The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of Jus Publicum Europaeum

News reports and editorial on the tv and radio every day spout feckless platitudes about "international law" as if that were a simple and universally recognized thing that had always existed as some sort of social gospel. However that is not the case; rather, today's "international law" such as that is, is a consequence and replacement of at least two significant prior paradigms, which in themselves endured over centuries. In this book, which is in the best sense of the word a textbook, having all the relevance and depth that the word requires, Carl Schmitt narrated the development of international law across the ages from the ancient world until the time of publication of the first edition (1950s).I recommend this book to all American students of history and international law. I say American because as an American I recognize through experience the fixation of our educational system with the English narrative of history. By this I do not mean that we are bigoted in the sense that deconstructionists suggest; but rather that by virtue of our cultural history we view the world from an Anglo-American perspective, which diminishes and omits significant elements of history which relate to developments on the Continent of Europe over the centuries, yet in which England and its colonies were only tangential players. If we do not omit those significant events and developments from our educational narratives we often will simply diminish their relevance by relative inattention and short shrift. For example how many Americans have heard of the Peace of Westphalia? Better yet: how many American law school graduates (let alone high school or college graduates) have heard of the Peace of Westphalia, could locate it in the proper place, time, and legal or historical relevance? This book will help correct that kind of ignorance for anyone who succeeds in a thorough reading of this work.There are many key concepts for understanding this work and I will just touch on a few here that will perhaps give a foreshadow of some of the themes.Firstly concerning the title: Nomos is a Greek word rendered usually as law. Schmitt explains the word like a philologist however, using how it is derived and descended into other languages to frame the work, and references and expositions of the word in changing context appear in numerous chapters.Another key concept is the difference between sea and land powers, and how success in war and flourishing in trade affect not only national destiny but international legal relations. The resonance with the Pelopennesian Wars contrast of Sparta and Athens lingers throughout the book as a historical conflict often repeated with other players.Another key concept is that of the Nomos as a Spatial Order. The author describes how the law of the Earth involved at different times a numbering, measuring, and dividing of regions in ways that established the elements and order of the international law. This idea is key to the phase he describes as the Jus Publicum Europaeum. The discovery of the New World and the spatial changes that brought to the mind of European persons and powers occupies a significant and central theme in this book.Carl Schmitt was a German jurist who though respected and erudite for nearly his entire career, had a certain infamy as the foremost lawyer of National Socialist party. Nevertheless, he continued to publish relevant works after the war, and today is republished in part due to his role as a certain intellectual icon of the "Nouvelle Droit" or European New Right, that has sought to rescucitate many of the Continental intellectuals whose work was blotted out due to overzealous post war "denazification" of academia. I believe this work was also translated and republished due to his significance to the deceased eminent Univerity of Chicago professor, political philosopher and classicisst Leo Strauss one of the intellectual leaders of the "neoconservative" movement in the United States. The neoconservative movement, by the way, is most unlike the European New Right except obviously for its name, and also for shared fascination with Carl Schmitt and the underlying metaphysical concept of "will to power" that lingers in his work. Another geopolitical thinker whose work I find most fascinating who clearly draws on the work of Schmitt is the Israeli historian of war, Martin Van Creveld. (It's an irony somewhat peripheral to this work that Carl Schmitt, who experienced the pinnacle of his own public relevance during the time of the Third Reich, would be remembered so well by these two Jewish academics, Strauss and Van Creveld).To summarize, this book is a serious, profound, and yet interesting and gripping narrative of the long sweep of historical development of different paradigms of international law, principally from the perspective of the great powers of the European Continent, and as such it serves as fine corrective to a parochial American point of view.

"Nomos" offers some interesting ideals, particularly about America, that read to be chillingly true when taken from a modern perspective. Written in the 1950s, this work has less of an anti-semetic tone than earlier Schmitt essays, whichmade the reading easier for me to digest. Temper your reading of this novel by remembering Schmitt was a strong supporter of the Nazi party prior to writing this novel, but do not let that steal all the acedemic merit.I ordered this book for class, and recieved it in a timely manner and in great condition.

Despite its trilingual title, this book is not quite as difficult as it may appear. It is a brief history of international law from a distinctive viewpoint. The ancient Greek word "nomos" is considered by the author to refer to the allocation of land, an act he regards as basic to the establishment of law since land is directly associated with power. "Jus publicum Europaeum" means "European public [i.e., international] law." The author associates international legal systems with regions of the earth, each possibly with a system of its own. Such a region is known as a "Grossraum". The narrative goes like this:International law began with a federation or empire of associated cities or other settled entities set in the midst of unsettled territory outside. A "civilized world" grew from settlements and land allocations. Ancient empires could eventually establish contact and by means of a treaty engage in peaceful commerce with each other.When the Roman Empire fell, the conquerors took over its legal culture (not to mention a good deal more). Christian thinking reached a high level of subtlety while Europe was surrounded by non-Christian enemies. The earliest form of European international law came into being to regulate war between Christian princes, which was a civilized process compared to wars against outsiders, who were considered children of the Devil. This was the period of the "just war" (a concept of Augustine) and the "just enemy". In the author's terminology, the lands inside Europe had a "soil status" different from that of the lands outside. There was a distinct "grossraum" for each.The Reformation destroyed the fabric of belief underlying "just war" formulations. After Bodin and Hobbes, there were only sovereign states. From the 16th to 18th centuries, the "just war" concept was revived in a different form. Grotius and Kant saw the unjust enemy was one whose conduct indicated an attempt to upset a balance of power between states. The author suggests that this criterion might be inadequate. If the balance of power (in effect, territory) was perceived as wrong, then some (revolutionaries for example) might deem it deserving of upset. That is, political or ethical issues might be involved that a purely juristic point of view could not resolve. There was also a special role for "neutral" states, which could mediate between combatants. Guarantees of neutrality were assigned to states by pan-European conferences like the Congress of Vienna. The author's discussion of balance of power, neutrality, and state succession in Part III, Chapter 4 is the core of the book.During this period, Europeans were exploring the oceans and continents of the New World, which they saw as simply expanses that were for all practical purposes uninhabited and appropriate for free commerce and even piracy (on the sea. legally sanctioned). "Amity lines" on maps delimited zones of exploitation by specific nations. The English excelled in developing the new areas, mainly for economic purposes. Their preoccupation was free trade; it was appropriate that England with her navy should be the greatest power in the New World. In this way another "Grossraum" came into being. Now there were two major areas, each with its own characteristic "nomos".The character of New World soil changed after the American revolution. In the minds of Jefferson and others, the Americas were pure and not to be defiled by European intervention. The US began to show considerable influence in the New World "Grossraum" by promulgating the Monroe Doctrine. On the other hand, European international law was unable to take into account developments outside its area and consequently went into decline. For example, in the 1885 Congo Conference. King Leopold II of Belgium, a state designated as neutral, was able to make the Congo a private colony with the same land status as his kingdom. This was absurd from the European viewpoint. The Versailles Treaty and the Geneva Protocol provided additional evidence of decline. By resorting to sections of the German civil code, the European allies attempted to punish Kaiser Wilhelm personally for the War even though Bethmann-Hollweg declared the full responsibility to be his. This viewpoint allowed no place for the concept of specific acts as war crimes. The Americans were somewhat more thoughtful; they avoided the problems of Versailles by signing a separate peace with Germany, but likewise gave in to popular sentiment with the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the Stimson Doctrine, which likewise blurred the legal contrast of war as a whole with specific acts of war. The Americans also promulgated new ideas about aggression and diplomatic recognition about which the author has doubts. Interestingly he appears to find the concept of just war legitimate.There is no space here to discuss the further ramifications of the author's ideas. Surprisingly he was the principal political and legal theorist of Nazi Germany; the book was written in Berlin during World War II. But this is a work that experts take very seriously and I am sure it is not merely an apology for Nazi policies. The introduction by G. L. Ulmen provides important background.