|
May 7, 2004
Hardt and Negri link the the new supranational juridical order to Carl Schmitt's idea of the exception. They say that this order involves:
"....hegemony over juridical practices, such as procedure, prevention, and address. Normativity, sanction, and repression follow from these and are formed within the procedural developments. The reason for the relative (but effective) coincidence of the new functioning of domestic law and supranational law derives first of all from the fact that they operate on the same terrain, namely, the terrain of crisis. As Carl Schmitt has taught us, however, crisis on the terrain of the application of law should focus our attention on the "exception" operative in the moment of its production....supranational law [is] defined by...exceptionality. "
For Schmitt the exceptional situation is is that which calls for the emergence of an all-powerful sovereign who must rescue a constitutional order from a particular political crisis. Schmitt had in mind the besieged Weimer Republic in the 1920s; it was threatened by right wing and Communist rebellion and shaken up by an overwhelming economic crisis. The all powerful sovereign is the temporary dictator who is given emergency powers.
So what happens when Hardt and Negri take this idea of the exception and apply it to the international area?
Could Iraq under Saddam Hussein be seen as a particular political crisis that justifies the emergence of an all powerful sovereign, namely the US? What is installedin Iraq is a temporary dictatorship, with sovereignty due to be handed back to the Iraqi's on June 30th. Can theUS be seen as a dictator of the world order who has emeregency powers to deal with an exceptional situation?
|
