LIBERAL CONSTITUTIONALISM AND SCHMITT'S CRITIQUE

Carl Schmitt's critique of liberalism includes a specific attack on the philosophical coherence of the rule of law as a component of constitutional sovereignty, a view he identifies with the wider liberal tradition. Despite his associations with Nazism it has been taken up recently by post-mode...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:History of political thought 2007-12, Vol.28 (4), p.678-695
Main Authors: Hampsher-Monk, Iain, Zimmerman, Keith
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Constitutionalism
Judgment
Liberalism
Locke, John
Natural law
Philosophy
Political philosophy
Political revolutions
Rule of law
Social contract
Sovereignty
Special Issue — Liberty and Sovereignty
State of nature
Theology
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Carl Schmitt's critique of liberalism includes a specific attack on the philosophical coherence of the rule of law as a component of constitutional sovereignty, a view he identifies with the wider liberal tradition. Despite his associations with Nazism it has been taken up recently by post-modern critics of Liberalism. This article analyses Schmitt's claims and then compares them with what representative liberals actually say about the rule of law. The finding is that at least two major thinkers — Locke and Burke — show none of the ignorance or naivete with which Schmitt charges the tradition. Concepts such as the exception are recognized and included in their political analyses — but, unlike Schmitt, not in their prescriptions.
ISSN:0143-781X
2051-2988