Hannah Arendt reads Carl Schmitt’s The Nomos of the Earth: A dialogue on law and geopolitics from the margins
| Author | Anna Jurkevics |
| Published date | 01 July 2017 |
| Date | 01 July 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1474885115572837 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
European Journal of Political Theory
2017, Vol. 16(3) 345–366
!The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1474885115572837
journals.sagepub.com/home/ept
EJPT
Article
Hannah Arendt reads Carl
Schmitt’s The Nomos of the
Earth: A dialogue on law and
geopolitics from the margins
Anna Jurkevics
Department of Political Science, Yale University, New Haven,
CT, USA
Abstract
Many studies have deduced subterranean dialogues between Hannah Arendt and Carl
Schmitt from indirect evidence. This article uses new evidence from marginalia in
Arendt’s copy of Nomos of the Earth and finds that she formed, but never published,
an incisive critique of Schmitt’s geopolitics. Through an analysis of Arendt’s comments
on the topics of soil, conquest, and contract, I show that Arendt deemed Schmitt’s
theory to be imperialist and in contradiction with itself. Her reading of Schmitt prompts
important new questions regarding the scholarly use of Schmitt’s conception of nomos
as a tool of critique against American empire in the post-9/11 era. The marginalia also
suggests, against past scholarship, that Arendt thought justice should play a central role
in politics. I propose that we look to Arendt’s own conception of nomos, which she
developed later, in order to form an alternative geopolitics. Because of her focus on
intersubjective world-building, Arendt’s nomos embraces contract and promise-making,
and thus provides the foundation for a theory of geopolitics and law that is as neces-
sarily democratic as Schmitt’s is violent.
Keywords
Arendt, Schmitt, nomos, law, geopolitics, international law, conquest, imperialism,
marginalia, justice
‘‘Poor Schmitt: The Nazis said blood and soil—he understood soil. The Nazis
meant blood’’ (marginalia: 211).
1
This remarkable comment is one of a great
abundance that Hannah Arendt wrote in the margins of her copy of Carl
Schmitt’s The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the jus publicum
Corresponding author:
Anna Jurkevics, Department of Political Science, Yale University, 115 Prospect St., New Haven, CT 06520,
USA.
Email: anna.jurkevics@yale.edu
Europaeum (1950). She read the work meticulously.
2
The subterranean dialogues
between Arendt and Schmitt have been rather well documented—their shared
interest in the concept of nomos has attracted particular attention in recent
years—but scholars so far have had to deduce this relationship from indirect
evidence and similarities (see e.g. Jay, 1985; Kalyvas, 2009; Lindahl, 2006; Sluga,
2008). The marginalia from Arendt’s library have become publicly available in
recent years, and these accounts can be enriched and enlivened now that we
know what Arendt thought about Schmitt’s work. As it turns out, her opinions
were extensive.
A broader study of the Nomos marginalia reveals a fascinating result: Arendt
formed, but never published, a coherent and incisive critique of Schmitt’s narrative
on geopolitics and international law. Arendt carefully follows and discusses his
concept of nomos, the Ancient Greek word for law, which for Schmitt takes on
the more specific definition of a concrete legal order, or in the geopolitical context,
a world order. According to Arendt (marginalia: back pages), Schmitt’s theory in
Nomos is damaged from the moment he answers the question ‘‘What is the source
of law?’’ with ‘‘soil’’ (Boden).
3
His fixation on the political conquest of the soil is the
thread that runs from his initial philosophical musings all the way through his
historical analysis and critique of American hegemony. Conquest, for Arendt, is
the key to the Schmittian nomos, and from her perspective, his geopolitical theory is
intrinsically imperialist. Arendt, who, upon reading Nomos, had just published an
account of imperialism in Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), is canny to pick up on a
problem that has not been identified in contemporary critiques of the work.
Since the attacks of September 11th 2001, great interest in Nomos of the Earth
has arisen, in particular for its assessment of unipolarity and American hegemony
(see e.g. Axtmann, 2007; Benhabib, 2012; Hooker, 2009; Koskenniemi, 2004; Legg,
2011; Odysseos and Petito, 2007; Scheuerman, 2006; Slomp, 2009; Teschke, 2011).
Most noticeably, an appropriation of Schmitt from the Left has gained strength in
the last decade (see e.g. Agamben, 2005; Balibar, 2003; Buck-Morss, 2008; Cohen,
2004; Laclau, 2005; Mouffe, 2005; Negri and Hardt, 2000; Zizek, 1999). With the
increase in popularity of Schmitt’s geopolitics have come critiques from many,
including Benhabib (2012), Koskenniemi (2004), and Teschke (2011).
4
Yet, after
countless critiques, Nomos has not lost all persuasiveness.
5
Even Ju
¨rgen Habermas
(2003: 706), perhaps Schmitt’s most steadfast critic, echoes the latter’s position on
the United States when he worries about a world ruled by ‘‘the unilateral, world-
ordering politics of a self-appointed hegemon’’. Arendt’s marginal critique, recon-
structed in the next section, raises important questions for contemporary scholars
who have turned to Schmittian geopolitics to critique American neo-imperialism,
as scholars of the Left have done. These scholars will have to grapple a contra-
diction, exposed by Arendt, that lies at the core of Schmitt’s geopolitics, namely
that he both embraces conquest and repudiates imperialism. My hope is that
Arendt’s marginal critique, as well as her own theory of nomos, will provide
novel material for such grappling.
The evidence in the marginalia also reveals surprisingly large interest from
Arendt regarding the importance of justice as a guide for political action and
346 European Journal of Political Theory 16(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial