Ricerc@Sapienza

Carl Schmitt è forse la figura intellettuale più controversa del Novecento, il cui spettro torna immancabilmente a palesarsi ogniqualvolta gli ordinamenti costituzionali vengano messi sotto pressione e pongano limiti alle libertà fondamentali da essi stessi sancite. Campi di prigionia, populismi d’ogni colore, decretazione d’urgenza, misure restrittive a fronte di un’emergenza pandemica e molti altri esempi recenti di provvedimenti che limitano i diritti di libertà: ad ogni minimo cedimento degli Stati democratici, si invoca Schmitt come nume tutelare o ispiratore dannato.

Il saggio ricostruisce il pensiero di Carl Schmitt attraverso cinque concetti chiave: eccezione, decisione, politico, ordine concreto, nomos.

In questo testo recensisco il saggio intitolato "L'invenzione del globo" del filosofo Matteo Vegetti, pubblicato nel 2017 dalla casa editrice Einaudi. L'idea che Vegetti propone e sviluppa in questo saggio è che per comprendere il processo di globalizzazione contemporaneo occorre analizzare genealogicamente la "rivoluzione spaziale aerea", avviatasi all'incirca un secolo fa e oggi ancora in corso.

The paper deals with the US literature on the authoritarian responses to the pandemic crisis: after the analysis of the main legal tools against the virus’ spread, and a focus on the political clash between federal administration and states, the article addresses those proposals that advise for a strong executive reaction also for a new cycle of constitutionalism.

El artículo desentraña la relación entre Carl Schmitt y Jacob Taubes en sus interpretaciones sobre el Leviathan de Thomas Hobbes y la teología política. El jurista del nazismo y el rabino mantienen posiciones opuestas sobre el filósofo inglés hasta el punto de encontrar Taubes en Spinoza una alternativa aún por desarrollar. Frente a la interpretación de Schmitt que situaba a Spinoza como origen de la enfermedad que condujo a la muerte del Leviatán, Taubes lo sitúa en Pablo de Tarso (“primer judío liberal”) y la separación entre interino y externo en el mesianismo paulino.

In the last two decades, much has been written – for and against – about the relevance of Carl Schmitt’s thought for a better understanding of the present-day situation of both global politics and Western democracies. This revival has led to new translations and reissues of Schmitt’s works, including his less famous writings. Yet, little attention has been paid to his early works, and in particular to his prewar writings from 1910 to 1914.

This articles centres on the persistent intercourse between social order and its undoing.
By exploring three types of legal institutionalism which will be dubbed “compositional”
(Santi Romano), “performative” (Carl Schmitt) and “generative” (Widar Cesarini Sforza),
we will debate the proposals these types advocate on how to make order out of the innate
pluralism of the social and its inherent tendency to overproduce forms of normativity.
While we will mainly be concerned with the differences between these versions of legal

The author tries to redirect Kervégan’s method of «thinking with Schmitt against Schmitt» into «thinking with Schmitt beyond Schmitt» as Apel would have done. This different approach could help in preserving and restoring the targets of Schmitt’s critics – i.e. liberal democratic regimes and their Constitutions – by using his own conceptual arsenal. Marzocchi offers, for instance, an original reinterpretation of Schmitt’s Verfassung-slehre employing the ideas presented there with constructive purposes instead of disruptive ones.

This article takes issue with the practical and the cognitive roles of normality within political life and its relevance to the constitution of the groups that comprise a political community. From a practical viewpoint, normality fosters standards of correctness; from a cognitive viewpoint, these standards are what allows individuals to perceive themselves, and to be recognized, as group members.

This article offers an unconventional interpretation of Carl Schmitt’s conception of the political. It first identifies two alternative readings – an
‘exceptionalist’ and a ‘concretist’ one – to make the claim that in the late 1920s he laid the foundations for a theory of politics that overcame the
flaws of his theory of exception. It then explains why the concretist reading provides an insightful key to Schmitt’s take on the relationship