Concerning international relations theory, the work of Immanuel Kant was hitherto reflected in terms of the liberal paradigm, particularly of the democratic peace, whereas Carl Schmitt was predominantly associated wit...Concerning international relations theory, the work of Immanuel Kant was hitherto reflected in terms of the liberal paradigm, particularly of the democratic peace, whereas Carl Schmitt was predominantly associated with the assumptions of political realism or--at least for a short period Nazi imperialism. However, these differences seem to have taken a back seat since both thinkers have been adopted to legitimate the convictions of imperial liberalism. In contrast, this article will show that Schmitt and Kant have essentially more in common than generally assumed but do precisely argue against just war theory, humanitarian interventions, and a unipolar world. On the other hand, Kant＇s liberal and Schmitt＇s illiberal theory do not apply to the classical paradigms of intemational relations. Instead, Schmitt＇s Political Theology and Kant＇s Political Philosophy will be compared along with the antagonistic logic （and ethics） of political existentialism and a peaceful interdependence between states and nations. Considering the contemporary crisis of world order, it should be even plausible that the two dominating paradigms of future international relations might be formed by Kantian and Schmittian premises. Thus, the aim of this paper is not to match Kant and Schmitt once again with the usual approaches in international relations theory but to stretch its theoretical and conceptual spectrum by extracting the inventive contribution both thinkers made to important topics of IR.展开更多
文摘Concerning international relations theory, the work of Immanuel Kant was hitherto reflected in terms of the liberal paradigm, particularly of the democratic peace, whereas Carl Schmitt was predominantly associated with the assumptions of political realism or--at least for a short period Nazi imperialism. However, these differences seem to have taken a back seat since both thinkers have been adopted to legitimate the convictions of imperial liberalism. In contrast, this article will show that Schmitt and Kant have essentially more in common than generally assumed but do precisely argue against just war theory, humanitarian interventions, and a unipolar world. On the other hand, Kant＇s liberal and Schmitt＇s illiberal theory do not apply to the classical paradigms of intemational relations. Instead, Schmitt＇s Political Theology and Kant＇s Political Philosophy will be compared along with the antagonistic logic （and ethics） of political existentialism and a peaceful interdependence between states and nations. Considering the contemporary crisis of world order, it should be even plausible that the two dominating paradigms of future international relations might be formed by Kantian and Schmittian premises. Thus, the aim of this paper is not to match Kant and Schmitt once again with the usual approaches in international relations theory but to stretch its theoretical and conceptual spectrum by extracting the inventive contribution both thinkers made to important topics of IR.
