Wielding the spiritual sword again: Some considerations on neo-medievalism in modern international order
| DOI | 10.1177/1755088214559926 |
| Published date | 01 October 2015 |
| Date | 01 October 2015 |
Journal of International Political Theory
2015, Vol. 11(3) 296 –312
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1755088214559926
ipt.sagepub.com
Wielding the spiritual sword
again: Some considerations on
neo-medievalism in modern
international order
Ignas Kalpokas
University of Nottingham, UK
Abstract
This article traces the paradoxes within the modern international system, which is
guided by liberal norms and values, in particular pertaining to human rights. This system
is seen here as being ruled by an empty norm: power is present, but it is disembodied.
Therefore, the entire international order is open to uses and abuses by the most
powerful actors in the international sphere, especially the power states. Furthermore,
when combined with the fact that the modern world has been completely appropriated
by humanity as a universal integrated whole, whoever falls outside the dominant
normative structure is, in effect, no longer even part of humanity. To analyse the means
and effects of such tension between the universal and the particular, this article draws
analogies with the medieval struggle between the secular and the religious authorities.
It is argued that currently one can observe a return of the Respublica Christiana in
the form of a rights-centred ‘international community’. And yet, contrary to earlier
scholarly attempts to draw analogies with the Middle Ages, this return is seen here as a
dangerous employment of political theology.
Keywords
Humanitarian intervention, human rights, political theology, sovereignty
Introduction
This article explores the contemporary tendencies in international relations through
recourse to the medieval theories of the interrelationship between the religious and
secular powers. This endeavour owes its basic conceptual–analytical framework to the
Corresponding author:
Ignas Kalpokas, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham, Law and Social
Sciences Building, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK.
Email: ldxik4@nottingham.ac.uk
559926IPT0010.1177/1755088214559926Journal of International Political TheoryKalpokas
research-article2014
Article
Kalpokas 297
German legal and political theorist Carl Schmitt. Indeed, his emphasis on political theol-
ogy, resistance to universalising notions of humanity and attempts at historical explana-
tion resonates with some of the important elements of this article. However, neither of
Schmitt’s alternatives proposed throughout the years, such as Großräume (Schmitt,
2011), a new nomos of a new hegemon (Schmitt, 2003) or the partisan and a guarantor of
the outside of the dominant order (Schmitt, 2007b) is espoused. To take Schmitt’s roman-
ticised figure of the partisan as an example, it can no longer stand for the outside of the
global order. It is getting increasingly difficult to establish the partisan’s authentic, ‘tel-
luric’ nature. Who, after all, is fighting in Syria, Iraq or Eastern Ukraine? Similarly, the
loose networks of international terrorism cannot be an alternative. Apart from those, one
is left with some tyrannical regimes that have fallen out of favour, while other similar
ones continue to flourish. In short, the outside is no longer a political outside, rather pure
exception and needs to be conceptualised anew. Similarly, although possible affinities
with medieval political order have already been proposed a rather long time ago (see
primarily Bull, [1977] 2002), these theories are seen here as failing to explore the full
implications of neo-medievalism.
It is maintained that the modern international system is organised around a paradox:
it is concrete yet lacking real embodiment, simultaneously universal and particular, all-
encompassing and still resting on an outside. Such system allows creation of an absolute
enemy, that is, the one who falls outside the dominant discourse is excommunicated and
deprived of the status of a just opponent. The outsider here becomes a non-value, which
could be easily disposed of (Burchard, 2006: 31). Such a situation is not new. In fact, we
are currently observing a partial return to the medieval Respublica Christiana, a reli-
giously organised order with universalist aspirations, not unlike the modern theologico-
political approach to global governance. However, whereas previously universal
jurisdiction was embodied in particular religious authorities, at present it is the rule of an
empty norm. This difference, in turn, allows for exploitation of the universality of the
international order. Therefore, a closer look at the interplay between discourse and prac-
tice is needed.
The universal order of the appropriated world
The changing role of sovereignty is central. While the origins of international society lie
in the society of monarchs who personalised their states, with the birth of popular sover-
eignty, this equality was transferred to the state as such. This system of mutual recogni-
tion by sovereigns (as persons or as peoples) still did not imply a common order but
merely an awareness of sameness as well as factual and territorial separation – mutual
construction of each other’s identity (Carty, 2007: 6). Such has been the practice at least
since the twelfth century when mutual recognition introduced the understanding of a
(more or less) inviolable territorial sovereignty, equal rights and independence in domes-
tic matters (Pascua, 2008: 202), although a more formal understanding of territorial sov-
ereignty (the so-called Westphalian system) did not develop until much later.
Subsequently, the Westphalian system where the sovereign did not acknowledge any
higher executive authority, legislator or judge (see, notably, Lauterpacht, 2000: 166) pre-
vailed until the twentieth century. A modern alternative to it would be a ‘global society’
To continue reading
Request your trial