May 9, 2004
Hardt and Negri finish the The Model of Imperial Authority section of Chapter One to considering the global order in relation to the idea of a global police force.
As we have seen this section was preceded by considering the function of exception as understood by Carl Schmitt as imperial right. In some ways
this is a useful move to make. A large part of Australia's foreign interventions have been to restore order in East Timor and the Solomon Islands. The situation in both countries bordered on crisis. Australia effectively acted to the crisis of failed states by intervening with a policing operation that acted to disarm the destablizers.
Can we say the same about the US in Iraq? Was that an exceptional situation? Or is Schmitt's idea of the exception being lost in this reworking?
Hardt and Negri say:
"In order to take control of and dominate such a completely fluid situation, it is necessary to grant the intervening authority (1) the capacity to define, every time in an exceptional way, the demands of intervention; and (2) the capacity to set in motion the forces and instruments that in various ways can be applied to the diversity and the plurality of the arrangements in crisis. Here, therefore, is born, in the name of the exceptionality of the intervention, a form of right that is really a right of the police. The formation of a new right is inscribed in the deployment of prevention, repression, and rhetorical force aimed at the reconstruction of social equilibrium: all this is proper to the activity of the police. We can thus recognize the initial and implicit source of imperial right in terms of police action and the capacity of the police to create and maintain order. The legitimacy of the imperial ordering supports the exercise of police power, while at the same time the activity of global police force demonstrates the real effectiveness of the imperial ordering. The juridical power to rule over the exception and the capacity to deploy police force are thus two initial coordinates that define the imperial model of authority."
In his Political Theology Schmitt says "Sovereign is he who decides the exception.' The phrase refers back to the classical Roman institution of dictatorship as a way to deal with an emergency that severely threatened the Roman republic. It was a mechanism that preserved a constitutional order in a time of dire crisis (ie., a temporary exceptional moment). The Roman dictator was appointed in a time of dire emergency (a foreign invasion or rebellion). He was given unlimited powers and could act unrestrained by norm or law. These powers were limited as the dictator could not go beyond the specific task or suspend the regular order.
With Hardt and Negri the exceptional moment becomes the exceptionality of the intervention. The exceptionality of the intervention makes sense of the way the US intervened in Iraq: eg., the unilateralism, the sidelining of the United Nations, and the pre-emptive strike.
Is this a case of the legitimacy of the imperial ordering supporting the exercise of police power, while at the same time the activity of global police force demonstrates the real effectiveness of the imperial ordering?
It seemed to me that legitimacy was not granted. The legitamcy of the US action was called into question not matter how brutal Saddam Hussein's regime.
|
I don't claim to understand philosophy at all. But is it not true that success brings its own legitimacy?
When we look back at 20th century military conflicts, is it not the case that it is generally accepted that the 'successful' actions are regarded as more legitimate then the 'unsuccessful' actions?