Latest news with #CarlSchmitt
Indian Express
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Support for war shows our alienation and longing for meaning
Written by Shibashis Chatterjee We claim to value peace, prosperity, and rational dialogue, so why does war continue to hold sway? The romanticisation, justification, and even mild appreciation of war in the public imagination, protests, and media appear to be on the rise globally — why? To resolve this apparent paradox, we must reconsider both the geopolitical and security contexts, as well as the fundamental principles involved. Examining Hegel, Carl Schmitt, and the Frankfurt School reveals the philosophical roots of a paradox: Rapid societal change is frequently accompanied by war despite its horrors. The destructive power draws many to it. Hegel viewed history not as a tranquil progression but as a dialectical process of contradiction and resolution leading to human freedom. War, for Hegel, was not merely destruction; it was a crucible. Hegel, in his 'Philosophy of Right', argued that war was necessary for a nation's ethical health, a moment where the nation's ethical core is strengthened and the state's sovereignty over mere materialism is proven. War is perceived as the ultimate solution in cultures experiencing prolonged economic, moral, or existential stagnation. It vows to shatter the numbness of liberal modernity. In a political culture that prizes technocratic control, turning citizens into consumers and politics into management, war appears as the violent yet necessary reconfiguration of history as a moment of negation with the promise of renewal. The attractiveness of war in certain areas is, in part, due to a penchant for dialectical change. For the disheartened worker in a decaying rustbelt town, the post-colonial youth yearning for redemption, and the ideologue craving purpose, war symbolises not only destruction but potentially rebirth. While bombs are falling, there is an illusion of becoming, of overcoming inertia through rupture. Prominent Weimar jurist and political theorist Carl Schmitt famously asserted that the core of politics lies in the differentiation between friend and enemy. He argued that liberal democracies attempt to manage political conflict by prioritising existing norms, procedures, and negotiations above fundamental challenges to their survival. He cautioned, however, that such stringent measures are unsustainable in the long term. Sooner or later, the political returns with a vengeance. This action is not merely a moral compromise that communities make with the state. It speaks to our yearning for community in today's isolated world. The ascension of ethnonationalism, the glorification of military sacrifice, and the acceptance of aggressive foreign policy all demonstrate a widespread yearning for decisive action in high-stakes political situations. It is becoming increasingly clear that liberalism suffers from a lack of political coherence and an incapacitating fear of conflict. Liberal democracies, while ostensibly committed to these principles, are now engaging in a form of illiberal militarism justified by appeals to national renewal. Hence, it turns out that war is not just a matter of geopolitics; it is a psycho-political performance in which fragmented societies attempt to reunite by targeting other conflicted societies. The Frankfurt School, particularly figures such as Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse, offered a radical critique of the psychological and cultural functioning of late capitalism. What capitalist societies, in the end, managed to do was not resolve this discontent but sublimate it in the form of entertainment, commodification, and some form of superficial mass political participation. In advanced capitalism, war is then a spectacle experienced not through conscription but through consumption. Social media, Hollywood blockbusters, live-streamed combat, and video games make war a readily consumed commodity. It is not a sense of emotional shutdown but an unsettling and heightened sensitivity to feelings. Aestheticising war, pulling away to get caught up in the idea of it, paradoxically stirs up intense, if disturbing, feelings. The Frankfurt School would argue that war substitutes for the revolutionary energies that modernism suppresses. Only war can truly shatter a society that hides deep-seated inequalities behind a façade of consumerism and democracy. It is the negative dialectic let loose that roots not for freedom but for destruction. The significance of war as a moral economy cannot be understated; it provides purpose, engagement, and strength in an increasingly isolated and lost world. One of the things that makes war so seductive is the illusion of moral clarity. Even in times of peace, we face complex moral challenges, including systemic injustice, exclusion, and environmental damage. War, by contrast, simplifies. It reduces ambiguity in performance. It converts misdirected resentments into focused rage. Hegel's understanding of history was a battle of spirits. Schmitt insisted we ignore distractions to concentrate on pure, unadulterated politics and accept sovereignty in its fullness. The Frankfurt School warned us long ago that modern society would eventually gag on its dreams. Amongst them, they help us understand why more and more people in the world today are not simply willing to tolerate war but have come to support it. In different ways, these perspectives remind us that violence is not an innate human trait. Their frustration is rooted in the tediousness of the current system, which discourages innovation and critical thinking. The cruel irony is that the very war that holds out salvation causes despair. It consumes the same communities it claims to liberate, destroying the values it supposedly champions. Yet, reason is insufficient to combat resentment, alienation, and historical longing. To counteract the seductive power of war, societies need to address not just the material roots of discontent but also deeper philosophical and emotional voids. They need other ways to find meaning, purpose, and fulfilment, ways that do not depend on having an enemy on whom we can focus our collective fury. Until that happens, war will not only be championed by conflicted states but also celebrated in the depths of the popular mind. Ultimately, the return to war is not about the vengeance of geopolitics. It is profoundly about us, our alienation and longing for meaning, and our unhappiness with the world we inhabit. If war were solely Clausewitzian, we need not worry, but as Michel Foucault taught us, politics is war by different means. The writer teaches at Jadavpur University, Kolkata, and was the Eugenio Lopez Visiting Chair at the Department of International Studies and Political Science at Virginia Military Institute, US
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Minister regrets 'clumsy' reference to Nazi Germany
The attorney general has said he regrets "clumsy" remarks in which he compared calls for the UK to depart from international law and arguments made in 1930s Germany. In a speech on Thursday, Lord Hermer criticised politicians who argue the UK should abandon "the constraints of international law in favour of raw power". He said similar claims had been made by legal theorists in Germany in the years before the Nazis came to power. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused him of "calling people who disagree with him Nazis," and urged the prime minister to sack him. A spokesperson for Lord Hermer said he rejected "the characterisation of his speech by the Conservatives". But they added the Labour peer "acknowledges though that his choice of words was clumsy and regrets having used this reference". They added that the speech was aimed at "defending international law which underpins our security, protects against threats from aggressive states like Russia and helps tackle organised immigration crime". In a speech at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, Lord Hermer said the Labour government wanted to combine a "pragmatic approach to the UK's national interests with a principled commitment to a rules-based international order". He said the approach was "a rejection of the siren song that can sadly now be heard in the Palace of Westminster, and in some spectrums of the media, that Britain abandons the constraints of international law in favour of raw power". Lord Hermer added: "This is not a new song. "The claim that international law is fine as far as it goes, but can be put aside when conditions change, is a claim that was made in the early 1930s by 'realist' jurists in Germany, most notably Carl Schmitt, whose central thesis was in essence the claim that state power is all that counts, not law. "Because of the experience of what followed in 1933, far-sighted individuals rebuilt and transformed the institutions of international law, as well as internal constitutional law." Adolf Hitler became German chancellor in 1933. Carl Schmitt, a German legal scholar, was a supporter of the Nazi Party who sought to justify Hitler's policies in his writings on legal and political theory. The Conservatives and Reform UK have been critical of some elements of international law and the courts that enforce it. For example, some politicians from these parties have called for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), an international treaty which sets out the rights and freedoms people are entitled to in signatory countries, including the UK. Critics of the ECHR say it hampers the UK's ability to deal with migration issues, including deporting people who cross the English Channel on small boats. Badenoch, who has previously suggested the UK would have to leave the ECHR if it stops the country from doing "what is right", said Lord Hermer had shown "appalling judgement" in his speech. "Now he's calling people who disagree with him Nazis," she added. "This isn't just embarrassing, it's dangerous. Hermer doesn't understand government. "If Keir Starmer had any backbone, he'd sack him." Reform UK's deputy leader Richard Tice said Lord Hermer should apologise. "If anyone on the right of politics used his language, there would be outrage," Tice posted on social media. "He has shown himself as unfit to be attorney general."
The Independent
30-05-2025
- General
- The Independent
Oh dear, m'lud: It's never a good idea to call people Nazis if they are not Nazis
Godwin's Law states that, as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 100 per cent. A corollary to the law is that the first person to mention the Nazis loses the argument. So it is surprising that Richard Hermer, the attorney general, should make that mistake. He said in a lecture on Thursday: 'The claim that international law is fine as far as it goes, but can be put aside when the conditions change, is a claim that was made in the early 1930s by 'realist' jurists in Germany – most notably Carl Schmitt, whose central thesis was in essence the claim that state power is all that counts.' Schmitt supported Hitler's rule by decree in 1933, bypassing the German constitution. Hermer went on: 'Our approach is a rejection of the siren song, that can sadly now be heard in the Palace of Westminster, not to mention the press, that Britain abandon the constraints of international law in favour of raw power.' Oops. He referred in his lecture to Kemi Badenoch's plan to 'disengage' from the European Court of Human Rights if necessary to protect British interests, and made it clear that this was part of the 'pick and mix' approach that he was condemning. The backpedalling was almost immediate. Sources 'close to' Lord Hermer insisted that he was not likening Badenoch or Nigel Farage to Nazis, and pointed out that he also said in the lecture that those who advocated repudiating treaties were 'patriots' who were doing so in 'good faith'. A spokesperson for Lord Hermer has now also issued a statement, apologising for his 'clumsy' choice of words. Too late. Another corollary of Godwin's Law – named in 1990 after Mike Godwin, an American lawyer who took part in Usenet newsgroup discussions in the early days of the internet – is that, once made, a comparison to the Nazis is difficult to unmake. The significance of Hermer's blooper is twofold. One is that he is like the Ghost of Starmer Past, a reminder that the prime minister was a human rights barrister too before before he was captured by Morgan McSweeney, his chief of staff, who reprogrammed him according to the overriding need to win votes. The other is that Hermer, as the government's chief legal adviser, in effect holds a veto on the home secretary's review of the application of human rights law. Yvette Cooper said in March that the government was reviewing the way the European Convention on Human Rights – including Article 8, the right to family life – is applied, 'to make sure that the immigration and asylum system works effectively in the way that parliament intended it to and make sure that there is a proper sense of control in the system'. This review is part of the emerging consensus around Europe that human rights law needs to be reformed. Indeed, Hermer is part of that consensus, saying in his lecture that Britain 'must be ready to reform' international agreements such as the European Convention on Human Rights so that they retain 'democratic legitimacy'. Nine EU leaders, led by the prime ministers of Italy and Denmark, published an open letter last week protesting that the court's interpretation of the convention 'has, in some cases, limited our ability to make political decisions in our own democracies'. They said: 'We have seen, for example, cases concerning the expulsion of criminal foreign nationals where the interpretation of the convention has resulted in the protection of the wrong people and posed too many limitations on the states' ability to decide whom to expel from their territories.' So Badenoch and Farage may be pushing at a door that is already opening. Farage advocates withdrawing from the European Court regardless, while Badenoch says that she would be prepared to withdraw from the European Court if it, and the application of convention rights by British courts, cannot be reformed. Rishi Sunak said the same. Even Jack Straw, the Labour former home secretary, asked in a letter to The Times two months ago: 'What utility is there in the UK being bound any more into the Strasbourg court? Not much, is my answer.' He said convention rights are 'safe enough' being enforced by British courts. This is an argument that the reformers are winning. It seems not only legitimate to keep open the option of withdrawing from the European Court, but to make good tactical sense, bringing pressure to bear on the Council of Europe that oversees it. The case for sensible reform risks being destroyed by Hermer's hyperbole about 1930s Germany. And the political argument against Farage is weakened by comparing his policy, however indirectly, to that of the Nazis. The prime minister should exorcise the unhelpful ghost of his past.
Spectator
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
Lord Hermer is preposterously wrong about international law
Lord Hermer KC has done it again. Delivering RUSI's annual security lecture this week, the Attorney General set out to 'depolarise' the debate about international law, before promptly comparing those who are open to withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) with Carl Schmitt, the notorious German jurist who joined the Nazi party in 1933. If Lord Hermer's intention truly was to lower the political temperature, and to help to broaden the base of support for the government's approach to international law, his speech must be judged a failure. Perhaps his choice of words was simply clumsy, as he has since said, although the text as a whole suggests otherwise. The Attorney's speech mentions Schmitt, and a Schmittian approach to the rule of law, four times, linking him not only to the Nazis but also to Putin's aggression against Ukraine.
ITV News
30-05-2025
- Politics
- ITV News
Attorney General compares calls to leave international courts with Nazi Germany
The Attorney General appears to have compared calls for the UK to leave international courts with Nazi Germany. Lord Richard Hermer KC said the idea that the UK can breach international obligations is a 'radical departure from the UK's constitutional tradition'. Lord Hermer used a speech in London on Thursday to say claims that international law can be 'put aside' were made in the early 1930s in Germany. The claim that international law is fine as far as it goes, but can be put aside when conditions change, is a claim that was made in the early 1930s by 'realist' jurists in Germany, most notably Carl Schmitt, whose central thesis was in essence the claim that state power is all that counts, not law Lord Hermer In a version of his speech to the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) thinktank, published on the website, Lord Hermer suggested the Government's approach is a 'rejection of the siren song' that can be 'heard in the Palace of Westminster' in which 'Britain abandons the constraints of international law in favour of raw power'. 'This is not a new song,' he said. 'The claim that international law is fine as far as it goes, but can be put aside when conditions change, is a claim that was made in the early 1930s by 'realist' jurists in Germany, most notably Carl Schmitt, whose central thesis was in essence the claim that state power is all that counts, not law.' Lord Hermer also said that because of what happened 'in 1933, far-sighted individuals rebuilt and transformed the institutions of international law'. That is the year that Adolf Hitler became German chancellor. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has stopped short of calling for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as other Conservative figures have advocated. However, she suggested the UK would have to leave the convention if it stops the country from doing 'what is right'. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has said he would get rid of the ECHR, and told ITV in April that 'we have to get back the ability to decide, can we really control our borders'. In his same speech to Rusi on Thursday, the Attorney General said 'we must not stagnate in our approach to international rules' and that officials should 'look to apply and adapt existing obligations to address new situations'. 'We must be ready to reform where necessary,' he added.
