimatur ). During this time, Schmitt was on friendly terms with a number of Catholic theologians, above all Karl Eschweiler (1886-1936), whom he had met as a private lecturer in fundamental theology in Bonn in the mid-20s and with whom he worked scientifically and personally until his death in 1936 close contact remained.

Political journalism and consultancy in the Weimar Republic

The intellectual-historical situation of today's parliamentarism , 2nd edition, 1926

In 1924, Schmitt's first explicitly political work was published with the title The intellectual-historical situation of today's parliamentarianism . In 1928 he presented his most important scientific work, the Constitutional Doctrine , in which he subjected the Weimar Constitution to a systematic legal analysis and founded a new scientific literary genre: in addition to the classical state theory, the constitutional theory has since established itself as an independent discipline of public law.

In the year of the publication of the Verfassungslehre , he moved to the commercial college in Berlin , even if that meant a step backwards with regard to his status as a scientist. To this end, he was able to make numerous contacts in political Berlin that reached into government circles. Here, against the prevailing views, he developed the theory of the “inviolable essence” of the constitution (“constitutional doctrine”) .

In terms of regulatory policy, the economically informed lawyer advocated a strong state that should be based on a “free economy”. Here Schmitt's ideas met in many points with ordoliberalism or later neoliberalism , with whose ideas he maintained close contacts at this time, in particular with Alexander Rustow . In a lecture to industrialists in November 1932 with the title Strong State and Healthy Economy , he called for an active “depoliticization” of the state and a withdrawal from “non-state spheres”:

“The same thing happens again and again: only a strong state can depoliticize, only a strong state can openly and effectively order that certain matters, such as traffic or radio, are its shelf and are administered by it, that other matters of ] belong to economic self-government, and everything else is left to the free economy. "

In these explanations Schmitt alluded to a lecture Riistow had given two months earlier under the title Free Economy, Strong State . Riistow, for his part, referred to Carl Schmitt: “The phenomenon that Carl Schmitt called the 'total state' following Ernst Jünger [...] is in fact the exact opposite of it: not state omnipotence, but state powerlessness. It is a sign of the most pathetic weakness of the state, a weakness that can no longer withstand the united onslaught of interested parties. The state is being torn apart by the greedy interested parties. [...] What is going on here, even more unbearable in terms of state policy than economic policy, is under the motto: 'The state as booty'. "

Schmitt (in a negative interpretation of the concept of the same name by Harold Laski ) described the egoism of social interest groups as pluralism . He put the pluralism of particular interests contrary to the unity of the state, which for him by the popularly elected Reich President represents was.

The concept of the political (1927 initially as an essay), the guardian of the constitution (1931) and legality and legitimacy (1932) were published in Berlin . With Hans Kelsen , Schmitt had a much-noticed controversy over the question of whether the “guardian of the constitution” was the constitutional court or the Reich President. At the same time he approached reactionary currents by taking a position against parliamentarism .

As a university lecturer, Schmitt was increasingly controversial because of his criticism of the Weimar constitution. For example, he was sharply criticized by the constitutional lawyers Hans Kelsen and Hermann Heller, who are close to social democracy . The Weimar Constitution, he said, weakens the state through a “neutralizing” liberalism and is therefore incapable of solving the problems of the burgeoning “ mass democracy ”.

For Schmitt, following Cortés, liberalism was nothing more than organized indecision: "Its essence is negotiation, waiting half-measure, with the hope that the definitive argument, the bloody decisive battle could be transformed into a parliamentary debate and could be forever suspended through eternal discussion" . In this perspective, parliament is the refuge of the romantic idea of ​​an "eternal conversation". From this it follows: "That liberalism with its inconsistencies and compromises lives [...] only in the short interim in which it is possible to answer the question: Christ or Barrabas , with an adjournment or the establishment of a commission of inquiry".

The parliamentary democracy held Schmitt for an outdated "bourgeois" government method, compared to the rise of "vital movements" have lost their evidence. The “relative” rationality of parliamentarianism is confronted by irrationalism with a new kind of mobilization of the masses. Irrationalism tries to get to the “concrete existential” compared to ideological abstraction and the “pseudo forms of liberal-bourgeois government methods”. In doing so, he is based on a “ myth of vital life”. Therefore Schmitt proclaimed: "Dictatorship is the opposite of discussion".

As a representative of irrationalism, Schmitt identified two opposing movements: the revolutionary syndicalism of the workers' movement and the nationalism of Italian fascism . According to him, however, “the stronger myth” lies “in the national”. As evidence, he cited Mussolini's march on Rome .

Schmitt used Italian fascism as a foil against the background of which he criticized the forms of rule of "old liberalism". He had never dealt with the real manifestations of fascism. His biographer Noack judges: “[The] fascism is interpreted by [Schmitt] as an example of an authoritarian state (as opposed to a totalitarian one ). He hardly takes the trouble to track down the reality of this state behind its rhetoric. Here, as in other cases, the construction drawing is enough for him to imagine the house. It is undoubtedly the claim to greatness and historicity that makes him break out in admiring comments on Mussolini's Neapolitan speech before the march on Rome. "

According to Schmitt, fascism produces a total state out of strength, not a total state out of weakness. He is not a “neutral” mediator between the interest groups, not a “capitalist servant of private property”, but a “higher third party between economic opposites and interests”. In doing so, fascism renounces the "traditional constitutional clichés of the 19th century" and tries to provide an answer to the demands of modern mass democracy.

“The fact that fascism renounces elections and hates and despises the whole 'elezionismo' is not undemocratic, but anti-liberal and arises from the correct realization that today's methods of secret individual elections endanger everything state and political through complete privatization, the people as a unit Oust them completely from the public (the sovereign disappears in the voting booth) and the state formation of wills to a summation of secret and private individual wills, that is in truth degrading uncontrollable mass desires and -resentments. "

According to Schmitt, one can only protect oneself against their disintegrating effect if, in the sense of Rudolf Smend's doctrine of integration, one constructs a legal obligation of the individual citizen to keep an eye on the well-being of the whole rather than his private interests when casting secret votes - in view of the reality of the social and political life, this is a weak and very problematic protection. Schmitt's conclusion is:

"That equation of democracy and secret individual election is liberalism of the 19th century and not democracy."

Only two states, Bolshevik Russia and Fascist Italy, had attempted to break with the traditional constitutional principles of the 19th century in order to express the great changes in the economic and social structure also in the state organization and in a written constitution bring to. Especially not intensively industrialized countries like Russia and Italy could give themselves a modern economic constitution.

According to Schmitt, the domestic political situation in highly developed industrial countries is dominated by the “phenomenon of the 'social equilibrium structure' between capital and work”: Employers and employees face each other with equal social power and neither side can impose a radical decision on the other without a terrible one Start civil war. This phenomenon was primarily treated by Otto Kirchheimer in terms of state and constitutional theory. Because of the equality of power in the industrialized states, “social decisions and fundamental constitutional changes are no longer legally possible, and everything there is to state and government is then more or less just the neutral one (and not the higher one, on its own third parties who decide on authority ”(Positions and Terms, p. 127). According to this, Italian fascism tries to establish this supremacy of the state over the economy with the help of a closed organization . Therefore the fascist regime would benefit the workers in the long run, because they are the people today and the state is the political unity of the people.

It was the criticism of bourgeois institutions that made Schmitt interesting for young socialist lawyers such as Ernst Fraenkel , Otto Kirchheimer and Franz Neumann during this phase . Conversely, Schmitt benefited from the unorthodox approaches of these left system critics. Schmitt had borrowed the title of one of his most famous treatises (Legality and Legitimacy) from Otto Kirchheimer. Ernst Fraenkel visited Schmitt's constitutional working groups and referred positively to his criticism of the destructive vote of no confidence (Fraenkel, Constitutional Reform and Social Democracy, Die Gesellschaft, 1932). Franz Neumann in turn wrote a euphoric letter of approval on September 7, 1932 on the occasion of the publication of the book Legality and Legitimacy (printed in: Rainer Erd, Reform und Resignation, 1985, p. 79 f.). Kirchheimer judged the writing in 1932: “If a later time sifts through the intellectual existence of this epoch, then Carl Schmitt's book on legality and legitimacy will present itself to it as a writing that emerges from this circle both through its going back to the Foundations of state theory as well as their reluctance to draw conclusions. " (Verfassungsreaktion 1932, Die Gesellschaft, IX, 1932, S. 415ff.) In an essay from the beginning of 1933 with the title Constitutional Reform and Social Democracy (Die Gesellschaft, X, 1933, P. 230ff.), In which Kirchheimer discussed various proposals for reforming the Weimar Constitution in terms of strengthening the Reich President at the expense of the Reichstag, the SPD lawyer also pointed out hostility that the journal Die Gesellschaft was facing due to its positive ties to Carl Schmitt was exposed by the communist side: “In No. 24 of the Red Structure , 'theoretical cross-connections' between the 'fascist state theorist' Carl Schmitt and the official theoretical organ of the SPD, the society , which should come to light particularly vividly in Fraenkel's essay. ”From Fraenkel’s explanations, in which he had referred several times to Schmitt, the logical result is evident The consequence is the call for a coup d'état, which Fraenkel just doesn't dare to speak out openly. In fact, Fraenkel had written in the previous edition of the “Society”, expressly referring to Carl Schmitt: “It would mean doing the cause of the constitution the worst service if one were to extend the power of the Reich President to the point of de facto dictatorship wants to trace back to the will to power of the president and the forces behind him. If the Reichstag becomes unable to cope with the tasks assigned to it, another state organ must take over the function that is necessary to continue to run the state apparatus in times of danger. As long as a majority of fundamentally anti-subversive, mutually exclusive parties in parliament, a president, whatever his name, can do nothing but evade the destructive decisions of this parliament. Carl Schmitt is undoubtedly right when he stated two years ago that the current Reich constitution gives a Reichstag capable of majority and action all rights and opportunities to assert itself as the decisive factor in the formation of state will. If Parliament is not in a position to do this, it also has no right to demand that all other responsible bodies become incapable of action. "

From 1930 onwards, Schmitt had advocated an authoritarian presidential dictatorship and had acquaintances with political circles, such as the later Prussian finance minister Johannes Popitz . He also made contact with the Reich government itself by maintaining close relationships with the intermediaries of General, Minister and later Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher . Schmitt even coordinated publications and public lectures with the general's middlemen in advance. Some of his political and constitutional works, such as the expanded editions of “The Guardian of the Constitution” (1931) or “The Concept of the Political” (1932), were of interest to government circles. Despite his criticism of pluralism and parliamentary democracy, Schmitt was equally hostile to the efforts of the KPD and NSDAP to overthrow before the seizure of power in 1933 . He supported Schleicher's policy aimed at preventing the "adventure of National Socialism ".

In his treatise Legality and Legitimacy , completed in July 1932 , the constitutional lawyer demanded a decision for the substance of the constitution and against its enemies. He summarized this in a criticism of neo-Kantian legal positivism , as represented by the leading constitutional commentator Gerhard Anschütz . Against this positivism, which did not ask about the goals of political groups, but only about formal legality , Schmitt - in this, agreed with his antipode Heller - posed a legitimacy that, compared to relativism, referred to the unavailability of basic political decisions.

The political enemies of the existing order should be clearly identified as such, otherwise indifference to anti-constitutional tendencies would lead to political suicide. Although Schmitt had clearly spoken out in favor of fighting anti-constitutional parties, what he meant by a “consistent further development of the constitution”, which was demanded in the same place, remained unclear. Here it was often assumed that it was a conservative, revolutionary "New State" of Papenian style, as described by Heinz Otto Ziegler (authoritarian or total state, 1932). Various more recent studies argue against it that Schmitt strived to stabilize the political situation in the spirit of Schleicher and that constitutional changes were viewed as something secondary. From this perspective, the required further development was a factual change in the power relations, not the establishment of new constitutional principles.

1932 Schmitt had reached a high point of his political ambitions: He represented the national government under Franz von Papen , along with Carl Bilfinger and Erwin Jacobi in the trial of the so-called Prussian coup against the coup-like remote Prussian government Otto Braun before the State Court . As a close advisor in the background, Schmitt was initiated into secret plans that resulted in the declaration of a state of emergency . Schmitt and people from Schleicher's environment wanted to shift the weight towards a constitutional democracy with presidential characteristics through an intra-constitutional “constitutional change”. In doing so, those leeway should be used in terms of constitutional policy that were laid out in the constitution or at least that were not excluded by it. Specifically, Schmitt suggested that the President should rule on the basis of Article 48 , and that destructive votes of no confidence or repeal resolutions by Parliament should be ignored, with reference to their lack of a constructive basis. In a position paper for Schleicher with the title: “How do you protect a working presidential government from the obstruction of an unwilling to work Reichstag with the aim of 'preserving the constitution'” , the “milder way that represents a minimum of constitutional violation” was recommended, namely : "The authentic interpretation of Art. 54 [which regulates the vote of no confidence] in the direction of natural development ( vote of no confidence only applies to a majority that is able to establish a positive basis of confidence)" . The paper emphasized: “If one wishes to deviate from the Constitution, it can only be done in the direction in which the Constitution develops under the compulsion of the circumstances and in accordance with public opinion. One must keep the goal of constitutional change in mind and not deviate from it. However, this aim is not to hand over the representative body to the executive (the Reich President appoints and adjourns the Reichstag), but rather to strengthen the executive by abolishing or invalidating Art. by limiting the Reichstag to legislation and control. However, this goal has almost been achieved through the authentic interpretation of the jurisdiction of a vote of no confidence. A successful precedent would have changed the constitution. "

How strong Schmitt's political activities with Kurt v. Schleicher, his diary entry from January 27, 1933 illustrates: “It is something incredible. The Hindenburg myth is over. The old man was just a Mac Mahon , after all . Terrible condition. Schleicher resigns; Papen or Hitler are coming. The old man has gone mad. ” Schmitt, like Schleicher, was initially an opponent of Hitler's chancellorship. On January 30th, his diary made the entry: “Then to the Cafe Kutscher, where I heard that Hitler had become Reich Chancellor and Papen had become Vice Chancellor. Immediately to bed at home. Terrible condition. ” One day later it was said: “ I still had a cold. Phoned business school and canceled my lecture. Gradually perked up, couldn't do anything, ridiculous condition, read newspapers, excited. Anger at the stupid, ridiculous Hitler. "

Interpretation problem 1933: caesura or continuity?

The Enabling Act - for Schmitt a source of new legality

According to the Enabling Act of March 24, 1933, Schmitt presented himself as a staunch supporter of the new rulers. Whether he did this out of opportunism or out of inner conviction is disputed. While some observers see Schmitt as having an "irrepressible urge for validity" which prompted him to offer himself to all governments since Hermann Müller in 1930 as an advisor (after 1945 he even tried to make himself available to Russians and Americans), others see in Schmitt is a radical critic of liberalism, whose thinking basically showed a "political option that preceded all rational deductions" for National Socialism . In short, the question is whether Schmitt's commitment to National Socialism is a problem of theory or a problem of character. This unsolved research problem is discussed today mainly on the question of whether the year 1933 represented a break in Schmitt's theory or a continuity. The fact that these contradicting theses are upheld to this day is due to the fact that Schmitt formulated ambiguously in his writings and proved to be a “virtuoso of the retrospective self-interpretation adapted to changing needs for justification” ( Wilfried Nippel ). Therefore, representatives of both extreme positions (break versus continuity) can refer to Schmitt's self-disclosure to support their thesis.

Henning Ottmann describes the antithesis: "Occasional thinking or continuity" as the basic question of all Schmitt interpretation. It is therefore unclear whether Schmitt's thinking followed an internal logic (continuity), or whether it was driven purely by external occasions (occasions), to which internal consistency and logicalness were sacrificed. According to Ottmann, an answer to this question is not easy to find: Anyone who claims mere occasionality must evaporate the leitmotifs of Schmitt's thought to a decisionism that can decide for anything and everything; Those who want to recognize pure continuity, on the other hand, have to construct a short path that leads from anti-liberalism or anti-Marxism to the unjust Nazi state . Ottmann therefore speaks of “continuity and change” and sometimes also of “more change than continuity”. With a view to Schmitt's support for Kurt von Schleicher's government course, some historians speak of a turning point in relation to 1933. But others also recognize hidden lines of continuity, for example in the social function of his theory or his Catholicism. If one keeps in mind the abrupt change of sides in February 1933, the assumption of an opportunistic attitude seems obvious. Nevertheless, there were also substantive points of contact, such as anti-liberalism or the admiration of fascism , so that Schmitt's switch to National Socialism should be understood not only as a problem of character, but also as a "problem of theory", as Karl Graf Ballestrem emphasizes.

time of the nationalsocialism

According to Schmitt, Popitz played a decisive role in establishing contact with National Socialist government agencies. The politician was a minister without portfolio in the Schleicher cabinet and had become Prussian finance minister in April 1933. Popitz put Schmitt in touch with National Socialist functionaries while he was working on the Reichsstatthaltergesetz , in which Schmitt and his colleague from representing the Prussian process , Carl Bilfinger , were involved.

“The true leader is always also a judge” - Carl Schmitt's apotheosis of National Socialism is considered a particular perversion of legal thinking

Even if the reasons cannot be conclusively clarified, there is no doubt that Schmitt switched completely to the new line. He called the Enabling Act the "Provisional Constitutional Law of the New Germany" and joined the NSDAP on May 1, 1933 as a so-called " March fallen " member ( membership number 2.098.860). On May 31, 1933, in the West German Observer , he cursed "the German intellectuals" who had fled the incipient Nazi terror: "They have been spat out of Germany for all time."

In 1933 he moved to the University of Cologne , where, within a few weeks, he changed into the role of a constitutional lawyer in line with the new National Socialist rule. While he had previously had numerous personal contacts with Jewish colleagues who also played a major role in his rapid academic career, after 1933 he began to denounce his fellow Jewish professors and to publish anti-Semitic pamphlets. For example, Schmitt refused to support Hans Kelsen , who had previously advocated appointing Schmitt as his successor to the University of Cologne, when colleagues drafted a resolution against his removal from office. However, Schmitt did not show this attitude towards all Jewish colleagues. For example, he used himself in a personal report for Erwin Jacobi . Schmitt formulated anti-Semitic invectives to Kelsen even after 1945. During the time of National Socialism he always referred to him as the "Jew Kelsen".

On July 11, 1933, the Prussian Prime Minister Hermann Göring appointed him to the Prussian State Council - a title of which he was particularly proud of his life. In 1972 he is said to have said that he was grateful to have become a Prussian State Councilor and not a Nobel Prize winner. He also became the editor of the German Law Gazette (DJZ) and a member of the Academy for German Law . Schmitt received both the leadership of the group of university teachers as well as the department leadership of university teachers in the Nazi law enforcement association .

In his work State, Movement, People: The Threefolding of Political Unity (1933), Schmitt emphasized the legality of the “German Revolution”: Hitler's takeover of power was “formally correct in accordance with the earlier constitution,” it stems from “discipline and the German sense of order ". The central concept of National Socialist constitutional law is “leadership”, an indispensable prerequisite for “ racial ” equality between the leader and the entourage.

By emphasizing the legitimacy of the “National Socialist Revolution”, Schmitt provided the leadership of the NSDAP with legal legitimation. Because of his legal and verbal commitment to the state of the NSDAP, contemporaries, especially political emigrants (including schoolchildren and acquaintances), referred to him as the “Crown Lawyer of the Third Reich”. The term was coined by the interpreter of political Catholicism and former Schmitt intimus Waldemar Gurian in 1934 as a reaction to his justification for the Roman murders . In autumn 1933 Schmitt was appointed to the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Berlin for “political reasons” , where he developed the theory of concrete order thinking , according to which every order finds its institutional representation in the decision-making monopoly of an office with a claim to infallibility. This official charismatic doctrine of sovereignty resulted in the propagation of the Führer principle and the thesis of an identity of will and law (“The will of the Führer is law”). This enabled Schmitt to further consolidate his reputation with the new rulers. In addition, the lawyer served as a key word, whose expressions such as total state - total war or geostrategic metropolitan area with a prohibition of intervention for foreign powers had enormous success, although they were not associated with his name. From 1934 to 1935 Bernhard Ludwig von Mutius was Schmitt's research assistant.

Schmitt's commitment to the new regime was unconditional. His instrumentalization of constitutional history to legitimize the Nazi regime can serve as an example. Many of his statements went far beyond what was expected of a lawyer loyal to the line. Schmitt obviously wanted to distinguish himself through particularly dashing formulations. In response to the murders of the Nazi regime on June 30, 1934 during the Röhm affair - among those killed was former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher , who was politically close to him - he justified Hitler's self-empowerment with the words:

"The leader protects the law from the worst abuse if, at the moment of danger, by virtue of his leadership as supreme court lord, he creates right immediately."

The true leader is always also a judge, from leadership the judiciary flows. This alleged correspondence between “leadership” and “judiciary” is a testimony to a particular perversion of legal thought. Schmitt closed the article with the political appeal:

"Anyone who sees the tremendous background of our overall political situation will understand the admonitions and warnings of the Führer and prepare for the great spiritual battle in which we have to uphold our right."

The Nuremberg Race Laws in the Reich Law Gazette No. 100, September 16, 1935 - for Schmitt the "Constitution of Freedom"

Schmitt again emerged publicly as a racist and anti-Semite when he described the Nuremberg Racial Laws of 1935 in a style that was grotesque even for National Socialist conditions as the constitution of freedom (this is the title of an article in the German legal journal). With the so-called law for the protection of German blood and German honor , which criminalized relations between Jews (as defined by the National Socialists) and “ German bloods ”, Schmitt saw “a new ideological principle in legislation”. According to Schmitt, this “legislation based on the idea of ​​race” encounters the laws of other countries, which also fundamentally do not know or even reject racial distinctions. For Schmitt, this clash of different ideological principles was the subject of international law . The climax of Schmitt's party propaganda was the conference on Judaism in Jurisprudence held in October 1936 under his leadership . Here he explicitly acknowledged National Socialist anti-Semitism and demanded that Jewish authors no longer be quoted in legal literature, or at least identified as Jews.

“What the Fiihrer said about the Jewish dialectic, we have to memorize ourselves and our students again and again in order to avoid the great danger of ever new camouflages and arguments. Only emotional anti-Semitism is not enough; a cognizant justified security is required. [...] We have to rid the German spirit of all falsifications, falsifications of the term spirit, which enabled Jewish emigrants to describe the great struggle of Gauleiter Julius Streicher as something 'unspiritual'. "

Around the same time there was a National Socialist campaign against Schmitt, which led to his extensive disempowerment. Reinhard Mehring writes: “ Since this conference at the end of 1936 coincided closely with a National Socialist campaign against Schmitt and his extensive disempowerment as a functionary, it was - even in National Socialist circles - often dismissed as opportunistic lip service and not given sufficient attention until Schmitt in 1991 the publication of the “glossary”, diary-like records from the years 1947 to 1951, even after 1945 still stood there as an ardent anti-Semite who found no word of regret about disenfranchisement, persecution and extermination. Since then, his anti-Semitism has been a central issue. Was it based on a Catholic-Christian or a racist-biological basis? ... The discussion is far from over. "

In the black corps , which is closely related to the SS , Schmitt was accused of “opportunism” and a lack of “National Socialist sentiments”. There were also accusations because of his previous support of the government of Schleicher and acquaintances to Jews: "On the side of the Jews Jacobi fought Carl Schmitt in the process Prussian Empire for the reactionary interim government Schleicher [sic! recte: Papen]. ”In the communications on the ideological situation of the Rosenberg Office , it was said that Schmitt had“ made the assertion with the half-Jew Jacobi against the prevailing doctrine that it was not possible that a National Socialist majority in the Reichstag was based on a resolution A two-thirds majority according to Art. 76 could change fundamental political decisions of the constitution, such as the principle of parliamentary democracy, through constitutional amendment law, because such a constitutional amendment would then be a constitutional change, not a constitutional revision. " To deny him a National Socialist attitude and to show him opportunism.

The publications in the Black Corps caused a scandal, as a result of which in 1936 NSDAP member Schmitt lost all offices in the party organizations, but remained in the Prussian State Council, which Göring was to convene for the last time in the same year.

Until the end of National Socialism, Schmitt worked as a professor at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität in Berlin, mainly in the field of international law, but tried to become the regime's cue here too. This is shown, for example, by his concept of the “large area order under international law”, developed in 1939 at the beginning of the Second World War , which he understood as the German Monroe doctrine . Later this was mostly seen as an attempt to base Hitler's expansion policy on international law. For example, Schmitt was involved in the so-called Ritterbusch campaign, with which numerous scientists advised on the National Socialist spatial and population policy.

After 1945

Schmitt experienced the end of the war in Berlin. On April 30, 1945, he was arrested by Soviet troops , but released again after a brief interrogation. The Americans arrested him on September 26, 1945 and interned him in various Berlin camps until October 10, 1946 . Half a year later he was arrested again, taken to Nuremberg and there, on the occasion of the Nuremberg Trials from March 29 to May 13, 1947, arrested in solitary confinement . During this time he was interrogated by Chief Prosecutor Robert MW Kempner as a possible defendant with regard to his “involvement directly and indirectly in the planning of wars of aggression , war crimes and crimes against humanity ”. However, there was no charge because a criminal offense could not be established in the legal sense: "What could I have accused the man of?" , Kempner explained this step later. "He did not commit any crimes against humanity, did not kill any prisoners of war and did not prepare any wars of aggression." In a written statement, Schmitt described himself as a pure scientist who, however, was an "intellectual adventurer" and who took some risks for his findings have. Kempner replied: “But what if what you call the search for knowledge ends in the murder of millions of people?” However, Schmitt was also incorrigible here and answered with a classic Holocaust relativization: “Christianity also has in the murder of millions of people People ended. You don't know if you haven't experienced it yourself ” .

During his approximately seven weeks of solitary confinement in the Nuremberg war crimes prison, Schmitt wrote various shorter texts, including the chapter Wisdom of the Cell in his volume Ex Captivitate Salus , published in 1950 . In it he remembered the spiritual refuge that Max Stirner's works had offered him during his Berlin semester . So now again: “Max is the only one who visits me in my cell.” He owes him “that I was prepared for some things that I have come across to this day, and what otherwise might have surprised me.” After the constitutional lawyer did not was more of a defendant himself, he prepared various reports at Kempner's request as an expert, for example on the position of the Reich ministers and the head of the Reich Chancellery or on the question of why the officialdom followed Adolf Hitler .

At the end of 1945, Schmitt was dismissed from civil service without any pension payments. He no longer applied for a professorship, it would have been hopeless. Instead, he withdrew to his hometown of Plettenberg, where he prepared further publications - initially under a pseudonym - such as a review of the Bonn constitution as "Walter Haustein", which appeared in the Eisenbahnerzeitung . He published a number of works, including a. The nomos of the earth , theory of the partisan and political theology II, which could not , however, build on its successes during the Weimar period. In 1952 he was able to fight for a pension, but he was excluded from academic life. He was denied membership in the Association of German Constitutional Law Teachers.

Plettenberg, Brockhauser Weg 10: Carl Schmitt's house until he moved to Pasel in 1971

Although Schmitt suffered from this isolation, he renounced the rehabilitation that would have been possible if he - like the Nazi legal theorists Theodor Maunz or Otto Koellreutter - had distanced himself from his work in the Third Reich and had tried to denazification . In his diary on October 1, 1949, he noted: “Why don't you allow yourself to be denazified? First: because I do not like to be captured and second, because resistance through cooperation is a Nazi method but not to my taste. ”The only surviving public confession of shame comes from the interrogation protocols of Kempner, which were later published. Kempner: “ Are you ashamed that you wrote things like this [like“ The Führer protects the law ”] back then [1933/34]? "Schmitt: " Of course today. I don't think it's right to rummage around in this embarrassment we suffered. " Kempner: " I don't want to rummage around. " Schmitt: " It's horrible, certainly. There is no word to talk about. "

The central subject of the public allegations against Schmitt in the post-war period was his defense of the Röhm murders ("The Führer protects the law ...") together with the anti-Semitic texts of the "Jewish Conference" he chaired in 1936 in Berlin. For example, the Tübingen lawyer Adolf Schüle attacked Schmitt violently in 1959. For Holocaust Schmitt has never found a regretful word even after the end of the Nazi regime, as the posthumously published diary entries (glossary) show. Instead, he relativized the crime here as well: "Genocide, genocide, a touching term." The only entry that explicitly deals with the Shoah reads:

“Who is the real criminal, the real author of Hitlerism? Who invented this character? Who started the horror episode? To whom do we owe the 12 million [sic!] Dead Jews? I can tell you very precisely: Hitler did not invent himself. We owe it to the genuinely democratic brain that hatched the mythical figure of the unknown soldier of the First World War . "

Kai nomon egnō ("and he recognized the nomos ") - Carl Schmitt's tombstone on the Catholic cemetery in Plettenberg-Eiringhausen

Even after 1945 Schmitt did not deviate from his anti-Semitism. Proof of this is an entry in his glossary of September 25, 1947, in which he called the “assimilated Jews” the “real enemy”: “Because Jews always remain Jews. While the communist can improve and change. This has nothing to do with Nordic race etc. The assimilated Jew in particular is the real enemy. There is no point in proving the slogan of the Elders of Zion to be false. "

"San Casciano", Carl Schmitt's house in Plettenberg-Pasel, Am Steimel 7, from 1971 to 1985

Schmitt took refuge in self-justification and stylized himself as a “Christian Epimetheus ”. Self-styling became his elixir of life. He invented various, always allusive and knowledgeable comparisons to illustrate his innocence. For example, he claimed that in relation to National Socialism he acted like the chemist and hygienist Max von Pettenkofer , who ingested a culture of cholera bacteria in front of students to prove his resistance. He, Schmitt, also swallowed the Nazi virus voluntarily and was not infected. Elsewhere, Schmitt compared himself to Benito Cereno , a character from Herman Melville 's story of the same name from 1856, in which a captain is held captive by mutineers on his own ship. When encountering other ships, the captain is forced by the insurgent slaves to pretend normality to the outside world - an absurd tragic comedy that makes the captain appear dangerous, half crazy and completely opaque. The saying on the ship is: “Follow your guide” (“Seguid vuestro jefe”). Schmitt dubbed his house in Plettenberg “San Casciano”, based on Machiavelli's retreat .

Schmitt was almost 97 years old. His illness, cerebral sclerosis , led to prolonged delusions in episodes. Schmitt, who had previously shown quite paranoid tendencies, now felt downright pursued by sound waves and voices. Waves became his last obsession. He is said to have said to a friend: "After the First World War I said: 'You are sovereign who decides on a state of emergency'. After the Second World War, in the face of my death, I now say: 'He who has control of the waves of space is sovereign.' “ His mental derangement made him fear electronic bugs and invisible persecutors everywhere. On April 7, 1985, an Easter Sunday, Schmitt died in the Evangelical Hospital in Plettenberg. Niklas Frank , Hans Frank's son, had the coffin, which was already in the cemetery chapel , opened shortly before the burial as a macabre part of his coming to terms with the past, as he suspected Schmitt to be his biological father and wanted to see him. His grave is in the local Catholic cemetery. His first executor was his student Joseph H. Kaiser . Today's administrator of Schmitt's academic estate is the constitutional lawyer Florian Meinel .


Schmitt's labeling is varied. He is considered a nationalist , opponent of pluralism and liberalism , despiser of parliamentarism , opponent of the rule of law , natural law and neo-absolutist in the wake of Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes . His thinking undoubtedly had reactionary traits: he admired Italian fascism , had emerged as an anti-Semite during the Nazi era, and had provided justifications for Nazi crimes. Schmitt's publications always contained current political excursions and references, but between 1933 and 1945 these were clearly Nazi-influenced. In order to adopt racism and Nazi blood-and-soil mythology , he only had to gradually modify the political theory he had developed during the Weimar Republic from 1933 onwards .

Despite these reactionary aspects and an anti-Semitism that has evidently existed throughout his life, albeit differently pronounced, Schmitt is now also attested to an original state-philosophical thinking. In the following, its basic concepts are to be sketched at least as an overview, whereby the time-related aspects take a back seat.

Schmitt as a Catholic and cultural critic

As a Catholic, Schmitt was marked by a deep pessimism about ideas about progress , progress optimism and mechanization . Against the background of the rejection of value-neutral ways of thinking and relativistic concepts , he developed a specific cultural criticism that runs through his work in various passages. The early work in particular contains outbursts of pessimistic culture. This is particularly evident in one of his first publications, in which he dealt with the poet Theodor Däubler and his epic Northern Lights (1916). Here the lawyer stepped completely behind the art-interested culture commentator. Also Gnostic allusions evident that Schmitt - he was a great admirer of Marcion - was repeated flow. The inclination and talent for typing also became clear.

The young Schmitt showed himself to be a polemicist against bourgeois "security" and saturated passivity with anti-capitalist echoes. This attitude is particularly evident in his book on Theodor Däubler's Northern Lights :

“This age has described itself as the capitalist , mechanistic , relativistic, the age of transport, technology, organization. Indeed, the 'company' seems to give it its signature. The enterprise as the wonderfully functioning means to some pathetic or senseless end , the universal priority of the means over the end, the enterprise that destroys the individual so that he does not even feel that it has been suspended and which does not even think of an idea, but at most invokes a few banalities and always asserts that everything has to run smoothly and without useless friction. ”For Schmitt, who spoke about Däubler, people have become nothing but“ poor devils ”because of their“ immense material wealth ”, a“ shadow of the Work limps ":
" 'You know everything and don't believe anything'. They are interested in everything and are not enthusiastic about anything. They understand everything, their scholars register in history, in nature, in their own soul. They are experts on people, psychologists and sociologists and ultimately write a sociology of sociology. "

The society that has become business and organization, obeying the unconditional dictate of expediency, consequently leaves “no secrets and no exuberance of the soul”. People are dull and secular and can no longer pull themselves up to a transcendent position:

“They want heaven on earth, heaven as a result of trade and industry, which should actually be here on earth, in Berlin, Paris or New York, a heaven with bathing facilities, automobiles and lounge chairs whose holy book would be the timetable . "

In Däubler's work, progress appeared as the work of the Antichrist , the great magician . Schmitt included anti-capitalist elements in his reception: the antichrist , the “uncanny magician”, imitates the world of God. He changes the face of the earth and subjugates nature : “She serves him; for what is indifferent, for the satisfaction of artificial needs, for comfort and comfort. ”According to this view, the deceived people see only the fabulous effect. To them, nature seems to have been overcome and the "age of security" has dawned. Everything is taken care of, a “wise foresight and planning” replaces Providence. Providence makes the "great magician" like "any institution":

“He knows how to create inexplicable values ​​in the uncanny circles of the money economy, but he also accommodates higher cultural needs without forgetting his goal. [...] Gold becomes money, money becomes capital - and now the devastating course of the mind begins, which pulls everything into its relativism, scornfully suppresses the uprising of the poor peasants with jokes and cannons and finally rides the earth as one of the apocalyptic Horsemen who run ahead of the resurrection of the flesh. "

Much later, after the Second World War, Schmitt noted this apocalyptic longing for intensification in his diary:

"That is the secret keyword of my entire intellectual and journalistic existence: the struggle for the actually Catholic tightening (against the neutralizers, the aesthetic milk and honey, against fruit abortionists, corpse burners and pacifists)."

Just like Däubler's struggle against technology, progress and feasibility, Schmitt was fascinated by the negative image of mankind of the counter-revolution . The image of man Donoso Cortés ' he characterized as 1922 anklingender admiration in his political theology as universal contempt for the human race:

“His [Cortés'] contempt for people knows no bounds; their blind mind, their feeble will, the ridiculous verve of their carnal desires seem so pathetic to him that all the words of all human languages ​​are insufficient to express the whole baseness of this creature. If God had not become man - the reptile that crushes my foot would be less despicable than a human. The stupidity of the masses is as astonishing to him as the stupid vanity of their leaders. His sense of sin is universal, more terrible than that of a Puritan . [...] Humanity stumbles blindly through a labyrinth whose entrance, exit and structure nobody knows, and we call that history; humanity is a ship that is thrown aimlessly about on the sea, packed with a rebellious, vulgar, forcibly recruited crew that roars and dance until God's wrath pushes the rebellious rabble into the sea so that silence prevails again. "

In Political Romanticism in 1919 Schmitt expanded the polemics against contemporary literature from the silhouettes that had already appeared in 1913 into a fundamental critique of the bourgeois type of person. The romance is for him "psychologically and historically a product of bourgeois security ' . The romantic, according to Schmitt's criticism, does not want to decide for anything anymore, but only to experience and to describe his experience in an atmospheric way:

“Neither logical distinctions, nor moral judgments, nor political decisions are possible for him. The most important source of political vitality, belief in the law and indignation over injustice, does not exist for him. "

Here a line runs through Schmitt's early work. For him, the “age of security” leads to neutralization and depoliticization and thus to the destruction of the state's livelihood. For the romantic is "every relationship to a legal or moral judgment disparate" . Every norm appears to him as "anti-romantic tyranny". A legal or moral decision is pointless to the romantic:

“The romantic is therefore not in a position to consciously take sides and make a decision. Not even the theory of the state, which proceeds from the 'naturally evil' human being, he can decisively reject with romantic means, because even if it is unsympathetic to so many romantics, there is still the possibility of these evil people, the 'beast' to romanticize, provided it's far enough away. In romantic terms, it is about something higher than a decision. The self-confident early romanticism , which allowed itself to be carried by the momentum of the other irrational movements of its time and also played the absolute, world-creative self, felt that it was superior. "

Hence, according to Schmitt, there is no political productivity in Romanticism. Rather, complete passivity is preached and reference is made to “mystical, theological and traditionalist ideas such as serenity, humility and persistence”.

“That is the core of all political romanticism: the state is a work of art, the state of historical-political reality is an occasio to the creative achievement of the romantic subject that produces the work of art, an occasion for poetry and the novel, or also for a mere romantic mood . "

In his work Roman Catholicism and Political Form (1923), Schmitt analyzed the church as a Complexio Oppositorum , i.e. an all encompassing unit of contradictions. Schmitt diagnosed an "anti-Roman affect" . This affect, which according to Schmitt runs through the centuries, results from the fear of the incredible political power of Roman Catholicism, the "papal machine" , that is, an enormous hierarchical administrative apparatus that wants to control religious life and to direct people. With Dostoevsky and his “ Grand Inquisitor ”, the anti-Roman horror rises once again to full secular magnitude.

To every world empire, including the Roman one, belongs a certain relativism towards the "colorful set of possible views, ruthless superiority over local peculiarities and at the same time opportunistic tolerance in things that are not of central importance" . In this sense, the Church is Complexio Oppositorum: “There does not seem to be any contrast that it does not embrace . Christianity is not understood as a private matter and pure inwardness , but rather shaped into a "visible institution". Their formal principle is that of representation. This principle of the institution is the will to shape, to political form.

Schmitt generalized the structural analogies between theological and constitutional terms in Political Theology in 1922 to the thesis:

“All concise concepts of modern state theory are secularized theological concepts. Not only in terms of their historical development, because they were transferred from theology to the theory of the state, but also in terms of their systematic structure, the knowledge of which is necessary for a sociological consideration of these terms. "

Even in his early work, it became clear that Schmitt rejected bourgeois and liberal ideas about the state and politics. For him, the state was not static and normative, but vital, dynamic and factual. Therefore he emphasized the element of decision over deliberation and exception over norm. Schmitt's conception of the state was organic, not technical. The political thinker Schmitt concentrated above all on social processes that, in his opinion, preceded the state and the constitution and could endanger or cancel both at any time. As a legal philosopher, he treated the problem of the justification of law and the question of the validity of norms from different perspectives .

Schmitt as a political thinker

Schmitt's view of the state presupposes the concept of the political. Instead of a primacy of law, he postulates a primacy of politics . The legal system, d. H. For Schmitt, the order formed and defined by law is always preceded by another, namely a state order. It is this pre-legal order that enables law to become concrete reality. In other words: the political follows a constitutive logic, the legal system a regulative one. With Schmitt, order is established by the sovereign , who under certain circumstances can, to secure it, declare an opponent to be an existential enemy whom it is necessary to fight, possibly to destroy. In order to do this, the sovereign may remove the barriers that are given to the idea of ​​law.

For the Catholic Schmitt, humans are not naturally good, but not naturally evil either, but indefinitely - that is, capable of both good and evil. But this makes it (at least potentially) dangerous and risky. Because man is not perfectly good, enmities develop. For Schmitt, the area in which a distinction is made between friend and foe is politics. In this view, which goes back to Greek antiquity, the enemy is always the public enemy ( hostis or πολέμιος ), never the private enemy ( inimicus or εχθρός ). The request “Love your enemies” from the Sermon on the Mount (according to the Vulgate : diligite inimicos vestros , Matthew 5:44 and Luke 6:27), on the other hand, refers to the private enemy. In an orderly state, there is actually no politics for Schmitt, at least not in the existential sense of radical questioning, but only secondary forms of the political (e.g. police).

Schmitt understands politics as a degree of intensity of association and dissociation of people ("The distinction between friend and foe has the meaning to denote the extreme degree of intensity of a connection or separation, an association or dissociation") . This dynamic definition, which was not limited to one subject area, opened up a new theoretical foundation for political phenomena. For Schmitt, this conception of politics was a kind of basis for his legal philosophy. Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde explains in his treatise The Concept of the Political as the Key to the Constitutional Work of Carl Schmitt (published in: Recht, Staat, Freiheit, 1991): Only if the intensity is kept below the threshold of the open friend-foe distinction According to Schmitt, there is order. Otherwise there is a threat of war or civil war. In the event of war, you are dealing with two sovereign actors in this sense; the civil war , on the other hand, questions the internal order as such. According to Schmitt, an order only ever exists before the horizon of its radical questioning. The enemy declaration is expressly always linked to the extreme exceptional case (extremis neccessitatis causa) .

Schmitt himself does not provide any criteria for the circumstances under which a counterpart is to be judged as an enemy. In the sense of his thinking, this is logical, since the existential eludes a prior standardization. As a (public) enemy, he sees someone who is declared to be the enemy by the sovereign by authoritatively. Although this statement is anthropologically realistic, it is theoretically problematic. Günther Jakobs argues in a similar direction with his concept of enemy criminal law for dealing with enemies of the state . In this context, reference is often made to Carl Schmitt, even if Jakobs Schmitt deliberately did not quote. The publicist Thomas Uwer wrote in 2006: "At no point does Jakobs quote Carl Schmitt, but at every point he appears". The by then-Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble outgoing public debate about the Cologne law professor Otto Depenheuer and its thesis on the self-assertion of the state in terrorist threat belong in this context, since Depenheuer expressly refers to Schmitt.

A political form of existence for Schmitt moves entirely in the realm of the existential . Normative judgments cannot be made about them (“What exists as a political quantity is, from a legal point of view, worth it”) . Such relativism and decisionism do not bind a political order to values ​​such as freedom or justice . B. to Montesquieu , but sees the highest value axiomatically in the mere existence of this order itself. These and other irrationalist ontologisms , such as his belief in a “struggle for survival between peoples”, made Schmitt receptive to the terms and rhetoric of the National Socialists. This illustrates the limit and central weakness of Schmitt's conceptualization.

Schmitt's legal philosophy

Schmitt emphasized that as a lawyer he actually only wrote "to lawyers and for lawyers" . In addition to a large number of specific constitutional and international law reports, he also presented a number of systematic writings that were strongly geared towards specific situations. Despite the strong legal focus, it is possible to reconstruct a more or less closed legal philosophy from the large number of books and articles . The Luxembourg legal philosopher Norbert Campagna put forward such a closed reading. This interpretation should be followed here.

Schmitt's legal philosophical basic concern is the thinking of law against the background of the conditions of its possibility. The abstract ought therefore always presupposes a certain, ordered being , which first gives it the opportunity to realize itself. So Schmitt thinks in genuinely legal sociological categories. He is particularly interested in the possibility that legal norms and legal implementation fall apart. First of all, according to this concept, the prerequisites must be created which enable legal counterparts to adhere to the legal norms. Since the “normal” situation is always fragile and endangered for Schmitt, in his opinion the paradoxical necessity can arise that legal norms have to be violated in order to establish the possibility of the validity of the law . For Schmitt, this raises the question of how the ought can be expressed in being, how an existing being can become out of the ought to be.

Constitution, sovereignty and state of emergency

The prevailing opinion of legal philosophy, but above all liberalism, accused Schmitt to ignore the problem of self-realization of law. For him, this basic problem is inextricably linked to the question of sovereignty , a state of emergency and a guardian of the constitution . In contrast to liberal thinkers, whom he accused of ignoring these questions, Schmitt defined the sovereign as the state power that decides in the last instance, i.e. without the possibility of appealing. He regards the sovereign as an acting subject and not as a legal figure. According to Schmitt, it is not formed legally, but through it the legal form arises, in that the sovereign creates the framework of law. “Order must be established so that the legal order has a meaning” As Campagna emphasizes, however, the fate of the legal order depends on the order on which it is based.

Schmitt was the first to develop a constitutional theory rather than a state theory . In its positive substance, he described the constitution as “a concrete political decision on the type and form of political existence” . He distinguishes this approach with the formula “decision from normative nothing” positivistically against ideas of natural law . Only when the sovereign constitutional authority emphasizes certain content as the core of the constitution does the constitution have a substantial core.

For Schmitt, the political part of the modern constitution includes the decision in favor of the republic , democracy and parliamentarianism , whereas the vote for fundamental rights and the separation of powers constitutes the constitutional part of the constitution. While the political part constitutes the functioning of the state, the constitutional part, according to Schmitt, draws limits to this functioning. A constitution according to this definition always has a political part, but not necessarily a constitutional part. For Schmitt, for fundamental rights to be effective at all, there must first be a state whose power they limit. With this concept, he implicitly rejects the natural law idea of ​​universal human rights , which apply to every form of government regardless of the law established by the state , and here too contradicts liberalism.

Every constitution is at its core, argues Schmitt, not at the disposal of changing political majorities, the constitutional system is rather unchangeable. It is not the purpose of the constitutional provisions on constitutional revision to open a procedure for the elimination of the regulatory system that is to be constituted by the constitution. If a constitution provides for the possibility of a constitutional revision, it should not establish a legal method for its own abolition.

The political constitution, i.e. the decision on the type and form of existence, creates an order in which norms can take effect (“There is no norm that can be applied to chaos”) . In the true sense of the word, a form of existence is only political if it is collective, i.e. if a collective good that is different from the individual good of each member is in the foreground. In the constitution, according to Schmitt, certain values ​​are always expressed, against the background of which indefinite legal terms such as “ public security ” only receive their concrete content. Normality can only be defined against the background of these values. For Schmitt, the essential element of order is homogeneity as the agreement of all regarding the fundamental decision regarding the political being of the community. Schmitt is aware that it would be illusory to want to achieve far-reaching social homogeneity. He therefore describes the absolute homogeneity as an "idyllic case" .

For Schmitt, since the 19th century, the substance of equality has primarily consisted of belonging to a particular nation . Homogeneity in modern democracy can never be fully realized, instead there is always a pluralism ” of particular interests, so the “order” is always endangered. The gap between being and ought can break open at any time. The concept of homogeneity, which is central to Schmitt, is initially not intended to be ethnic or even racist, but rather positivistic: the nation is realized with the intention of building an order together. After 1933, however, Schmitt expressly based his concept on the term “race” .

The sovereign creates and guarantees order in Schmitt's thinking. For this he has the monopoly of the final decision. For Schmitt, sovereignty is to be defined legally in terms of this monopoly of decision-making (“Whoever decides on a state of emergency is sovereign”) , not in terms of a monopoly of force or power . From his point of view , the decisions made in a state of emergency (convictions, emergency ordinances, etc.) cannot be challenged with regard to their correctness ("The fact that it was the competent authority that made a decision makes the decision [...] regardless of the correctness of its content ") . The one who can avoid civil war or end it effectively is always sovereign .

The exceptional situation therefore has the character of a heuristic principle:

“The exception is more interesting than the normal case. The normal proves nothing, the exception proves everything; it not only confirms the rule, the rule lives only on the exception. In the exception the power of real life breaks through the crust of a mechanics frozen in repetition. "

Representation, democracy and homogeneity

For Schmitt, the modern state is democratically legitimized. Democracy in this sense means the “identity of ruler and ruled, ruler and ruled, commanding and obeying” . “Equality” belongs to the essence of democracy, but it is only directed inwards and therefore does not include the citizens of other states. In a democratic state, all citizens are equal. According to Schmitt, democracy as a form of government always requires a “politically united people” . The democratic equality thus refers to a similarity or homogeneity. In the time of National Socialism , Schmitt no longer referred to this postulate as "similarity", but as "species equality".

Schmitt shares the emphasis on the necessity of relative homogeneity with his antipode Hermann Heller , who, however, understood homogeneity socially and not politically. Heller had written to Schmitt in 1928 because he had noticed a number of similarities in the constitutional judgment. In addition to the question of political homogeneity, this mainly concerned the use of the emergency ordinance paragraph Art. 48 in the Weimar Constitution , on which Schmitt had given a lecture at the meeting of constitutional law teachers in 1924, with which Heller agreed. However, the exchange abruptly broke off after Heller had accused Schmitt of the concept of political bellicism . Schmitt had vehemently contradicted this judgment.

On the question of political homogeneity, the Federal Constitutional Court also invoked relative political homogeneity in the famous Maastricht ruling in 1993:

“The states require sufficiently significant fields of their own in which the respective state people can develop and articulate themselves in a process of political decision-making that is legitimized and controlled by them, in order to give legal expression to what they - relatively homogeneously - unite spiritually, socially and politically give."

It referred explicitly to Hermann Heller, although the content should have been assigned to Schmitt. The expert for public law Alexander Proelß wrote in 2003: “The naming of Heller to support the homogeneity requirement of the state people is in any case wrong [...]. The court should have primarily pursued the goal of evading the citation of the historically burdened Schmitt, which apparently appeared to be less than desirable. "

Behind the purely particular interests, Schmitt assumes in Rousseau's sense, there must be a volonté générale , i.e. a common interest shared by all. This “substance of unity” is more related to feeling than to rationality. If a strong and conscious similarity and thus the ability to take political action is missing, then, according to Schmitt, representation is required . Where the element of representation predominates in a state, the state approaches monarchy , whereas where the element of identity is stronger, the state approaches democracy. At the moment when civil war appeared on the horizon as a real danger in the Weimar Republic , Schmitt therefore opted for a sovereign Reich President as an element of “real representation” . On the other hand, he described parliamentarism as a “fake facade” that has become outdated in intellectual history . He rejected parliament as a “refuge for the parties and “particular interests” . In contrast to this, he emphasized that the democratically legitimized president represents the unity. From this point of view, as the representative of unity, the sovereign is the “guardian of the constitution” , the political substance of unity.

Dictatorship, legality and legitimacy

According to Schmitt, the instrument with which the sovereign restores the disturbed order is the dictatorship , which, in his opinion, represents the legal institution of danger prevention (cf. Article State of Emergency ). Such a dictatorship, understood in the basic Roman meaning as an emergency rule to “restore the threatened order” , is not bound by any legal norm in Schmitt's assessment, but the law always forms its horizon. Accordingly, there is only a relative, not an absolute, opposition between this dictatorship and the “legal idea” .

The dictatorship, according to Schmitt, is a mere means of restoring an endangered “normality” with the stability that is necessary for the application and effectiveness of the law. When the opponent no longer adheres to the legal norm, dictatorship becomes necessary as an answer that depends on it. The dictatorship thus (re) establishes the connection between being and ought by temporarily suspending the legal norm in order to enable “legal realization” . Schmitt:

“The fact that every dictatorship contains the exception to a norm does not mean the accidental negation of any norm. The inner dialectic of the term lies in the fact that precisely the norm is negated, the rule of which is to be secured by the dictatorship in historical-political reality. "

He sees the "essence of dictatorship" in the divergence of law and legal realization:

“There can be a contradiction between the rule of the norm to be realized and the method of its realization. In legal philosophy , this is where the essence of dictatorship lies, namely the general possibility of a separation of norms of law and norms of legal realization. "

Schmitt complains that the "liberal legal philosophy" meets this independent significant "problem of legal realization" with ignorance, since its representatives are fixated on the "normal case" and ignore the exceptional case. Campagna summarizes Schmitt's position as follows:

“Normally one does not need to violate the legal norms in order to ensure the implementation of these norms, but because this normal case, with a realistic consideration of human affairs, is not secured for all eternity, one must always reckon with the possibility that the law - and the legal implementation norms will separate, so that one must violate the legal norms in order to guarantee the possibility of a legal coexistence. "

Similarly, according to Schmitt, legality and legitimacy can also fall apart. He diagnosed this around the end of the Weimar Republic. According to Schmitt in 1932, a purely functionalist system of legality threatens to turn against itself and thus ultimately abolish its own legality and legitimacy: With Richard Thoma, "at least the civil-legal system itself with its concept of law and freedom is sacred, Liberal value neutrality is seen as a value and the political enemy - fascism and Bolshevism - openly named. Anschütz on the other hand, the value neutrality of a functionalist legality system goes as far as absolute neutrality towards itself and offers the legal way to eliminate legality itself, so in its neutrality it goes as far as suicide. ” Schmitt condensed this criticism of the value relativism of the prevailing doctrine in a famous phrase:

“A constitution that would not dare to make a decision here [in the event of the threat of abolition of the legality system itself], but instead wanted to give the fighting classes, directions and objectives the illusion that they would legally get their money's worth, all of them Achieving their party goals legally and legally destroying all their opponents is no longer possible even as a dilatory formula compromise and, in practical terms, would also destroy their legality and legitimacy. It would necessarily fail at the critical moment when a constitution has to prove itself. "

An act is legal if it can be completely subsumed under a general norm of positive law . For Schmitt, however, legitimacy is not necessarily tied to these norms. It can also refer to principles that take precedence over positive law, such as the “right to life of the state” or reason of state . Accordingly, the dictatorship invokes legitimacy. It is not tied to positive norms, but only to the substance of the constitution, i.e. its basic decision about the type and form of political existence. According to Schmitt, the dictatorship must make itself superfluous, i. H. it must shape reality in such a way that recourse to extraordinary violence becomes superfluous. The dictatorship is necessarily provisional when a constitution is in place, since it cannot pursue any other purpose than to bring the constitution back into force. The dictator is thus a constituted power (pouvoir constitué) , which cannot override the will of the constituent power (pouvoir constituant) . In contrast to this, according to Schmitt, there is a “sovereign dictatorship” in which the dictator first creates a situation that, from his point of view, is worth preserving. Here Schmitt had the sovereign prince in mind. As a consequence, this means what Schmitt also formulated: sovereign dictatorship and constitution are mutually exclusive.

War, enmity, international law

Homogeneity, which for Schmitt belongs to the essence of democracy, always presupposes heterogeneity at a higher level . There is unity only in demarcation from a multiplicity. Every democratically organizing people can therefore only accomplish this in contrast to another people. There is always a “pluriverse” of different peoples and states for this thinking . Like state law, for Schmitt international law (" international law ") also requires a concrete order.

Since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, this concrete order has been the international order of states as a guarantor of an international legal order. Since Schmitt states the downfall of this state order, however, the question arises for him of a new concrete being of international legal subjects, which could guarantee a "real being" basis for an international legal order.

Historically, according to Schmitt, such an order has always been established through wars between sovereign states that wanted to enforce their political idea as an order factor in the fight against others. Only when the claims to order have reached a limit will a stable pluriverse be established in a peace agreement, that is, an international order (“The point of any non-senseless war is to lead to a peace agreement”) . There must first be a division of the area that is regarded as “normal” so that an effective international legal order can come about .

Due to their political otherness, the plural communities are always potential enemies for one another as long as no global order is established. Schmitt, however, firmly adheres to a restricted concept of the enemy, leaving room for the idea of ​​law . A peace agreement is only possible with a counterpart who is viewed as a (potential) opponent and not as an absolute enemy. Here Schmitt poses the question of “keeping war” . The ethical minimum legal idea is for him while the principle of reciprocity . This element should never be left out in a war, that is, the enemy must always be accorded the same rights that one claims for oneself.

Schmitt differentiates between the following forms of enmity : conventional enmity , real enmity and absolute enmity . For absolute hostility it came, paradoxically, such as when a party the struggle for humanism have written on its banner. Because whoever fights for the good or even to save the whole of humanity must regard his opponent as an “enemy of all humanity” and thus declare it to be “inhuman” . Based on Pierre-Joseph Proudhon , Schmitt says : "Whoever says humanity wants to cheat" .

“The use of the name 'mankind', the appeal to mankind, the confiscation of this word, all of which, because one cannot use such lofty names without certain consequences, could only manifest the terrible claim that the enemy would appreciate the quality of the People agreed that he would declare hors-la-loi [outside the law] and hors L'humanité and thereby drive the war to the utmost inhumanity. "

Schmitt generalized this thesis in 1960 in a private print entitled The Tyranny of Values . Here he rejected the entire value discourse:

“Anyone who says value wants to assert and enforce. Virtues are exercised; One applies norms; Orders are carried out; but values ​​are set and enforced. Anyone who asserts their validity must assert them. Anyone who says that they apply without a person asserting them wants to cheat. "

Schmitts described conventional war as a cherished war ( ius in bello ) in which states and their regular armies participate, nobody else. According to Schmitt, the four Geneva Conventions concluded after the Second World War are based on this principle , as they are based on sovereign statehood. Schmitt praised these conventions as “the work of humanity” , but also states that they were based on a reality that no longer exists as such. As a result, they could no longer fulfill their real function of making possible an effective containment of the war. Because with the disappearance of the underlying being , the ought no longer has any basis either.

Schmitt first formulated the idea that peace is only possible through war, since only a real peace agreement after a war can bring about a concrete order in connection with the discussion of the outcome of the First World War . Based on this idea, he proclaimed the provocative alternative: "Peace or pacifism" . As an example of a peace agreement that did not bring about a new order in the sense of a peace agreement, Schmitt looked at the Versailles Treaty and the establishment of the Geneva League of Nations in 1920. From Schmitt's perspective, the League of Nations only continued the situation of the war. It therefore seemed to him like a continuation of this war by other means. He wrote about this during the Second World War in 1940:

"In truth, the Geneva Combination deserves the name of a federation, a society or a league in the sense of a political association only insofar as it attempted to continue the world war coalition and to include the states that were neutral during the world war."

Specifically, Schmitt referred to the occupation of the Ruhr by French and Belgian troops in January 1923, with which the two countries responded to a dispute over the amount of German reparations in order to secure a key position in relation to the as yet unoccupied parts of the Ruhr area and the most important trading centers . This action was justified with the assurance of the "sanctity of the contracts". Schmitt castigated this as an ideological concealment of tangible interest politics. Such a juridification of politics, which only disguises the claims to power of the strong states, he described as the main threat to peace. It is a kind of concealed continuation of the war, which, through the deliberate lack of visibility of the enemy, leads to an increase in enmity in the sense of the absolute enemy concept and ultimately to a discriminatory concept of war. Such a "false" peace would not create a concrete order . Instead of an order, the facade of an order emerges, behind which the political goals oscillate:

“In addition, [the League of Nations] lacks any constructive thought, any community substance, hence any political consistency and any identity and continuity in the legal sense. The political content of the League of Nations has often changed, and the continuing keeping the same etiquette Geneva event has at least six times in a political and therefore international law [to 1936] aliud changed. "

Dissolution of the international order: Greater area, pirate and partisan

Schmitt diagnosed the end of statehood ("The era of statehood is coming to an end. There is no more word to be said about it") . He sees the disappearance of the order of sovereign statehood in the following factors: First, the states are disintegrating, new subjects of international law arise; Second, war has become ubiquitous - that is, omnipresent and all available - and has thus lost its conventional and cherished character.

In place of the state, according to Schmitt, the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 saw the introduction of new types of “large areas” with a ban on intervention by powers alien to the area. Here you have to do with new legal subjects: According to Schmitt, the USA, for example, has no longer been an ordinary state since the Monroe Doctrine, but a leading and sustaining power whose political idea radiates into its greater area, namely the western hemisphere. This results in a division of the earth into several large areas filled with their historical, economic and cultural substance. The “ connection between Reich, Greater Space and the principle of non-intervention” was “ fundamental ” for Schmitt . As soon as this principle is recognized by international law, " a delimitable coexistence on a sensibly divided earth will be conceivable and the principle of non-intervention can develop its regulatory effect in a new international law ". In 1939 he wrote that the “ greater area ” and the “ universalism ” of Western societies stand for the “ opposition of a clear spatial order based on the principle of non-intervention by foreign powers and a universalist ideology that transforms the whole earth into the battlefield of their interventions and that of everyone obstructs the natural growth of living peoples ”. Schmitt filled the concept of the greater area, which had been developed since 1938, in a National Socialist manner; the political idea of ​​the German Reich is the idea of “respect for every people as a reality of life determined by type and origin, blood and soil . For Schmitt, a pluriverse of large areas takes the place of a pluriverse of states .

Before the primacy of an unconditional preservation of national sovereignty, especially of authoritarian states against the demands of democracy, Schmitt rejected international sanctions. He saw them as an expression of doctrinal human rights policy and as "indirect violence" , which, in contrast to open war, represented a discriminatory measure and made presumptuous decisions about foreign politics " on the basis of an over-ethnic, moral or legal authority ". According to Schmitt, the universal claim to respect for human rights is a threat to the sovereignty of “people” and “space”.

At the same time the states lose the monopoly of warfare ( ius ad bellum ). New, non-state combatants emerge who appear as warring parties . At the center of this new type of warfare, Schmitt sees people who totally identify with the goal of their group and therefore know no boundaries for the realization of these goals. You are ready to sacrifice innocents, innocents, even yourself. With this the sphere of totality will be entered and with it the ground of absolute enmity .

According to Schmitt, after the state's monopoly on warfare has been lost, one has to do with a new type, the partisan , who is characterized by four characteristics: irregularity, strong political commitment, mobility and a “telluric character” (locality). The partisan is no longer recognizable as a regular combatant, he does not wear a uniform, he deliberately blurs the distinction between fighters and civilians, which is constitutive for martial law. The partisan differs from the pirate through his strong political commitment . The partisan is primarily concerned with fighting for political goals with which he fully identifies. The Latin origin of the word partisan is what is often forgotten, "supporters of a party".

The partisan is highly mobile because of his irregularity . Unlike standing armies, it can strike quickly and unexpectedly and retreat just as quickly. It does not act hierarchically and centrally, but decentrally and in networks. According to Schmitt, his telluric character is shown by the fact that the partisan feels bound to a specific place that he is defending. The localized or localized partisan primarily wages a defensive war . According to Schmitt, the partisan begins to lose this last characteristic. The partisan (or, as one would say today: the terrorist ) becomes a "tool of a powerful global political center that uses it in open or invisible war and switches it off again depending on the state of affairs" .

While the conventional enemy, in the sense of cherished war, questions a certain aspect within a framework accepted by all sides, the real enemy questions the framework as such. The partisan, no longer tied to a specific location, embodies the form of absolute enmity and thus marks the transition to total war . For Schmitt, the transition from " autochthonous to world-aggressive partisan" took place historically with Lenin . Schmitt emphasizes that the new wars, which are characterized by the absolute hostility of the partisans, are no longer about conquering new territories, but rather about destroying a form of existence because of its alleged worthlessness. A contingently defined hostility becomes an ontologically or intrinsically determined one. With such an enemy, a cherished war and peace agreement are no longer possible. Schmitt calls it, in contrast to "parity led war" to "discriminatory led war" . His discriminatory concept of war breaks with reciprocity and judges the enemy in categories of just and unjust. If the concept of the enemy becomes total in such a sense, the sphere of the political is left and that of the theological entered, that is, the sphere of the ultimate, non-negotiable distinction. According to Schmitt, the enemy concept of the political is a concept limited by the idea of ​​law . Accordingly, it is precisely the absence of an ethical determination of the war goal that makes it possible to “guard war” , because ethical postulates, as they are fundamentally non-negotiable, belong to the “theological sphere” .

The nomos of the earth

After the dissolution of the order of the Peace of Westphalia, the question arises for Schmitt of a new, his- moderate order that can become the foundation of an abstract ought . It is clear to him that there cannot be a “One World Order”. The denationalization of the international order should not lead to universalism. According to Schmitt, only a world of large areas with a ban on intervention for other great powers is in a position to replace the war guaranteed by the Westphalian order .

In 1950 he constructed a " nomos of the earth" which - analogous to the sovereign decision - first created the conditions of normality that are necessary for the realization of the law. Thus, for Schmitt, this spatially understood nomos of the earth is the basis for any legality under international law. In his view, effective international law is always based on such a concrete order, never on mere treaties. As soon as even one element of the overall order questions this order, the order as such is in danger.

The first nomos was local for Schmitt, it only affected the European continent. After the discovery of America, the nomos became global because it has now expanded to the whole world. For the new nomos of the earth, which for Schmitt has not yet developed, Schmitt's theory sees three basic possibilities: a) an all-ruling power subjugates all powers, b) the nomos, in which sovereign states accept each other, is revived , c) space becomes a new kind of pluriverse of great powers.

Schmitt considers the implementation of the second variant to be unlikely. He firmly rejects the first variant ( "Law through peace is meaningful and decent; peace through law is an imperialist claim to rule" ). It should not be the case that “egoistic powers” , with which he has above all the United States in mind, place the world under their power interests. The ius belli must not become the prerogative of a single power, otherwise international law would cease to be equal and universal. Thus, according to Schmitt, only the pluriverse of a few large areas remains. A prerequisite for this, however, would be a global war, as a consequence of Schmitt's thinking, since only a military conflict is suitable to establish a new nomos of the earth.


Post-war period and Frankfurt School

After 1945, Schmitt was academically and journalistically isolated because of his commitment to National Socialism . Alongside Ernst Jünger , Arnold Gehlen , Hans Freyer and Martin Heidegger, he was seen as an intellectual pioneer and pillar of the Nazi regime.

Nevertheless, he had numerous students who helped shape the legal thinking of the early Federal Republic. These include Ernst Rudolf Huber , Ernst Forsthoff , Werner Weber , Roman Schnur , Hans Barion and Ernst Friesenhahn , all of whom apart from Friesenhahn were burdened by prolonged National Socialist engagement. These students dedicated a commemorative publication to the jubilee on his 70th and 80th birthday in order to pay his respects publicly ( commemorative publication on the 70th birthday for Carl Schmitt , 1959 and Epirrhosis. Commemoration for Carl Schmitt on the 80th birthday , 1968). Other students of Schmitt were, for example, the political journalist Rüdiger Altmann, who became known as a chancellor advisor, and the influential journalist Johannes Gross . Younger constitutional lawyers like Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde or Josef Isensee were strongly influenced by Carl Schmitt and can be assigned to the tradition of thought that he founded, which is sometimes referred to as the Schmitt School . The so-called Böckenförde dictum , based on Schmitt, is known , according to which the liberal, secularized state lives on conditions that it cannot guarantee itself. Various public figures sought advice or legal expertise from Schmitt in the early days of the Federal Republic, including the Spiegel editor Rudolf Augstein in 1952.

Jürgen Habermas sums up Schmitt's impact in the early Federal Republic in his study "Carl Schmitt in the political intellectual history of the Federal Republic" as follows:

“Both [Schmitt and Heidegger] were among the 'big yes-men of 1933' because they felt infinitely superior to the Nazis and wanted to 'lead the Führer'; they have experienced the illusionary nature of their exaggerated purpose, but refused to admit their guilt or even their political error publicly. 'What was actually more indecent', asks Carl Schmitt, 'to stand up for Hitler in 1933 or to spit on him in 1945?' This refusal and the hatred of 'penitential preachers like Jaspers' were at the beginning of the incomparable history of impact that both Heidegger and Schmitt had in the Federal Republic.
There is no need to explain why groundbreaking arguments, interpretive perspectives and thoughts that are recognized worldwide have also been seen as a challenge in the Federal Republic; there are enough examples of productive processing of these impulses. An explanation, however, is the fact that these "Reich spokesmen" in the land of the obvious breach of civilization - in spite of their lack of insight, indeed their demonstrably exhibited ignorance - found that kind of intellectually fascinated following among the younger ones, in which one could identify with deeper ones Reveals attitudes. "

- Jürgen Habermas : Carl Schmitt in the political intellectual history of the Federal Republic. In dsb .: The normality of a Berlin republic. Frankfurt 1995, ISBN 3-518-11967-2 , pp. 112-122
Schmitt sees the state of the Hobbesian Leviathan as a “great machine” in which the technically neutral command mechanism is completed

There were other points of contact in - also for contemporaries - surprising contexts. For example, the Jewish religious philosopher Jacob Taubes , who was in contact with Schmitt, reported that his constitutional doctrine had been used in the discussion about a possible Israeli constitution. As a research fellow in 1949, he accidentally discovered this through an unsuccessful order for the book in the library of the Jerusalem Hebrew University : “One day after I requested Carl Schmitt's Constitutional Doctrine, an urgent call came from the Ministry of Justice, Justice Minister Pinchas Rosen (formerly Rosenblüth ) need Carl Schmitt's constitutional theory to work out some difficult problems in the drafts for the constitution of the state of Israel ” . Taubes, then a professor at the Free University of Berlin , was an important reference figure for the German student movement . For example, he had put a leaflet by Communards Rainer Langhans and Fritz Teufel , which indirectly called for arson attacks, in the tradition of the “European avant-garde ” in a judicial report and thus contributed to an acquittal. Schmitt's ability to connect to Taubes illustrates the inhomogeneity of reception.

But Schmitt also worked in other disciplines. From the science of history are especially Reinhart Koselleck ( criticism and crisis ) and Christian Meier (The emergence of the political with the Greeks) as influenced by Schmitt, from the sociology Hanno Kesting (Philosophy of History and world civil war ). In philosophy, Odo Marquard (individual and separation of powers) , Hermann Lübbe (The dispute about words: language and politics) and Alexandre Kojève (Hegel, a visualization of his thinking) received Schmitt's theorems . Even Hans Blumenberg (legitimacy of modern times) dealt in his work in different places sometimes critical, sometimes approvingly with Schmitt. In religious studies it was mainly Jacob Taubes (Occidental Eschatology ) who followed up Schmitt's political theology .

A particularly difficult question in the history of Carl Schmitt's impact is his reception on the intellectual and political left . It has been the subject of intense controversy. On the one hand, Schmitt was seen as a kind of intellectual main opponent - Ernst Bloch described him as one of the "whores of National Socialist absolutism, which had become completely mortal" - on the other hand there were arguments and references to content.

In a widely discussed essay on Schmitt and the Frankfurt School , Ellen Kennedy argued in 1986 that Jürgen Habermas had used Schmitt's figures of argument in his criticism of parliamentarism. In Iring Fetscher's Frankfurt seminars around 1968, Schmitt - as Eike Hennig reports - played a major role. Reinhard Mehring wrote in 2006:

“Schmitt's influence on Habermas was repeatedly discussed. It was in the Frankfurt air. Schmitt was something of an in-house lawyer for Critical Theory and the Frankfurt School. Otto Kirchheimer and Franz Neumann, Ernst Fraenkel and Walter Benjamin had all read their Schmitt before 1933. Kirchheimer had received his doctorate from Schmitt; he and Neumann met Schmitt more often in Berlin. Its political consideration of the law and the 'sovereignty of the people' was of interest to them for the elaboration of a socialist legal theory. However, Kirchheimer criticized Schmitt's 'conceptual realism' early on, by which he understood a historical-philosophical overstepping of legal categories. Neumann then also adapted Schmitt's legal-theoretical diagnosis of a dissolution of the constitutional concept of law for his description of the National Socialist 'behemoth'. Since then there has been a legal left-wing Schmittism that Habermas encountered in Frankfurt. "

The political scientist Wilhelm Hennis , in his inaugural speech in Freiburg in July 1968, with the title Constitution and Constitutional Reality linked to Schmitt, had the constitutional thinking of the "left" - more precisely: the distinction between the formal forms of organization and the material principles of fundamental rights - as "pure Carl Schmitt Frankfurt-like" designated. Schmitt, to whom Hennis had sent the document, responded in December 1968 with a compliment to the authors of the Frankfurt School :

“My writing on legality and legitimacy was intended to prevent it [meaning the constitution] from becoming an instrument of civil war; Hence the most important jurisprudential finding of the whole text: the doctrine of the 'political premiums on the legal possession of power', which in a time of the grand coalition [meaning the government of Kurt Georg Kiesinger and Willy Brandt 1966-1969 ] by itself became a more legal practice There will be bonuses on political power. That is what the people of Frankfurt understand and what others do not want to understand. "

In addition to Schmitt's points of contact with protagonists from the Frankfurt School, there were elements of a “problematic solidarity” (Friedrich Balke) between the political philosopher Hannah Arendt and Carl Schmitt. In her work Elements and Origins of Total Reign from 1951, Arendt postulated that there had been a relatively small number of “ real artists and scholars” who “had not only aligned themselves in Nazi Germany , but were convinced Nazis ” [...]. “To illustrate this, let us recall the career of Carl Schmitt, who was undoubtedly the most important man in Germany in the field of constitutional and international law and who went to great lengths to please the Nazis. He never succeeded. “Rather, he was from the National Socialists“ as quickly as possible through second- and third-rate talents such as Theodor Maunz , Werner Best , Hans Frank , Gottfried Neesse and Reinhold Hoehn [sic! recte: Reinhard Höhn ] replaced and played on the wall. “Arendt used some Schmittian terms such as“ political romanticism ”(after the 1925 edition) and in this context refers to his theses on the connection between Philistines and political romantics. Even his National Socialist text State, Movement, People , published in 1934, took it from thought processes. In her extensive bibliography at the end of the work, she included these two books as well as Schmitt's works Totaler Feind, totaler Krieg, totaler Staat (1937) and international law for territorial powers (1941). With her concept of a council democracy based on plural public political communication , however, Arendt was fundamentally far from Schmitt's views.

A link between Schmitt and the Frankfurt School was the political scientist Franz Neumann , who received Schmitt as a young lawyer. The criticism of parliamentarism, which also resonates with Neumann, can be traced from Neumann to Arendt to Habermas. Carl J. Friedrich , who founded the theory of totalitarianism with Arendt, Fraenkel and Neumann, was also an admirer of Schmitt and especially his theory of dictatorship at a young age . There were also contacts with socialist theorists in the philosophical environment. In addition to Walter Benjamin , the Marxist philosopher Georg Lukács should be mentioned here, who praised Schmitt's Political Romanticism , for which he returned the favor by quoting "the well-known communist theorist" in the concept of the political from 1932. Benjamin wrote a letter to Schmitt on December 9, 1930, in which he sent Schmitt his book The Origin of German Tragedy .

Student movement and the 68 movement

In the Federal Republic of Germany the connections between some protagonists of the student movement , such as Hans Magnus Enzensbergers - Hans Mathias Kepplinger calls them “right people from the left” - to Carl Schmitt were discussed. The political scientist Wolfgang Kraushaar from the Hamburg Institute for Social Research - formerly part of the student movement himself - took the view that Hans-Jürgen Krahl must have received Carl Schmitt's theory of the partisan , as emerged from the criteria and demarcations for the definition of the guerrilla that he shared Rudi Dutschke developed it in 1967 at a famous SDS delegate conference (so-called organizational lecture). This orientation of left theorists to the partisan theory published by Schmitt in 1963 is in fact not unlikely. For example, the Maoist at the time Joachim Schickel published a “Conversation about the Partisans” with Carl Schmitt in his book Guerilleros, Partisanen - Theory and Practice, edited in 1970 , and describes him as the “only available author” who “has spoken competently on the subject” . In a different context, Kraushaar put forward the thesis that from Johannes Agnolis' criticism of parliamentarism , one of the main instigators of the student revolt, the thoughts of right-wing thinkers such as Carl Schmitt, Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto spoke .

The left student leader Jens Litten, a member of the SHB , also had a conversation with Schmitt in 1970 - together with Rüdiger Altmann - for the North German Radio , about which he reported in the Protestant weekly newspaper Deutsches Allgemeine Sonntagsblatt . When Schmitt speaks of his students, according to Litten, names appear that “enjoy authority with the Left”. For Schmitt this was a matter of course, because: "Left and right are terms of political vulgar language for him".

Against this background, a possible influence of Schmitt on the 1968 movement was discussed, although the constitutional lawyer is commonly seen as a central antipode by left thinkers. There are also very few direct references. The influence usually took place through left-wing masterminds such as Fraenkel, Neumann or Kirchheimer, who were at times strongly influenced by Schmitt. The common point of contact was mostly criticism of parliamentarism. This topic connected conservative anti-liberals with some theorists of the so-called “ extra-parliamentary opposition ” (APO). The political scientist Heinrich Oberreuter emphasized in 2002: "The radical criticism of the system went beyond the system doubts, justified by Carl Schmitt and Jürgen Habermas, about parliamentarianism that had lost its intellectual foundations and its moral truth." In 1983 the lawyer Volker Neumann had already written: " Carl Schmitt's work has remained attractive to the left - until today. The interest in similar problem situations and a comparable radicalism of the question provided the material for a liberal criticism, which, using the example of Schmitt and the student movement, established the 'agreement of extremes'. . Quoted she had on the important for the political self-image of the student movement parliamentary criticism Johannes Agnoli, which was moved to the continuity of the embossed Schmitt anti-liberalism and -Parlamentarismus "LEONARD LANDOIS claimed in his 2008 book counter-revolution from the left: The state and society of '68er' and its sources in Carl Schmitt that the origins of the understanding of the state and society of the student movement must be sought in Schmitt. Landois was indeed able to point out various parallels between Schmitt and the 68ers, but he had to concede that representatives of the 68ers only made indirect contact with Schmitt. Likewise in 2008, Götz Aly's very personal reappraisal of the student revolt appeared under the provocative title Our Struggle - 1968 . He argues that the 1968ers despised pluralism “in the spirit of Nazi lawyer Carl Schmitt” .

An example of a direct intersection between Schmitt and the 1968 movement was a conference of the Socialist German Student Union (SDS) in Berlin. The well-known Hegel researcher Alexandre Kojève , who described himself as the “only real socialist”, announced at the event that his next travel destination was Plettenberg: “Where should you go in Germany? Carl Schmitt is the only one who is worth talking to ”. It is reported from Schmitt's closest circle that he was quite open to the student revolt. Schmitt noticed that something was breaking open. He liked that. With this in mind, he also looked for a constructive discussion of publications by the 1968 movement. He is said to have read texts by the leftist literary scholar Helmut Lethen with particular interest. In addition, he never considered himself a conservative. He had a preference for colorful and extreme figures, regardless of political orientation, as long as they seemed witty and unbiased. This also included Günter Maschke , who experienced his political socialization at the SDS, then sought political asylum in Fidel Castro's Cuba and is now assigned to the New Right .

Most recently, there has been controversy about the work of the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben , who, in addition to the post-structuralist Michel Foucault and the pioneer of critical theory , Walter Benjamin , is based in central elements on Carl Schmitt and his theory of the state of emergency . Agamben's Guantánamo criticism that the prisoners were “placed outside the international order of the civilized world” as “irregular combatants” ( hors la loi , as Schmitt would say) uses Schmitt's argumentation.

Jürgen Habermas mentions in a review of the English translation of two Schmitt works “... Leftists in the Federal Republic and, today above all, in Italy, who drive out the devil with Beelzebub by filling the hole of the missing Marxist theory of democracy with Carl Schmitt's fascist Stuff criticism of democracy ” . He has noted a Schmitt renaissance since 1989: “Prepared by the 'postmodern' reception of the eighties, Carl Schmitt has been really booming since 1989: pent-up demand in the East, free path in the West for the gateway drug into the dream of a strong state and the homogeneous nation ” .

A Marxist author who has often been criticized for his closeness to Carl Schmitt is the French philosopher and long-time member of the French Communist Party , Étienne Balibar . Among other things, Balibar had provided a foreword to the French reprint of the Schmitt book Der Leviathan in der Staatslehre von Thomas Hobbes - a publication from the Nazi era. He was then accused of playing down Schmitt in a dangerous way.

The use of Schmitt's categories by post-Marxist theorists such as Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, Giorgio Agamben, Chantal Mouffe , Gopal Balakrishnan or the reception by the theory organ " Telos " (a magazine founded in 1968 to popularize the ideas of the Frankfurt School in the USA ) illustrate the connection with the early left reception of Schmitt by Benjamin, Fraenkel, Kirchheimer and Neumann. Above all, the intervention policy of the United States (see for example the Iraq war ) or the role of the United Nations as a kind of “world government” are often rejected with recourse to Schmitt's theorems. In part, Schmitt's arguments against the League of Nations were transferred to American politics and the United States was ascribed an economic interest policy under the veil of democratic goals. On the other hand, the proponents of interventions based on natural or human rights can refer to Schmitt's postulate of “absolute enmity” or “tyranny of values”, which abrogates the principle of reciprocity in international law.

Schmitt's project of unmasking bourgeois structures as (economic) interest politics is a point taken up by both the left and the right. Anti- parliamentarism, anti-liberalism, statism , anti-imperialism, and anti-Americanism also attracted interest on both sides of the political spectrum.

Volker Weiß remarks that Schmitt opposed the principle of the "absolute enmity" he described, since for him in his theory of the partisan it was above all a characteristic of the victorious powers of 1945. For him, the Nuremberg Trials were a means of the final moral annihilation of the Germans. In doing so, Schmitt simply suppressed the fact that the German side "had practiced all forms of 'absolute enmity' long before Nuremberg itself", since in their actions against Jews and other forces marked as "enemies" they "determined the urge for complete dehumanization and annihilation " has been. Schmitt's own anti-Semitism also had all the traits of “absolute enmity”. Schmitt's definition of the “metropolitan area” and his principle of non-intervention are reflected in the positive attitude of the German and European New Right towards Putin's Russia.

"New Rights"

For the political right, ethnopluralism , nationalism , cultural pessimism and admiration for Italian fascism are particularly compatible. In addition, there is Schmitt's option for a state of emergency and dictatorship to maintain political order, even in violation of positive law . Therefore, Schmitt's works still arouse lively interest in conservative circles (see reception by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, for example ) and in the context of the so-called New Right (see above all Junge Freiheit , Etappe , Staatsbriefe or Criticón , the same applies for the Nouvelle Droite in France). Leading theorists of the New Right / Nouvelle Droite deal intensively with Carl Schmitt, above all Alain de Benoist , Günter Maschke and Armin Mohler (who called himself his "student"). Due to the up-to-date reception from the new right and right-wing extremist environment, Schmitt appears regularly in publications of the protection of the constitution as the ancestor of revisionist efforts. For example, the Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Constitutional Protection Agency noted in 2003, the magazine Nation und Europa , the “most important right-wing extremist strategy and theory organ”, referred to Schmitt's theorems of international law with anti-American intent: “The demands for the exclusion of 'foreign powers' Europe tie in with the views of constitutional lawyer Carl Schmitt, who at the time of the 'Third Reich' advocated German supremacy in a Europe that was not influenced by the USA. A separation from America is supposed to be connected in the revisionist sense with a politically motivated correction of historical views. "

European Integration

In connection with the European integration process, the question was discussed whether Carl Schmitt's theory of large areas or his “Constitutional Doctrine of the Federation” (1928) can be considered the basis for the European community concept. It was pointed out that the reasons given by Schmitt for the emergence of large areas - cross-border requirements for traffic and communication technology, consideration of economic dependencies between different economies - also played an important role in the creation of the European Communities . Schmitt's description of the greater area as a factual and legal entity under international law that lags behind the state is also correct for the European Union . The thesis that the EU is a metropolitan area in the sense of Carl Schmitt was also rejected. Unlike Carl Schmitt, Europe is not a region in which business, technology and administration are subordinate to a supranational primacy; In addition, the state is by no means superfluous in the process of European integration, but a downright decisive prerequisite for integration. In contrast, the European lawyer Hans-Peter Folz expressed the opinion in 2006 that the European Community is a model of Schmitt's “Constitutional Doctrine of the Federal Government”. In his constitutional doctrine, Schmitt added a third category to the traditional distinction between federal state and confederation, which the analysis had shown to be inadequate: the non-consolidated state association. With this category it is better possible to describe developing multi-state entities like the European Union. Schmitt had defined the unresolved conflict between the federal government - as the center of a long-term association of states - and the member states as the essence of the federal government. The federal government therefore lives from the equal coexistence of two political existences and the ambiguity of the question of sovereignty. According to Schmitt, the units organized in a federation can even be based on mutually incompatible principles, as long as it is possible to avoid existence-threatening conflicts. According to the thesis, these characteristics can also be observed in the European Union. This can be seen, for example, in the unclear legal nature of the European Community and the lack of a conclusive legal definition of the term “ supranationality ”, which emphasizes the independence of the integration approach . In the case law of the European Court of Justice, three essential features of the supranationality of the community have emerged - supranationality of the decision-making process, normative supranationality, endowment of the community with its own legislative powers - but all these features have remained controversial. Conflict avoidance strategies have therefore been developed which, despite fundamentally different positions, should ensure the existence of the community (e.g. dispute over decision- making rules in the Council of Ministers according to Art. 148 ECT , Luxembourg compromise of January 29, 1966, fundamental rights conflict between the ECJ and the Federal Constitutional Court, judicial conflict around the banana market regime). Folz therefore judges: “In summary we can state that the community in all its essential supranational characteristics has been shaped by conflicts between the community and its member states. The federal model in Schmitt's sense can therefore be transferred to the community and is excellently suited to describe the relationship between the community and its member states. "

"Schmitt Renaissance"

For about three to four decades, there has been a renewed international interest in Schmitt's thinking. Despite its reputation as the “crown lawyer of the Third Reich” and its well-documented anti-Semitism, it is increasingly received, for example when discussing its influence on the American neoconservatives or analyzing armed terrorism as a “partisan strategy”. Heinrich Meier emphasizes the fact that with Leo Strauss - despite all of his critical examination of Schmitt's concept of the political - a leading figure of the early neoconservatives in the USA was strongly influenced by the controversial constitutional law teacher. In an interview with the Austrian magazine Profil in February 2017, the German historian Heinrich August Winkler said of the then advisor to US President Donald Trump and operator of the right-wing populist Internet platform Breitbart Stephen Bannon :

“Bannon is a man who is obviously oriented towards the extreme intellectual right of Europe and especially Germany in the interwar period. He thinks in terms of friend and foe. This pair of terms goes back to the constitutional lawyer Carl Schmitt, a declared opponent of the liberal, parliamentary, pluralistic democracy of Weimar, who quickly moved to the National Socialists' camp after the change of power in 1933 [...]. In a broader sense, Bannon also belongs to the school of Leo Strauss, which is largely shaped by the anti-liberalism of Carl Schmitt. Strauss occasionally even criticized Schmitt because he was allegedly still too liberal and not consistent enough in his criticism of liberalism. "

The theories of the political scientist and Machiavelli expert Herfried Münkler on “asymmetrical wars” and the “empire” also tie in with the theses of Carl Schmitt. The postmodern philosopher and founder of deconstructivism Jacques Derrida dealt very extensively with Schmitt in his book Politics of Friendship (2000) and already proclaimed the need for a new reception in an interview in 1994: “In short, I think one must Schmitt how Heidegger, reread - and what goes on between them. If you take seriously the vigilance and daring of this decidedly reactionary thinker, especially where restoration is sought, you can measure his influence on the left, but also at the same time the disturbing affinities - to Leo Strauss , Benjamin and a few others, the not even suspecting that. "

People's Republic of China

Schmitt's importance in Chinese political theory has grown in the 21st century, especially since Xi Jinping came to power in 2012. In an introductory article, the sinologist Flora Sapio emphasized the interest in Schmitt's distinction between friend and foe: “Since Xi Jinping became China's top leader in November 2012, the friend-enemy distinction so crucial to Carl Schmitt's philosophy has found ever wider applications in China, in both 'Party theory' and academic life. ”Well-known Chinese Schmittians include the theologian Liu Xiaofeng and the political scientist Wang Shaoguang and the lawyer and government advisor Jiang Shigong .

Schmitt's first significant wave of reception in China began with Liu Xiaofeng's writings at the end of the 1990s. In this phase of transition, Schmitt became an important point of reference for liberal as well as nationalist and conservative intellectuals in order to find answers to current problems in China and Chinese government policy. As in the past, reception in the 21st century is still dominated by the issue of central government development and the question of the extent to which a “ strong state ” is necessary to guide China's modernization. In this regard, some authors see Schmitt as an informant against liberalism, while others argue that Schmitt's theories could support China's rise.

The use of Schmitt's thinking in the Chinese context is also the subject of critical analysis. These different lines of reception are related to different interpretations of Schmitt's relationship to fascism and National Socialism. While some authors portray Schmitt as a loyal follower, others, such as Liu Xiaofeng, try to downplay Schmitt's role as a mere instrumental one and separate his writings from their historical context. According to this reading, Schmitt was actually looking for an alternative, his own German way to modernity - which is exactly the reason why his thinking can be interesting for China. In general, the Chinese reception is ambivalent: it is diverse and dynamic, but also ideologically shaped. Although other academics are more cautious about Schmitt's defense of state power because the danger of totalitarianism has not yet been forgotten, almost all of them accept the need or the idea of ​​strong state power in this recent transition period, while a "dogmatic belief" in liberalism for China would be unsuitable. By particularly emphasizing the danger of social disorder, many ultimately - despite all the differences - share Schmitt's plea for the strong state.

Fonts (selection)

  • About guilt and types of guilt. A terminological study. 1910.
  • Law and judgment. An investigation into the problem of legal practice. 1912.
  • Silhouettes. (Published in collaboration with Dr. Fritz Eisler under the common pseudonym Johannes Mox Doctor Negelinus) 1913.
  • The value of the state and the importance of the individual. 1914.
  • Theodor Däubler's 'Northern Lights': Three studies on the elements, the spirit and the topicality of the work. 1916.
  • The Buri bunkers. in: Summa 1/1917/18, 89 ff.
  • Political romance. 1919. ( digitized version )
  • The dictatorship. From the beginnings of the modern idea of ​​sovereignty to the proletarian class struggle. 1921.
  • Political theology. Four chapters on the doctrine of sovereignty. 1922.
  • The intellectual-historical situation of today's parliamentarism. 1923.
  • Roman Catholicism and Political Form. 1923.
  • The Rhineland as an object of international politics. 1925.
  • The core question of the League of Nations. 1926.
  • The concept of the political. In: Archives for Social Sciences and Social Policy . Vol. 58 (1927), pp. 1 to 33.
  • Referendum and referendum. A contribution to the interpretation of the Weimar Constitution and to the doctrine of direct democracy. 1927.
  • Constitutional theory. 1928.
  • Hugo Preuss. Its concept of the state and its position in German legal theory. 1930
  • The League of Nations and the Political Problem of Securing Peace. 1930, 2nd exp. Ed., 1934.
  • The Guardian of the Constitution. 1931 (extension of an article from 1929).
  • The concept of the political. 1932 (extension of the 1927 article).
  • Legality and legitimacy. 1932.
  • State, movement, people. The threefolding of political unity. 1933.
  • The Reich Governor Law. 1933.
  • State structure and collapse of the Second Reich. The citizen's victory over the soldier. 1934.
  • About the three types of jurisprudential thinking. 1934.
  • The Leviathan in Thomas Hobbes' theory of the state. 1938.
  • The turn to the discriminatory concept of war. 1938.
  • International law governing greater areas and interventions for non-spatial powers. A contribution to the concept of the Reich in international law. 1939.
  • Positions and terms in the struggle with Weimar - Geneva - Versailles 1923–1939. 1940 (collection of articles).
  • Land and sea. A world-historical consideration. 1942.
  • The nomos of the earth in international law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum. 1950.
  • Donoso Cortes in a pan-European interpretation. 1950.
  • Ex captivitate salus. Memories of the time 1945/47. 1950.
  • The situation of European jurisprudence. 1950.
  • Talk about power and access to rulers. 1954.
  • World of great tension. In: Merian. The monthly magazine of cities and landscapes. 7th year, issue 9, 1954: Sauerland.
  • Hamlet or Hecuba. The break of time in the game. 1956.
  • Constitutional articles from the years 1924–1954. 1958 (collection of articles).
  • Partisan's theory. Interim remark on the concept of the political. 1963.
  • Political Theology II. The Legend of the Discharge of Every Political Theology. 1970.
  • The international crime of aggressive war. Edited posthumously by Helmut Quaritsch , 1993.
  • State - Greater Area - Nomos. Edited posthumously by Günter Maschke, 1995.
  • Peace or Pacifism? Edited posthumously by Günter Maschke, 2005.

The extensive estate of Schmitt is kept in the State Archive of North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland Department and is currently the basis of numerous source editions .

See also


This literature list only includes more recent and synoptic works. For a more extensive list of literature see Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon . An annotated overview of the international secondary literature (on 528 pages) by de Benoist (2010).

Overview of primary and secondary literature:





  • Gerd Giesler, Ernst Hüsmert, Wolfgang H. Spindler (Ed.): The shadow of God. Introspections, diaries and letters 1921 to 1924. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-428-14308-5 .
  • Ernst Hüsmert (Ed.): Carl Schmitt. Diaries from October 1912 to February 1915. 2., corr. Edition. Akademie Verlag, Berlin 2005, ISBN 3-05-004093-9 .
  • Ernst Hüsmert, Gerd Giesler (ed.): Carl Schmitt. The military period 1915 to 1919. Akademie Verlag, Berlin 2005, ISBN 3-05-004079-3 .
  • Eberhard Freiherr von Medem (Ed.): Carl Schmitt. Glossary. Records from 1947–1951 . Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1991, ISBN 3-428-07126-3 ; ext., corrected and commented new edition by Gerd Giesler and Martin Tielke : Carl Schmitt. Glossary. Records from 1947 to 1958 . Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2015, ISBN 978-3-428-14486-0 .
  • Wolfgang Schuller , Gerd Giessler (ed.): Carl Schmitt. Diaries 1930 to 1934. Akademie Verlag, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-05-003842-1 .



  • Frank Hertweck and Dimitrios Kisoudis (eds.): As long as the empire is there. Carl Schmitt in conversation with Klaus Figge and Dieter Groh 1971. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-428-13452-6 .

General literature on life and work

  • Gopal Balakrishnan: The Enemy. An Intellectual Portrait of Carl Schmitt . New York 2002, ISBN 1-85984-359-X .
  • Norbert Campagna: Carl Schmitt. An introduction . Parerga, Berlin 2004, ISBN 3-937262-00-8 .
  • Hasso Hofmann : Legitimacy versus legality. The path of Carl Schmitt's political philosophy . 4th edition. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2002, ISBN 3-428-10386-6 .
  • Reinhard Mehring: Carl Schmitt for an introduction . 4. completely revised New version. Junius, Hamburg 2011, ISBN 978-3-88506-685-9 .
  • Reinhard Mehring: How do you catch a chameleon? Problems and ways of a Carl Schmitt biography. In: Journal for the history of ideas. III / 2 (2009), pp. 71-86.
  • Reinhard Mehring: Carl Schmitt in the archive. In Annette Brockmöller , Eric Hilgendorf (Hrsg.): Philosophy of Law in the 20th Century - 100 Years Archive for Legal and Social Philosophy. Archive series for legal and social philosophy, supplement 116, pp. 51–67.
  • Reinhard Mehring: I of all people! Whoever leaves the choice of what is worth reading to posterity is sovereign. Why there is no Carl Schmitt Complete Edition. In: FAZ. July 10, 2006.
  • Cristina Rita Parau: ' Silhouette ' and 'Northern Lights'. Aesthetics and Legal Theory. About Carl Schmitt's early works on literature. In Yvonne Nilges (ed.): Poet lawyers. Studies on the poetry of law from the 16th to the 21st centuries. Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg 2014, ISBN 978-3-8260-5550-8 , pp. 201–222.
  • Helmut Quaritsch : Positions and terms of Carl Schmitt . Duncker and Humblot, Berlin 1995, ISBN 3-428-08257-5 .
  • Helmut Quaritsch (Ed.): Complexio Oppositorum. About Carl Schmitt . Duncker and Humblot, Berlin 1988, ISBN 3-428-06378-3 .
  • Patrick Sensburg : The great lawyers of the Sauerland . 22 biographies of outstanding legal scholars. 1st edition. FW Becker, Arnsberg 2002, ISBN 978-3-930264-45-2 , pp. 205-230 .
  • Nicolaus Sombart : The German men and their enemies. Carl Schmitt - a German fate between the male union and the matriarchal myth . Hanser, Munich 1991, ISBN 3-446-15881-2 .

Individual aspects

Political theory

  • Hartmuth Becker: The parliamentary criticism with Carl Schmitt and Jürgen Habermas . Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-428-11054-4 .
  • David Dyzenhaus: Law As Politics. Carl Schmitt's Critique of Liberalism. Durham & London 1998, ISBN 0-8223-2244-7 .
  • Reinhard Mehring (ed.): Carl Schmitt - The concept of the political. A cooperative comment. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-05-003687-7 .
  • Heinrich Meier : The teaching of Carl Schmitt. Four chapters to distinguish political theology and political philosophy. Stuttgart / Weimar 2004, ISBN 3-476-02052-5 .

Weimar Republic

  • Lutz Berthold: Carl Schmitt and the state emergency plan at the end of the Weimar Republic. Berlin 1999, ISBN 3-428-09988-5 .
  • Stefan Breuer : Carl Schmitt in context. Intellectual Policy in the Weimar Republic. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-05-005943-3 .
  • David Dyzenhaus: Legality and Legitimacy. Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen and Hermann Heller in Weimar. Oxford 2000, ISBN 0-19-829846-3 .
  • Ellen Kennedy: Constitutional Failure. Carl Schmitt in Weimar. Durham 2004, ISBN 0-8223-3243-4 .
  • Wolfgang A. Mühlhans: Carl Schmitt. The Weimar years. An introduction to works analysis . Nomos, Baden-Baden 2018. ISBN 9783848753048 .
  • Gabriel Seiberth: Attorney of the Reich. Carl Schmitt and the trial “Prussia versus Reich” before the State Court. Berlin 2001, ISBN 3-428-10444-7 .

Third Reich and anti-Semitism

  • Karl Graf Ballestrem : Carl Schmitt and National Socialism. A problem of theory or of character? In: OW Gabriel u. a. (Ed.): The democratic constitutional state. Theory, history, problems, commemorative publication for Hans Buchheim on his 70th birthday . Oldenbourg, Munich 1992, ISBN 3-486-55934-6 , pp. 115-132.
  • Joseph W. Bendersky: Carl Schmitt. Theorist for the Reich . Princeton NJ 1983, ISBN 0-691-05380-4 .
  • Dirk Blasius : Carl Schmitt. Prussian State Council in Hitler's Reich . Göttingen 2001, ISBN 3-525-36248-X .
  • Felix Blindow: Carl Schmitt's imperial order . Berlin 1999, ISBN 3-05-003405-X .
  • David Egner: On the position of anti-Semitism in Carl Schmitt's thinking, in: Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Volume 61, Issue 3, 2013
  • Raphael Gross : Carl Schmitt and the Jews . Frankfurt 2000, ISBN 3-518-29354-0 .
  • Andreas Koenen: The Carl Schmitt case . Darmstadt 1995, ISBN 3-534-12302-6 .
  • Helmut Quaritsch: Carl Schmitt. Answers in Nuremberg . Berlin 2000, ISBN 3-428-10075-1 .
  • Bernd Rüthers : Degenerate Law. Legal teachings and crown lawyers in the Third Reich . Beck, Munich 1988, ISBN 3-406-32999-3 .
  • Bernd Rüthers: Carl Schmitt in the Third Reich - Science as Reinforcement of the Zeitgeist? . 2nd Edition. Beck, Munich 1990, ISBN 3-406-34701-0 .

Federal Republic

  • Jürgen Habermas : Carl Schmitt in the political intellectual history of the Federal Republic. In dsb .: The normality of a Berlin republic. Frankfurt 1995, ISBN 3-518-11967-2 , pp. 112-122.
  • Dirk van Laak : Conversations in the security of silence. Carl Schmitt in the political intellectual history of the early Federal Republic. Berlin 1993, ISBN 3-05-003744-X .
  • Reinhard Mehring : From dealing with Carl Schmitt. The research dynamics of the last epoch in the review mirror . Baden-Baden (Nomos-Verlag) 2018, ISBN 978-3-8487-5156-3 .
  • Jan-Werner Müller: A dangerous spirit. Carl Schmitt's impact in Europe. WBG , Darmstadt 2007, ISBN 3-534-19716-X . New edition supplemented by a register ibid. 2011 (from the English by Nikolaus de Palézieux: A Dangerous Mind. Carl Schmitt in Post-War European Thought. Yale University Press , New Haven 2003, ISBN 0-300-09932-0 .)

Web links


  1. Bernd Rüthers: Review of Carl Schmitt - The military time. In: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History . Volume 124, 2007, p. 729 ( digitized version ). See also the birth certificate on the website of the Carl Schmitt Society .
  2. (see: ) thanks to Göring's protection until "end" 1945 - according to the list of members of the Prussian State Council (from 1933) .
  3. Thomas Darnstädt, Weimars Ende: Mephisto as Subject in Der Spiegel of January 29, 2008, accessed on May 21, 2018
  4. For example with regard to the “constructive vote of no confidence ” see Lutz Berthold: The constructive vote of no confidence and its origins in the Weimar Constitutional Law , in: Der Staat , Vol. 36 (1997), pp. 81-94, or a constitutional core that cannot be changed , see Reinhard Mußgnug : Carl Schmitt's constitutional work and its continued influence in the constitutional law of the Federal Republic of Germany , in: Helmut Quaritsch (Hrsg.): Complexio Oppositorum. About Carl Schmitt , 1988, p. 517 ff .; Hans J. Lietzmann: Carl Schmitt and the founding of the constitution in the Federal Republic of Germany , in: Klaus Hansen / Hans J. Lietzmann (eds.): Carl Schmitt and the criticism of liberalism , 1988, pp. 107–118.
  5. Herfried Münkler, Knowledge grows at the margins - the thinker Carl Schmitt still employs the right and the left, 20 years after his death, in Die Welt , April 7, 2005.
  6. Helmut Rumpf, Carl Schmitt and Thomas Hobbes - Ideal Relationships and Current Meaning, 1972
  7. ^ Hugo Eduardo Herrera, Carl Schmitt as a political philosopher. Attempt to determine his position in relation to the tradition of practical philosophy, 2010
  8. Armin Steil, The Imaginary Revolte. Studies of fascist ideology and its theoretical preparation with Georges Sorel, Carl Schmitt and Ernst Jünger, 1984;
  9. S. Piet Tommissen : Gehlen - Pareto - Schmitt , in: Helmut Klages and Helmut Quaritsch (eds.): On the humanistic meaning of Arnold Gehlen , 1994, pp. 171–197.
  10. ^ Raphael Gross: Carl Schmitt and the Jews, Frankfurt / Main 2000
  11. ↑ In 1946/47, Schmitt described in retrospect how repugnant he found the “increased individualism” of the Berlin intelligentsia. At that time he found spiritual refuge with Max Stirner of all people . See Carl Schmitt: Berlin 1907. In: Schmittiana. Edited by Piet Tommissen. Vol. 1 (1988), pp. 11-21 (16-21). For Stirner / Schmitt see below: After 1945 and in detail in: Bernd A. Laska : ‹Katechon› and ‹Anarch›. Carl Schmitt and Ernst Jünger's reactions to Max Stirner. LSR-Verlag, Nuremberg 1997.
  12. ^ Bavarian Main State Archives IV , z. B. War Tribe Roll No. 25.
  13. Noack 1993 wrongly called Dorotić a Serb (see also William Scheuermann: The End of Law , 1999: "His first marriage in 1916 ended in embarrassment: Schmitt married a Serbian woman, Pawla Dorotić, who deceptively claimed an aristocratic background.") . In fact, the illegitimate Viennese woman apparently had a Croatian background (at least the plumber's assistant, who legitimized her origin by marrying her mother, comes from Zagreb ). Detailed Linder 2008, p. 269/270 and Mehring 2009, p. 57 ff.
  14. See Hansjörg Viesel: Jawohl, der Schmitt. Ten letters from Plettenberg. Support Edition, Berlin 1988, passim.
  15. ^ Jens Hacke : Moritz Julius Bonn - a forgotten defender of reason. On liberalism in the crisis of the interwar period. In: Mittelweg 36 , issue 6, December 2010 / January 2011, p. 31.
  16. ^ Christian Linder, Freund oder Feind, Lettre International , Heft 68, 2005, p. 86.
  17. ^ Carl Schmitt, Concept des Politischen, 1987, p. 13 (foreword).
  18. ^ Christian Linder, Freund oder Feind, Lettre International, Heft 68, 2005, p. 83.
  19. For an overview see the finding aid of the estate: Dirk van Laak and Ingeborg Villinger, Carl Schmitt estate - Directory of the holdings in the North Rhine-Westphalian Main State Archives, 1993. Here also the information about the extent: "The last valid extent of the estate comprises 500 archival boxes, it occupies around 80 meters of shelf space, making it one of the largest legacies ever kept in German archives ”, p. 7.
  20. Barbara Nichtweiß, Erik Peterson, 1992, pp. 722-830
  21. Wolfgang Spindler, “Theory of Immediate Concrete Life” - On the conception and criticism of Carl Schmitt's political theology , 2008.
  22. Cf. Manfred Dahlheimer, Carl Schmitt and German Catholicism 1888–1936 (VKZG.F 83), Paderborn a. a. 1998: 486-493; Thomas Marschler, Karl Eschweiler (1886–1936). Theological epistemology and National Socialist ideology (sources and studies on the recent history of theology 9), Regensburg 2011, esp. 42-54.179-342. The Schmitt estate contains more than 40 letters from Eschweiler to Schmitt.
  23. “A strong state and a healthy economy. A lecture before business leaders ”, 1932, in: Carl Schmitt, Staat, Großraum, Nomos, 1995, p. 71 ff., Here p. 81.
  24. Riistow had said: "The new liberalism at any rate, which is defensible today and which I represent with my friends, demands a strong state, a state above the economy, above the interested parties, where it belongs." according to: Alexander Rustow, Freie Wirtschaft, Starker Staat, lecture at the annual conference of the Verein für Socialpolitik, September 1932, in: Franz Bosse (Ed.), Germany and the world crisis, writings of the Verein für Socialpolitik 187, Munich 1932, p. 62 –69, see also Michael von Prollius, Menschenfreundlicher Neoliberalismus, FAZ, November 10, 2007, p. 13.
  25. Ralf Ptak , From Ordoliberalism to Social Market Economy, Stations of Neoliberalism in Germany, 2004, p. 36f.
  26. S. for example Kelsen, Schmitt and “the guardian of the constitution”: Weimar, 1931 ( conference report ); Hans C. Mayer, Who should be the guardian of the European constitution? In: Archive of Public Law ( AöR ) 129 (2004), Issue 3, pp. 411–435; Dan Diner / Michael Stolleis (eds.), Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt: a Juxtaposition , Gerlingen 1999; Volker Neumann, Theology as an argument from the perspective of constitutional law: Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt , in: Der Staat 47 (2008), pp. 163–186.
  27. Carl Schmitt, Politische Theologie, 6th ed. 1993, p. 67.
  28. Schmitt, Politische Theologie, 1st ed., P. 54. On the exegesis of Eduard Schweizer: Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, Edition 16, 1986, p. 331ff.
  29. Political Theology, 6th edition, p. 67.
  30. ^ Spiritual and historical situation, p. 88
  31. Paul Noack, Carl Schmitt, 1993, p. 81. Schmitt's discussion of Italian fascism began in 1923 in his work on "The intellectual historical situation of today's parliamentarism". In 1929 he substantiated his considerations in a detailed review of Erwin von Beckerath's "Essence and Becoming of the Fascist State" (quoted from Positions and Terms, p. 124 ff.). Noack judges Schmitt's relationship to Mussolini: "Schmitt often referred to Italian state theorists from Machiavelli to Mosca to Pareto, but the social and political reality of the fascist state has remained alien to him." (Noack, p. 83). Wolfgang Schieder judged: "Carl Schmitt [...] never really dealt with Italian fascism." (Wolfgang Schieder: Carl Schmitt und Italien, in: Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, vol. 37, 1989, p. 1 ff., Here p . 14). In 1936, Schmitt was received as part of a delegation for a half-hour audience with Mussolini. A personal conversation did not take place. S. Wolfgang Schieder, Half an hour with the dictator - First Carl Schmitt denied having been in Rome in 1936, then he told about Mussolini, FAZ, Natur und Wissenschaft, January 3, 2007.
  32. (Essence and Becoming of the Fascist State, in: positions and concepts, p. 126)
  33. See for example Otto Kirchheimer, Nathan Leites: Comments on Carl Schmitt's 'Legitimacy and Legitimacy'. In: Archives for Social Science and Social Policy . 68/1933, 457 ff .; on Kirchheimer and Schmitt see Volker Neumann: Constitutional theory of political antipodes: Otto Kirchheimer and Carl Schmitt. In: Critical Justice . 14/1981, 31 ff .; Riccardo Bavaj: Otto Kirchheimer's criticism of parliamentarism in the Weimar Republic. A case of “Left Schmittianism”. In: Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte. LV, January 1, 2007, pp. 33-51; Reinhard Mehring: "a typical case of youthful productivity". Otto Kirchheimer's doctoral file in Bonn. In: Forum Historie Juris. 2010; on Fraenkel and Schmitt see Michael Wildt: Ernst Fraenkel and Carl Schmitt: An unequal relationship. In: Daniela Münkel , Jutta Schwarzkopf (ed.): History as an experiment. Festschrift for Adelheid von Saldern , 2004 ( [PDF; 56 kB, accessed on August 12, 2019]); on Neumann and Schmitt see Volker Neumann: Compromise or Decision? On the reception of Carl Schmitt's theory in the Weimar works of Franz Neumann. In: Joachim Perels (Ed.): Law, Democracy and Capitalism. 1984, p. 65 ff .; Alfons Söllner: Left Students of the Conservative Revolution? On the political theory of Neumann, Kirchheimer and Marcuse at the end of the Weimar Republic. In: Leviathan . 1983, 2nd year, p. 214 ff .; Volker Neumann: Disenchantment of the law? Franz Neumann and Carl Schmitt. In: Samuel Salzborn (ed.): Critical theory of the state, state and law with Franz Neumann. 2009, pp. 79-107.
  34. Otto Kirchheimer, Legalität und Legitimität, in: Die Gesellschaft , Volume 2, Issue 7, 1932, printed in: Otto Kirchheimer, Politische Herrschaft - Five contributions to the doctrine of the state, 4th edition. 1981, p. 1 ff. On Schmitt's reference to this work by Kirchheimer, see Carl Schmitt, Legalität und Legitimität, 1932, 5th ed. 1993, p. 14.
  35. See Carl Schmitt's diary entries from 7.5., 23.7. and August 4, 1931, quoted from Seiberth, Anwalt des Reiches, 2001, p. 86 FN 40
  36. ^ Ernst Fraenkel, Constitutional Reform and Social Democracy, Die Gesellschaft, IX, 1932, p. 297 ff.
  37. Lutz Arwed Bentin, Johannes Popitz and Carl Schmitt, On the Economic Theory of the Total State in Germany, 1972
  38. Irene Strenge, Kurt von Schleicher - Politics in the Reichswehr Ministry at the end of the Weimar Republic, 2006
  39. Wolfram Pyta, Schmitt's definition of terms in a political context, in: Reinhard Mehring (Ed.), Carl Schmitt, Der Term des Politischen - Ein cooperative Commentary, 2003, pp. 14ff.
  40. ^ Lutz Berthold, Carl Schmitt and the state emergency plan at the end of the Weimar Republic, 1999. See also the review of the book by Michael Stolleis , in: Historische Zeitschrift , special issue 19, 2000, pp. 70 f. Here it says: “Schmitt actually assumed until the end of January 1933 that he would be able to save the 'constitution' by exceeding the constitutional text in a limited and controlled manner. This impression is also obtained from Schmitt's diary notes. His decision to opt for National Socialism was not made until the Enabling Act of March 24, 1933. "
  41. Wolfram Pyta, Verfassungsumbau, Staatsnotstand und Querfront: Schleicher's attempts to keep Hitler away from the Reich Chancellorship August 1932-January 1933, in: Wolfram Pyta / Ludwig Richter (ed.), Gestaltungskraft des Politischen, Festschrift für Eberhard Kolb, 1988, pp. 173ff . This also includes the description of Schmitt's role as “Schleicher's legal advisor” (p. 177). Also Bernd Rüthers verdict: "After the secured state of research Schmitt [had] to the transfer of power to Hitler shown for this 1933 and the Nazis no sympathy. Although he was deeply anti-democratic, anti-parliamentary and anti-liberal in his basic positions, his goal was to legitimize and strengthen the `` aristocratic '' dictatorship of the Reich President. It was [...] ultimately about establishing a presidential-authoritarian system with plebiscitary elements, at the expense of the role of parliament. Schmitt was [...] quite 'Schleicher's man' ”. Bernd Rüthers, lawyer of the Reich NJW, 2002, issue 51, p. 3762 ( Internet )
  42. Vittorio Hösle , Carl Schmitt's Critique of the Self-Abolition of a Value-Neutral Constitution in 'Legality and Legitimacy', in: Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 61/1987, 1 ff.
  43. The historian Heinrich August Winkler writes: "The Weimar Constitution is, as one of its harshest critics, the constitutional lawyer Carl Schmitt, formulated in the summer of 1932, from a 'legality concept that is indifferent in terms of content, neutral even against its validity and devoid of any material justice' and as a result was neutral 'to the point of suicide'. The criticism of Schmitt, who at that time was not a party member of the National Socialists but a defender of the presidential system, hit the mark: the Reich constitution was relativistic. In 1919, of course, a democracy that was ready to defend itself and, as a precaution, declared war on its enemies, was out of the question. ”Winkler, Forever in Hitler's shadow? Notes on German History, 2007.
  44. For example Heinrich Muth, Carl Schmitt in the German domestic policy of the summer 1932, in: Historische Zeitung, Beiheft 1, 1971, p. 75ff. See also Dieter Grimm , Verfassungserfüll - Verfassungsbewahrung - Verfassungslösung, Positions der Staatsrechtslehre in the State Crisis of the Weimar Republic, in: Heinrich August Winkler (Ed.), Die deutsche Staatskrise 1930–1933 - Handlungsraum und alten, 1992, pp. 183ff.
  45. z. B. Lutz Berthold, Carl Schmitt and the State Emergency Plan, 1999; Wolfram Pyta, Schmitt's definition of terms in a political context, in: Reinhard Mehring (Hrsg.): Carl Schmitt. The concept of the political. A cooperative comment. Berlin 2003, pp. 219-236; Wolfram Pyta / Gabriel Seiberth, The state crisis of the Weimar Republic in the mirror of Carl Schmitt's diary, in: Der Staat 38, issue 3 and 4, 1999; see also: Paul Noack, Schleichers Auserkraftsetzer, in: FAZ , November 20, 2001, No. 270 / p. 10; Thomas Wirtz, All very depressed - State crisis of the Weimar Republic: Carl Schmitt's diaries , Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, September 13, 2000.
  46. ^ Andreas Kaiser, Prussia contra Reich - Hermann Heller as opponent of Carl Schmitt's trial before the State Court in 1932 , in: Christoph Müller / Ilse Staff (eds.), The social rule of law - memorial for Hermann Heller 1891–1933 , 1984, pp. 287ff. Gabriel Seiberth, lawyer for the Reich - Carl Schmitt and the Prussia versus Reich trial before the State Court of Justice , 2001 (Duncker & Humblot, ISBN 978-3428104444 )
  47. Printed u. a. in Berthold, p. 81 f.
  48. Quoted from Noack, p. 159.
  49. Printed in “Carl Schmitt and January 30, 1933” , FAZ (Geisteswissenschaften), June 6, 2006 ( Link ). See also Wolfgang Schuller / Gerd Giesler, Carl Schmitt - Diaries 1930–1934 , 2010. Regarding Schmitt's position in the Weimar final phase, one observer judges: “ As recent investigations based on Schmitt's diaries make plausible, Schmitt was between August and about December 9, 1932 Supporter and in part also constitutional designer of the Schleicher Plan: the presidential government was to be authorized by presidential proclamation to ignore both the Reichstag's votes of no confidence in the government and its right to repeal emergency ordinances in order to avoid parliamentary 'obstruction' as well as control to enable independent governance. After Hindenburg had decided against the Schleicher Plan and in favor of the apparently more constitutional option in favor of Hitler, which was propagated by Papen, Schmitt felt compelled to dismantle the "Hindenburg myth" which he himself had co-staged and to unrecognize his previous commitment to the Schleicher Plan to present oneself shortly afterwards (immediately after the passage of the “Enabling Act”) as the protagonist of Hitler from the very beginning; " see. also Ulrich Thiele: "Democratic dictatorship" - Carl Schmitt's interpretation of the political philosophy of the Enlightenment, lecture text (doc file) ( Memento from September 21, 2004 in the Internet Archive ) (IPC conference: Political Theories of Counter-Enlightenment: On the current reception and effect Carl Schmitts, October 16-18, 2003), p. 14.
  50. "Schmitt believed in all seriousness that the Soviet Union would use him as a consultant for future tasks." See Mario Keßler , Ossip K. Flechtheim: Politischer Wissenschaft und Zukunftsdenker (1909–1998), 2007, pp. 77f.
  51. Hasso Hofmann, Legalität gegen Legitimität, 5th edition 2010, p. 10: "Fijalkowski believes that by 1933 he can reduce Schmitt's work to a political option for the total leader state of National Socialist character, which precedes all rational deductions."
  52. s. also Ulrich Thiele: “Democratic dictatorship”, lecture text (doc file) ( Memento from September 21, 2004 in the Internet Archive ), p. 1: “The classic controversial issue in Schmitt's exegesis is known to be: How can his option in the spring Explain in 1933? Is his partisanship for the seizure of power in a continuity or discontinuity relationship to his analysis of the Weimar constitution? The interpreters' answers can be classified on a scale that ranges from one extreme - Schmitt had a prior option in favor of National Socialism - to the other - Schmitt was an apocryphal constitutional patriot, who was more concerned with nothing than that To defend the substance of the imperial constitution. The fact that both extreme positions can be represented to this day is not least due to the fact that Schmitt was a master of camouflage who knew how to hide his actual arguments well. "
  53. ^ Henning Ottmann: Carl Schmitt - life and works. In: Karl Graf Ballestrem, Henning Ottmann (Ed.): Political Philosophy of the 20th Century. Munich 1990, pp. 61-87.
  54. Karl Graf Ballestrem: Carl Schmitt and National Socialism. A problem of theory or of character? In: OW Gabriel et al. (Ed.): The democratic constitutional state. Theory, history, problems, commemorative publication for Hans Buchheim on his 70th birthday. Oldenbourg, Munich 1992, pp. 115-132.
  55. Reinhard Mehring names 42 motifs and arguments in a non-exhaustive list. Mehring, Carl Schmitt, 2009, p. 311 f.
  56. quoted from Gerhard Werle : Justiz-Strafrecht and Police Combating Crime in the Third Reich (Habilitation). Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, New York 1989. p. 59, footnote 5. ISBN 3-11-011964-1 .
  57. In the Kempner's interrogation protocols it says: “1932, at the beginning of 1933 adviser to Reich President Hindenburg. After failed attempts to install a 'dictatorship of the Reich President' by means of an emergency plan and thus keep Communists and National Socialists out of power, in March 1933 mentally ideological conversion to the National Socialists and entry into the NSDAP, membership number 2 098 860. ”Quoted from Christian Linder , Freund oder Feind, Lettre, Heft 68, 2005, p. 83.
  58. quoted in Rolf Lamprecht, philosopher, provocateur, traitor of law , in: Süddeutsche Zeitung v. February 04, 2019, p. 13
  59. “Schmitt polarized, provoked and made a career as a constitutional law teacher in the Weimar Republic very quickly. This was not insignificantly promoted by Jews, with whom he maintained various professional and private relationships during this period. That should change after the National Socialist seizure of power. Schmitt denounced his Jewish counterparts and his numerous anti-Semitic pamphlets can and could be read at any time in contemporary literature. ”Susanne Benöhr, review of the book by Raphael Gross“ Carl Schmitt and the Jews ”, Goethe University
  60. “Kelsen was instrumental in promoting Schmitt's appointment to the Law Faculty of the University of Cologne. When Schmitt was asked to sign a resolution in favor of his colleague who had been removed from office by the National Socialists, he refused. But it was not only anti-Semitic reasons that played a role. ”Benöhr, Review Gross.
  61. Gregor Brand writes: “Kelsen [was] a person whom Schmitt hated deeply. In his 'Glossarium' entry of June 11, 1948, for example, Kelsen - who had to emigrate in order not to be murdered like his fellow European Jews - is one of the 'annihilators, exterminators, erasers' in a grotesque reversal of reality for ex-State Councilor Schmitt und Zertreter 'and reminds him of the' little helpers in the hells of Hieronymus Bosch '. ”( Gregor Brand - Liber Philosophicus ( Memento of April 13, 2013 in the Internet Archive )).
  62. See the list of members of the Prussian Council of State (from 1933) . After the elections in Prussia in March 1933, the formerly co-executive and colegislative Prussian State Council became a mere advisory body to Prime Minister Goering through an enabling law. This gave him the opportunity to award certain personalities the title of Council of State.
  63. See Christian Linder. Friend or foe. In: Lettre International. 2005, p. 95.
  64. On Carl Schmitt's role in the Third Reich see Bernd Rüthers , Carl Schmitt in the Third Reich , 2nd edition, Munich 1990; Dirk Blasius, Carl Schmitt - Prussian State Council in Hitler's Reich, 2001
  65. Alfons Söllner , Crown Lawyer of the Third Reich - The picture of Carl Schmitt in the writings of the emigrants , in: Yearbook for Research on Antisemitism , 1992, Volume 1
  66. ^ Günter Meuter: Carl Schmitt's "nomos basileus" or: The will of the leader is law , 2001
  67. S. Ewald Grothe, Carl Schmitt and the “new tasks of constitutional history” under National Socialism , in: forum historiae iuris , March 31, 2006 ( Internet )
  68. The leader protects the right , DJZ from August 1, 1934, issue 15, 39th year, columns 945 - 950. Complete article online: PDF
  69. On Schmitt's anti-Semitism cf. Raphael Gross, Carl Schmitt and the Jews. Eine deutsche Rechtslehre, 2nd edition 2005; ders. Carl Schmitt's 'Nomos' and the 'Jews', in: Merkur, May 1993, issue 5; ders. Jesus or Christ? Reflections on the Jewish question in Carl Schmitt's political theology, in: Dirk van Laak u. a. (Ed.), Metamorphosen des Politischen, 1995, pp. 75ff.
  70. DJZ 40/1935
  71. ^ See Journal of the Academy for German Law, Vol. 3, 1936, p. 205
  72. Judaism in German jurisprudence . Speeches, lectures and results of the conference of the Reichsgruppe Hochschullehrer in the NRSB on October 3rd and 4th 1936, issue 1, Berlin 1936, p. 29 f.
  73. ^ Reinhard Mehring: Carl Schmitt and anti-Semitism. An unknown text
  74. ^ Christian Linder: Freund oder Feind , Lettre International, Issue 68, 2005
  75. ^ Frank-Rutger Hausmann: The Ritterbusch campaign - On the way to the political: Carl Schmitt and the war effort of the German humanities , in: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Saturday, March 13, 1999, No. 61, II (Pictures and Times)
  76. ^ Claus Dietrich Wieland, Carl Schmitt in Nürnberg (1947), in: 1999. Journal for Social History of the 20th and 21st Century, Issue 1/1987, pp. 96–122; Joseph W. Bendersky, Carl Schmitt at Nuremberg, in: Telos, Summer 1987, No. 72, p. 91 ff .; otherwise: Robert MW Kempner, Das Third Reich im Kreuzverhör, 1969. Quoted from Noack, p. 242 and Linder, Freund or Feind, Lettre, p. 83 f.
  77. ^ Carl Schmitt, Answers in Nuremberg, ed. u. comment by Helmut Quaritsch, 2000, p. 60.
  78. Schmitt knew Stirner's work "since Unterprima". In 1907 he found it to be a beneficial antidote to the “I-madness” of the Nietzschean-influenced Berlin establishment. - Carl Schmitt: Wisdom of the Cell. In: ders .: Ex captivitate salus. Cologne: Greven-Verlag 1950, pp. 79–91. See also Carl Schmitt: Glossarium. Records from 1947-1951, ed. v. Eberhard Frh. Von Medem, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 1991 (until July 1948). For a detailed treatment of the Schmitt / Stirner relationship cf. Bernd A. Laska: ' Catechon' and 'Anarch'. Carl Schmitt and Ernst Jünger's reactions to Max Stirner. Nuremberg: LSR-Verlag 1997, pp. 13-39
  79. Hans J. Lietzmann, Carl Schmitt alias Dr. Haustein - Notes on a theory and life concept between “Occasionality” and opportunism, in: Klaus Hansen / Hans J. Lietzmann (eds.), Carl Schmitt and the Critique of Liberalism, 1988, pp. 157-170.
  80. ↑ On this, for example, David Chandler, The Revival of Carl Schmitt in International Relations: The Last Refuge of Critical Theorists? , in: Millennium: Journal of International Studies Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 27–48 ( PDF ( Memento from September 13, 2014 in the Internet Archive ))
  81. ↑ On this, for example, Mathias Schmoeckel, Carl Schmitt's Concept of the Partisan - Questions on the Legal History of Partisans and Terrorists, in: Forum Historiae Iuris March 31, 2006; Jan-Werner Müller, 'An Irregularity that Cannot be Regulated': Carl Schmitt's Theory of the Partisan and the 'War on Terror', Notes di Politeia: Rivista di Etica e Scelte Pubbliche. Vol. XXII (2006) ( [PDF; 89 kB, accessed on August 12, 2019])
  82. Glossary, p. 272.
  83. quoted from Noack, p. 209, see also Linder, p. 93.
  84. Christian Busse: “A mask has fallen”. The Berlin conference "Judaism and Law" from 3./4. October 1936 . In: Kritische Justiz , Vol. 33 (2000), pp. 580-593.
  85. ^ A Festschrift , in: Juristenteitung 14 (1959), 729-731.
  86. ^ Glossary, p. 265.
  87. ^ Glossary, p. 267
  88. Allusion to verse 3 of the Odyssey , where it is said of Odysseus that he saw many people's cities and learned the custom ("πολλῶν δ 'ἀνθρώπων ἴδεν ἄστεα καὶ νόον ἔγνω"). Instead of the knowledge of spirit or reason (νοῦς, νόον) of people, that of the nomos (νόμος, νόμον) is emphasized as law and in other meaning for the jurist Schmitt .
  89. ^ So Raphael Gross, Carl Schmitt und die Juden, 2000, p. 32, p. 312, p. 366.
  90. Glossary, p. 18. The evidential value of this passage was, however, also questioned with the reference that it was merely an excerpt that had not been identified. The quote is apparently the short presentation of a paragraph by Peter F. Drucker , The end of economic man (1939). So at least Andreas Raithel, Carl Schmitt exzerpierte nur, FAZ , August 15, 2000 (letter to the editor). The complete section from Drucker's work is also cited here: “For the individual Communist can always recant; but 'once a Jew, always a Jew'… Nazi anti-Semitism is therefore due neither to the irreconcilable conflict between the Nordic and the Semitic principle as the Nazis assert, nor to the inherent anti-Semitism of the German people, as is so often said in the outside world. It has been caused precisely by the absence of any distinction, conflict and strangeness between the German Jews and a large part of the German people - to wit, the liberal middle classes. The Nazis do not persecute the Jews because they remained a foreign body within Germany, but actually because they had become almost completely assimilated and had ceased to be Jews. It is therefore quite irrelevant what the Jews really are, or what their character, their actions, and their thoughts are. The famous Protocols of Zion can be proved a hundred times a clumsy forgery; they must be genuine, as the Jewish conspiracy against Germany must be real. " Printer: The End of Economic Man , p. 158 ff., Quoted from FAZ (PDF; 104 kB). Peter F. Drucker , himself a Jew and related to Hans Kelsen ( Gregor Brand - Liber Philosophicus ( Memento from April 13, 2013 in the Internet Archive )), was a management consultant and Nestor in management theory after 1945 ( biography ( Memento from December 18, 2009 in the Internet Archives )). He already knew Schmitt from the Weimar period ( ( memento from December 18, 2009 in the Internet Archive )). Wolfgang Spindler also writes: “The word about the constant, assimilated Jew as the 'real enemy' does not come from the constitutional lawyer. It is an imprecise excerpt from the book 'The End of Economic Man - A Study of the New Totalitarism' by Peter F. Drucker mentioned by Schmitt. "Wolfgang Spindler: In Schmitts Welt, Carl Schmitt in German-speaking literature. In the New Order. No. 6/2005, December, vol. 59 ( ).
  91. Gross, Raphael. Carl Schmitt and the Jews. A German legal theory, Frankfurt a. Main: 2005 (extended edition), p. 359 ff.
  92. Gross, Raphael. Carl Schmitt and the Jews. A German legal theory, Frankfurt a. Main: 2005 (extended edition), p. 357.
  93. Machiavelli was accused of plotting against the government and was tortured as a result. He had endured the torture with a strength that astonished even civil servants. The theorist's innocence was later established and he was released. The state remained suspicious of him, was ostracized and was only allowed to live in his poor country house in Sant'Andrea in Percussina, today part of San Casciano in Val di Pesa .
  94. Quoted from Christian Linder, Freund or Feind, Lettre International, Heft 68, 2005, p. 95. All his life, Schmitt was afraid of waves and rays. According to reports, he did not allow radio or television in his apartment to prevent "uninvited such as waves or radiation" from entering his room. Even in the time of National Socialism , if someone wanted to hear a speech by the Führer, a radio had to be borrowed. S. Linder, p. 84
  95. ^ Reinhard Mehring : Carl Schmitt. Rise and fall. A biography. CH Beck , Munich 2009, ISBN 978-3-406-59224-9 , p. 578.
  96. ^ Christian Linder, Freund oder Feind, Lettre International, Heft 68, 2005, p. 92.
  97. Theodor Däubler's Northern Lights , p. 59
  98. Northern Lights , p. 62f. and p. 67.
  99. ^ Glossary , June 16, 1948, p. 165.
  100. Political Theology , p. 63.
  101. Political Romanticism , p. 172 f.
  102. Representation of a group of people by a single person or group
  103. Political Theology , p. 43.
  104. Thomas Uwer (Ed.): "Please keep calm." Life in the enemy law state (= series of the criminal defense associations ). Defense lawyers associations, Organization Office, Berlin 2006, ISBN 3-9808275-6-9 .
  105. The debate was triggered by the fact that Federal Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble referred directly to Depenheuer in an interview with ZEIT on July 19, 2007 . The question was: “Even a stable constitutional state like the United States obviously finds it difficult to comply with these constitutional boundaries, keyword Guantánamo . The fight against terror seems to push the rule of law to its limits - and beyond? ”Schäuble replied:“ Read Otto Depenheuer's book Self-Assertion of the Rule of Law and get a current status for discussion. ”( CDU archive ( Memento of March 2, 2011 in the Internet Archive )). This remark was interpreted as Schäuble's approval of Depenheuer, and thus indirectly of Carl Schmitt. In addition David Salomon, Carl Schmitt Reloaded - Otto Depenheuer and the ‚Rechtsstaat ' , PROKLA. Journal for Critical Social Science, Issue 152, Volume 38, 2008, No. 3 ( PDF; 281 kB ( Memento from June 15, 2011 in the Internet Archive )).
  106. cf. as an early work by Christian Graf v. Krockow , The Decision. A study on Ernst Jünger, Carl Schmitt, Martin Heidegger , Stuttgart 1958.
  107. Norbert Campagna, Carl Schmitt - An Introduction , Parerga 2004
  108. a b Campagna, p. 22.
  109. Campagna, p. 35
  110. Political Theology , p. 19
  111. Political Theology , pp. 24f.
  112. Legality and Legitimacy , p. 56 f.
  113. ^ Campagna, p. 54.
  114. Campagna, Carl Schmitt, p. 270
  115. Political Theology , p. 21.
  116. Hermann Heller, Political Democracy and Social Homogeneity (1928), in: M. Drath u. a. (Ed.), Hermann Heller: Gesammelte Schriften, 2nd volume, pp. 421–433 (428).
  117. ^ S. Forum Historiae Iuris ( Memento of February 20, 2009 in the Internet Archive ), May 12, 2003.
  118. a b dictatorship , XVII
  119. Campagna, p. 20
  120. also Political Theology , p. 29
  121. Legality and Legitimacy , p. 46 f.
  122. Campagna, Carl Schmitt, pp. 205ff.
  123. a b Concept of the Political , 1932, p. 55
  124. a b "Positions and Terms in the Struggle with Weimar - Geneva - Versailles" , 1940, p. 240.
  125. Campagna, Carl Schmitt, p. 243ff.
  126. quoted from Volker Weiß: The authoritarian revolt. The New Right and the Fall of the West. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 2018, p. 204 f.
  127. Volker Weiß: The authoritarian revolt. The New Right and the Fall of the West. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 2018, p. 208 f.
  128. Campagna, Carl Schmitt, p. 210ff.
  129. ^ Mathias Schmoeckel, Carl Schmitt's Concept of the Partisan - Questions on the Legal History of the Partisan and Terrorist, in: Forum Historiae Iuris , March 31, 2006; Markus Vasek, With Carl Schmitt to Guantánamo: the terrorist, a modern partisan? , Juridikum. Journal for Criticism, Law, Society, Vienna 2009, 1, pp. 18–20; see also on the question of the political motivation of pirate acts and their transferability to modern terrorism: Olivier Gänsewein, Michael Kempe, Die Feinde der Welt - Are international terrorists the new pirates? , in: FAZ, September 25, 2007, p. 36: “Piracy and terrorism are phenomena of the permanent crossing of borders and the abolition of distinctions, such as the distinction between war and peace, between regular and irregular warfare, between the military and civilian population, between statehood and Privacy or from friend and foe. "
  130. quoted from Campagna, Carl Schmitt, p. 249
  131. Thomas Marschler: Canon Law in the Bannkreis Carl Schmitts. Hans Barion before and after 1945 , Bonn 2004
  132. S. also Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, The repressed state of emergency (Carl Schmitt on his 90th birthday) - On the action of the state authority in extraordinary situations, in: NJW 1978, pp. 1881 to 1890; Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde: The concept of the political as the key to the constitutional work of Carl Schmitt ; in: ders. Law, State, Freedom. Studies in legal philosophy, state theory and constitutional history . Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1991; Pp. 344-366. 4th edition 2006.
  133. For the connection between Isensee and Schmitt, see for example Josef Isensee, Federal Constitutional Court - Quo vadis? , in: Negotiations of the 61st German Legal Conference, Volume II / 1, Section H.
  134. s. for example Dirk van Laak, Conversations in the Security of Silence. Carl Schmitt in the political intellectual history of the early Federal Republic, 1993 or Frieder Günter, Thinking from the State. The Federal German constitutional law theory between decision and integration 1949–1970, 2004; Based on Ludwik Fleck (ders., Origin and Development of a Scientific Fact. Introduction to the Doctrine of Thinking Style and Thinking Collective, 1935), Günter also speaks of the "thinking collectives" of the Smend and Schmitt Schools that are forming (see, for example, the Review by Reinhard Mehring in H-Soz-u-Kult )
  135. Dirk van Laak judges: “Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde is probably the most eminent lawyer from Schmitt's immediate circle today, who not only took up some of his topics, but also systematically paced Schmitt's question horizons. [...] In doing so, Böckenförde understood how to turn Schmitt's programmatic view of the emergence of the state and law, as well as its political-theological perspective, towards the rule of law and freedom. In this respect he can be called Schmitt's legitimate successor. ”Dirk van Laak, Conversations in the Security of Silence - Carl Schmitt in the political intellectual history of the early Federal Republic, 1993, p. 213
  136. Lutz Hachmeister and Stefan Krings, Rudolf Augstein called Carl Schmitt for help, FAZ, August 22, 2007 , FAZ, August 23, 2007 , No. 195, p. 29. Augstein wanted against a nationwide confiscation of No. 28 of the Spiegel Submit a constitutional complaint to Konrad Adenauer . To this end, he asked Schmitt for legal assistance. He noted in a letter that he felt "reasonably safe" with Schmitt. He also visited Schmitt personally, who was interested in the “overall journalistic and strategic problem of such a constitutional complaint”. However, the matter fizzled out.
  137. ^ A b Jürgen Habermas: Carl Schmitt in the political intellectual history of the Federal Republic. In dsb .: The normality of a Berlin republic. Frankfurt 1995, ISBN 3-518-11967-2 , pp. 113-114.
  138. ^ Taubes, Ad Carl Schmitt - Gegenstrebige Fügung, 1987, p. 19
  139. See for example Wolfgang Kraushaar, This is not a bomb - the attack on the Jewish community in Berlin of November 9, 1969 and its real backers, in: FAZ, June 28, 2005, No. 147 / page 41
  140. Sebastian Huhnholz: From Carl Schmitt to Hannah Arendt? Traces of origin in Heidelberg and layers of liberalization in the Federal Republic of Germany by Reinhart Koselleck's "Critique and Crisis" (Scientific treatises and speeches on philosophy, politics and intellectual history, vol. 95) . Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2019, ISBN 978-3-428-55570-3 .
  141. Wolfgang Huebener, Carl Schmitt and Hans Blumenberg or about warp and weft in the historical texture of modernity, in: Jacob Taubes (ed.), Der Fürst This World. Carl Schmitt and the Consequences, 1983, pp. 57-76
  142. ^ Reinhard Mehring, Karl Löwith, Carl Schmitt, Jacob Taubes and the "end of history", in: Journal for Religions- und Geistesgeschichte , 48, 1996, pp. 231–248; For Löwith's occupation with Schmitt see also: Karl Löwith : Der occasionelle Decisionismus von Carl Schmitt . in: Complete Writings, Volume 8 (Heidegger), Stuttgart 1984, pp. 32–71
  143. S. for example Volker Neumann, Carl Schmitt und die Linke , in: Die Zeit, July 8, 1983, No. 28, p. 32
  144. Ernst Bloch, Natural Law and Human Dignity , 1961, p. 62
  145. Martin Jay , Reconciling the Irreconcilable: A Rejoinder to Kennedy , Ulrich K. Preuß , The Critique of German Liberalism: A Reply to Kennedy and Alfons Söllner , Beyond Carl Schmitt: Political Theory in the Frankfurt School ; On Habermas' criticism of parliamentarism see, Hartmuth Becker , Die Parlamentarismuskritik bei Carl Schmitt and Jürgen Habermas, Berlin 2003, 2nd ed.
  146. ^ Ellen Kennedy, Carl Schmitt and the Frankfurter Schule in Geschichte und Gesellschaft 12/1986, 380 ff. English version ("Carl Schmitt and the Frankfurt School") in: TELOS 71, Spring 1987
  147. ^ The Frankfurt School of the Sixty-Eight , Letter to the Editor, FAZ August 14, 2008, p. 8.
  148. Reinhard Mehring: The "Nomos" after 1945 with Carl Schmitt and Jürgen Habermas , Forum Historiae Iuris , March 31, 2006. See also: Reinhard Mehring: Carl Schmitt - for an introduction . Hamburg 1992.
  149. ^ Wilhelm Hennis, Constitution and Constitutional Reality: A German Problem; Freiburg inaugural lecture on July 5, 1968, 1968, p. 35.
  150. ^ Quoted from: Stephan Schlak, Wilhelm Hennis - Scenes from a history of ideas in the Federal Republic , 2007, p. 117.
  151. ^ Friedrich Balke: Points of problematic solidarity. Hannah Arendt, Carl Schmitt and the fear of the masses. - In: Intellectuals in National Socialism. Wolfgang Bialas, Manfred Gangl. Frankfurt / M .: Peter Lang 2000, pp. 210-227; Otherwise see on Arendt and Schmitt: Philipp zum Kolk, Hannah Arendt and Carl Schmitt. Exception and normality - state and politics. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main [a. a.] 2009; Andreas Herberg-Rothe, "Hannah Arendt and Carl Schmitt - 'Mediation' of friend and enemy", in: Der Staat, Issue 1 / March 2004, pp. 35–55; Christian J. Emden: Carl Schmitt, Hannah Arendt and the Limits of Liberalism, Telos 2008 (142), pp. 110-134 ( PDF ), Hans Sluga, The Pluralism of the Political: From Carl Schmitt to Hannah Arendt, Telos 142 ( Spring 2008), pp. 91–109 ( PDF )
  152. German first publication 1955
  153. ^ Unabridged paperback edition from 1986, p. 724. In the US original Origins of Totalitarianism from 1951 it says: “Most interesting is the example of the jurist Carl Schmitt, whose very ingenious theories about the end of democracy and legal government still make arresting reading; as early as the middle thirties, he was replaced by the Nazi's own brand of political and legal theorists. "See Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1951), p. 332. Quoted from: Christian J. Emden: Carl Schmitt, Hannah Arendt and the Limits of Liberalism, Telos 2008 (142), p. 114 ( PDF ). In other passages, too, Arendt quotes Schmitt approvingly, for example when it says that Schmitt is "the most able defender of the notion of sovereignty" or "He (Schmitt) recognizes clearly that the root of sovereignty is the will: Sovereign is he who wills and commands. "Quoted from Emden, p. 115.
  154. p. 369 ff.
  155. p. 531, p. 551 f.
  156. For example Annette Vowinckel: Arendt (Basic Knowledge Philosophy) Leipzig 2006, p. 45 f.
  157. On September 7th, 1932 Neumann wrote to Schmitt: “ I completely agree with you in the critical part of the book [legality and legitimacy] . I also take the position that parliamentary democracy can no longer function as long as the principle of equal opportunity can be implemented. If it turns out that this principle fails to gain domestic political power, then the parliamentary legislative state must necessarily become incapable of acting. [...] If one takes the point of view that the fundamental political opposition in Germany is the economic opposition, that the decisive friend / enemy grouping in Germany is the grouping of work and property, then it makes sense that with such a political opposition can no longer be governed by parliament. "(Printed in Rainer Erd: Reform und Resignation , 1985, p. 79 f.)
  158. Hans J. Lietzmann, From constitutional to totalitarian dictatorship - Carl Joachim Friedrich's theory of totalitarianism, in: Alfons Söllner, Ralf Walkenhaus, Karin Wieland, Totalitarismus, Eine Ideengeschichte Des 20. Jahrhundert, 1994, p. 174 ff .: “Who the classic Carl Schmitt must read Carl Joachim Friedrich's theory of totalitarianism. [...] Friedrich's first statements on this subject date from this time; and he formulates it based on Carl Schmitt's dictatorship theory of 1921 ”(p. 174).
  159. Benjamin wrote to Schmitt: "Perhaps I may also say to you beyond that that in your later works, especially the 'dictatorship', I found a confirmation of my art-philosophical research methods through their state-philosophical research" (quoted from Noack, p. 111 ); Theodor W. Adorno omitted this letter in the publications he published in 1955 in order to conceal the Schmitt-Benjamin connection. Schmitt himself later quoted Benjamin's tragedy work in detail in his small art-theoretical consideration Hamlet or Hekuba - the break-in of time into the game (1956).
  160. ^ Hans Matthias Kepplinger, right people from the left. Cult of Violence and Inwardness, 1970; Christian Linder, The long summer of romance. About Hans-Magnus Enzensberger, in: Literaturmagazin 4, 1975 pp. 85-107. See also Christian Linder, Freund oder Feind, in: Lettre International, Heft 68, 2005, pp. 84f. See also the remarks in Tae-Ho Kang, Poesie als Selbstkritik - Hans Magnus Enzensberger's negative poetics, dissertation, 2002, p. 3f. ( PDF )
  161. ^ Schickel, Conversations with Carl Schmitt, 1993, p. 9
  162. ^ Rainer Blasius, Seitenwechsel und Wandel - 1968 to 1973 in a German-Italian comparison: Johannes Agnolis Parliamentary Criticism, FAZ, December 12, 2006 with a report on the conference "Times of Crisis from 1968 to 1973" on Lake Como. There is also a reproduction of Kraushaar's lecture with the title: "The emergence of extra-parliamentary opposition groups and their effect on politics, society and culture".
  163. Jens Litten / Rüdiger Altmann, From the TV democracy. The aggressiveness of progress, Deutsches Allgemeine Sonntagsblatt, XXIII, 26./28. June 1970, p. 8 (Excerpts from the conversation with Schmitt as well as an introduction by Jens Litten with the title: "Maled and also admired. About a conversation with Professor Carl Schmitt".)
  164. Compare also the personal report by Lutz Niethammer in a lecture at a conference of the Max Planck Institute for History in March 2000 on the role of cultural studies in National Socialism: “What I was less aware of at the time, I learned in the following time as I grew Amazement - namely Schmitt's fascination for the left as well. In Heidelberg at the time only whispered that Jürgen Habermas' conception of bourgeois openness in his habilitation thesis showed striking similarities to that of Schmitt. Later I was able to personally discover this fascination - in very different forms - with colleagues who were close to left-wing liberals, but at times much more left-wing - such as Dieter Groh , Jacob Taubes, Dan Diner , Nicolaus Sombart or Jürgen Seifert , which I found especially with two so conscious Jews how Taubes and Diner astonished once again in view of Schmitt's eliminatory anti-Semitism at least between 1933 and 1936 and the basic tension in his life's work related to Jews. Since then, this trail has widened a lot: just remember Ellen Kennedy's excavation of Walter Benjamin's homage to CS, the conversion of the Maoist Günter Maschke to Schmitt scholarship, the fact that the leading New York '68 magazine ' Telos' has become a kind of American import agency for Schmitt's work in the 1980s, that Heiner Müller at the end of the GDR did not seem so fascinated by anything as by Jünger and Schmitt, that the concept of democracy of the West German '68 was unconscious - and that of the first GDR - Constitution-conscious - based on a highly problematic conceptual construction by Schmitt. […] Among the younger Schmittians there were […] will-o'-the-wisps prone to radical rashes such as Bernard Willms , who began the 1970s as an ultra-leftist and ended as an ultra-rightist. Sometimes less extreme form (see, for example, Bahro , Enzensberger , Sloterdijk , Botho Strauss or even more extreme the RAF and NPD lawyer Mahler ) observable but, thank God, not general tendency shortened. "Lutz Niethammer, Die polemische Kraft des Wort - About the exemplary fascination of Carl Schmitt , in: Hartmut Lehmann, Otto Gerhard Oexle (eds.), National Socialism in the Cultural Studies, Volume 2, 2004, pp. 41–82 (p. 49).
  165. ^ Heinrich Oberreuter, Dare more democracy? Criticism of parliamentarism and forms of parliament in the 1960s and 1970s , in: Von Marie-Luise Recker (Ed.), Parlamentarismus in Europa, Schriften des Historisches Kolleg Kolloquien 60, 2002, p. 183.
  166. Volker Neumann, Carl Schmitt und die Linke, Die Zeit No. 28/1983 , July 8, 1983
  167. Leonard Landois, counter-revolution from the left: The understanding of the state and society of the '68ers' and its sources in Carl Schmitt . (Würzburg University Writings on History and Politics 11), Nomos-Verlag, Baden-Baden 2008. Armin Pfahl-Traughber commented: “Especially with Johannes Agnoli and Hans-Jürgen Krahl, two important theorists of the sixty-eight, echoes of Carl's argumentation patterns kept coming up Schmitt up. Therefore, a detailed investigation of this influence was more than just overdue. ” Hpd No. 5252 , September 10, 2008
  168. Götz Aly, Unser Kampf - 1968 , 2008, p. 7 ( excerpt ; PDF; 125 kB)
  169. Timo Frasch, Good enemies for life and death - attraction and repulsion: Carl Schmitt and the sixty-eight, FAZ, July 30, 2008, p. 8.
  170. Jürgen Habermas: The horrors of autonomy. Carl Schmitt in English , in: ders .: A kind of claims settlement. Small political writings VI, Frankfurt 1987, pp. 101–115, on p. 112
  171. Étienne Balibar, Le Hobbes de Schmitt, le Schmitt de Hobbes , préface de Carl Schmitt, Le Léviathan dans la doctrine de l'État de Thomas Hobbes, tr. Denis Trierweiler (Paris: Seuil 2002), p. 7. S. also Anselm Haverkamp, ​​Secularization as Metaphor, Transversalités 87 (2003), 15–28 (German as PDF ( Memento from June 10, 2007 in the Internet Archive )).
  172. See, for example, Yves Charles Zarka, Cités 6 (April 6, 2001), p. 3; Yves Charles Zarka, “Carl Schmitt le nazi,” in Cités, no. 14 (2003), p. 163.
  173. Volker Weiß: The authoritarian revolt. The New Right and the Fall of the West. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 2018, pp. 205 f., 215
  174. Thomas Assheuer, for special disposal: Carl Schmitt, Kursbuch Heft 166, see
  175. Armin Pfahl-Traughber, The "New Right" in France and Germany - On the Development of a Right -Wing Extremist Intellectual Scene, Armin Pfahl-Traughber: The "New Right" in France and Germany - On the Development of a Right -Wing Extremist Intellectual Scene. ( Memento from December 11, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
  176. ^ Attitude of the right-wing extremist scene to the Iraq conflict, Ministry of the Interior of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, March 2003, p. 6 ( PDF; 58 kB ( Memento from November 10, 2017 in the Internet Archive )).
  177. Alexander Proelß, National Socialist Building Plans for the European House? John Laughland's "The Tainted Source" against the background of Carl Schmitt's large-scale theory, in: Forum Historiae Iuris ( Memento from February 20, 2009 in the Internet Archive ), May 12, 2003
  178. Hans-Peter Folz, Constitutional Doctrine of the Federation by Carl Schmitt and the European Union, in: Martina Wittkopp-bein on behalf of the city of Plettenberg (ed.): Carl Schmitt in discussion. Compiled by Ingeborg Villinger, Plettenberg 2006, pp. 69–83, here, p. 83
  179. See e.g. B. "Theologico-Political Resonance: Carl Schmitt between the Neocons and the Theonomists", in Differences. A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 18, 2007, pp. 43–80.
  180. ^ So William E. Scheuerman: Carl Schmitt and the Road to Abu Ghraib , in: Constellations, March 2006, p. 108
  181. Cf. Leo Strauss, Notes on Carl Schmitt, Der Term des Politischen, Archive for Social Science and Social Policy, Tübingen, Volume 67, Issue 6, August / September 1932, pp. 732–749, printed and commented by Heinrich Meier: Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss and “The Concept of the Political” - A Dialogue Among Absent People . 1988; extended New edition Stuttgart 1998.
  182. Michael Hesse: Historian Winkler: "The chaos is undeniable". In: Profile . February 20, 2017, accessed January 10, 2018.
  183. Le cahier livres de Liberation , November 24, 1994, pp. I – III.
  184. a b c d e Flora Sapio: Carl Schmitt in China . In: . October 7, 2015. Accessed July 29, 2019.
  185. Jilin Xu: Rethinking China's Rise: A Liberal Critique . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2018, ISBN 1-108-47075-0 , pp. 27 .
  186. ^ A b Xiaofeng Liu: Carl Schmitt and the Predicament of Liberal Constitutionalism . In: The Twenty-First Century . 47, 1998.
  187. ^ A b Jian Guo: For the Sake of Fighting the Common Enemy: Schmitt and his Allies . In: The Twenty-First Century . 94, 2006.
  188. Ben Xu: China Has No Need of Such 'Politics' and 'Decisionism': The Cult of Carl Schmitt and Nationalism . In: The Twenty-First Century . 94, 2006.
  189. a b Quanxi Gao: The Issues of Carl Schmitt in the context of the Chinese Society . In: The Twenty-First Century . 95, 2006.
  190. ^ Zheng Qi: Carl Schmitt in China . In: Telos . 160, 2012, pp. 29-52. doi : 10.3817 / 0912160029 .
  191. cf. Dirk van Laak / Ingeborg Villinger, Carl Schmitt estate - directory of the holdings in the North Rhine-Westphalian Main State Archives, 1993. The Schmitt estate is the largest personal estate in Germany.
This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on February 26, 2006 .