|
Editorial
Papers and essays
|
13–25
|
The paper examines the problems of international justice in its relation to one of the most significant concepts of Christian theology — the katechon. The main hypothesis of the article is that the katechon in international relations manifests itself as a balancing effect of a specific spatial order, expressed in the containment/transgression of forces aimed at the demarcation of “red lines”, and contributes to the displacement of the horizon for catastrophic events. In order to substantiate this hypothesis, a link has been drawn between the concept of “red lines” and the historically established international legal borders separating spheres of influence in world affairs and invariably expressing the idea of a threshold that separates order from chaos, whose transgression is perceived as a collapse of the established equilibrium. The “red lines” are related to the idea of international justice in three ways: as fixed legal boundaries (the nomos of the Earth); as a balance of forces and capabilities determined by the parties; and as rules for transgressing boundaries, which lead to the notion of just war. The analysis of the reasons for a just war leads to a katechonic threshold that can be crossed in the perspective of the loss of ideas of a “just enemy”, a just cause of war, a just war on both sides and the reduction of a law of war to an act of aggression, to a reactive response to crimes against humanity and the identification of the aggressor as a criminal. This model of just war entails the demonization of the enemy and translates the conflict into the Armageddon paradigm, which makes it possible to establish an essential link between the issues of war, international justice and katechon. The katechon, studied in the article on the basis of theological interpretations as an Empire (in particular, a Christian empire), righteousness, the power of divine grace, as well as the need to preach the Gospel around the world, appears in the political-theological paradigm as a factor restraining the forces of destruction. The restraint of the pure will to destroy allows us to see that the katechon fulfils not only an agonistic but also a liturgical function, the purpose of which is to maintain a continuous link between the content of culture, which is centered on the idea of humanity, and the actions of the actors in international relations. It is the preservation of humanity, based on the highest cultural values, that is the final “red line”, thanks to the inviolability of which international justice is preserved and the coming of the Judgment Day is restrained. |
|
26–45
|
The concept of katechon, in the way it is generally invoked today, only exacerbates already existing political and ideological divisions, pitting ‘conservatism’ against ‘progressivism’, or ‘multipolarity’ against ‘globalism’ and ‘hegemony’. With Carl Schmitt as an unlikely ally, this article argues that the katechon might instead offer an alternative — non-liberal and non-revolutionary — universalist political project, thus showing the way out of these oppositions. Contrary to dominant interpretations, Schmittian notion of the katechon is not a legitimation of either sovereign state power or international plurality. Instead, it embodies an underappreciated universalist strand in Schmitt’s thought, which stands in tension with the confrontational and pluralist logic of his concept of the political or the idea of the Grossraum order. For Schmitt, the katechon implies an essentially non-sovereign form of power, which both maintains and renews an existing social order to ensure the continuation of history understood as the realm of ‘infinite singularity’. In modern times, this primarily involves guarding against the threat of technocratic globalization that portends either a collapse of humanity into nature-like regularities or its technological suicide. However, instead of opting for international plurality as a solution, in an often-neglected Spanish version of an essay “The Unity of the World” Schmitt directly links the katechontic theology of history to a specific kind of ‘true’ political universalism, opposed both to the ‘false’ universalism of techno-economic liberalism, and to antagonistic pluralism. Although he does not explicitly elaborate the details of this ‘true’ universalism, his work hints at the diarchy of spiritual and temporal powers as a crucial element of katechontic world unity. |
|
46–62
|
Historically, religious institutions have often played some role in determining the criteria for international justice during the war and in the post-war periods. The article aims to reflect theoretically on this phenomenon, drawing on the political theology of C. Schmitt (1888-1985) and the historical sociology of E. Rosenstock-Huessy (1888-1973). Both were prominent lawyers in Weimar Germany, but their paths diverged dramatically in 1933. They shared a view of the modern state as a restrainer of war. They also focused on the church and its role in stabilizing the new international order of the Westphalian era. The Westphalian approach to international justice rested on the idea of religious pluralism in terms of a plurality of sovereign states. It was important for Schmitt that the Roman Catholic Church (to which he belonged) recognized sovereign states and their right to declare war and make peace, even if it retained autonomy of doctrinal judgment and independent government. Unlike Schmitt, Rosenstock-Huessy believed that the main role in resolving religious conflicts was played not so much by the arrangements of sovereign states, but by the new organization of society that emerged as a result of the Reformation. This organization consisted of new social forms: the monarch-legislator, the civil servant, the civil authority, and the civil population. Rosenstock saw the separation of the military from the civil service as a kind of continental system of checks and balances that promoted international justice by limiting violence. After a historical and theoretical overview, the paper will analyze why the cultural role of ecclesiastical institutions is still important. Finally, it will be shown that the perspectives of political theology and historical sociology described above form a multi-confessional dialogue. The dialogical reflection on church and politics can be a contribution to the debate on international justice. |
|
63–82
|
In this paper, I draw together Carl Schmitt’s take on sovereign power and its dictatorial exceptionalism with his political theology and his insistence on the friend-enemy distinction in order to take steps towards a critique of his work. To explain why we would be remiss to take Schmitt’s insights into political theology prescriptively, I turn to Friedrich W. J. Schelling’s 1809 Freiheitsschrift. I then take-up Sigmund Freud’s 1929 Das Unbehangen in der Kultur in order to shed light on the psychological underpinnings of the friend-enemy distinction as it actually plays itself out in everyday life. I explain Schmitt’s analogy between divine power and sovereign power in Section II. In Section III, I argue that the role of the sovereign dictator in the state of emergency is especially problematic given Schmitt’s insistence on the friend-enemy distinction. In Section IV, I turn to Schelling’s view of God, and of the manifestation of divine principles in the human world, and argue that Schmitt’s theologized sovereign dictator is a force of evil. In section V, I engage with Freud’s understanding of the role of religion and his view of the effects of repression of the powerful drives (eros and thanatos) in civilized society. I then argue that the practical unravelling of Schmitt’s political theology and his concept of the political, when put to the test of psychoanalytic inquiry, is that they end up demonizing those who are deemed “enemies”. |
|
83–106
|
Theories of justice have become the central theme of liberal philosophy over the past century. Among these, one devoted to the problem of global justice, which has come to be particularly relevant at the turn of the century, deserves particular attention. Among liberal theories of global justice numerous competing conceptions have emerged; they could be presented as three broad lines of argumentation: ‘moral cosmopolitanism’, ‘political cosmopolitanism’ and ‘statism’. Thomas Nagel’s Hobbesian conception of global justice has become one of the most influential ‘statist’ theories. Having used the key points of Hobbes’ theory, Nagel significantly modified his original ideas. This allowed him, first, to invoke the principles of egalitarian justice at the level of the state and, second, to argue that international relations are not the territory of a moral vacuum. These modifications led to a two-level theory of ethics in which justice can exist only in separate sovereign states while the requirements of minimal humanitarian morality apply at the supranational level. As a result, Nagel’s theory of justice at the level of the state proved to be highly logical and persuasive, as well as able to withstand criticism from its opponents; whereas the requirements of minimal humanitarian morality seemed inconsistent and unrelated to justice in separate sovereign states. This has led to an ambivalent attitude towards Nagel’s theory. This article focuses on Nagel’s theory of global justice and the debate surrounding his statist arguments. This article also offers further criticism of the problems and prospects of Nagel’s theory of global justice. |
|
107–127
|
The article explores the influence of the religious and political concept of “Rus’ — the New Israel” on the public consciousness of Russia and its foreign policy culture. Over several centuries of Russian history, this concept played a leading role for understanding and conceptualizing the major political events in Russian chronicles and religious literature. The Russian land was identified with ancient Israel, affecting the perception and interpretation of the events of the time and the way people thought, helping to establish a national foreign policy culture. The influence of the idea of “Rus’ — New Israel” is dominant as a way of transmitting the message (medium) and thus becomes a message as such. This suggests that it was this religious-political construct that, in the early stages of the evolution of the Russian state, became the most fundamental way in which it identified itself in the surrounding world. |
|
128–138
|
The article considers international justice as a political issue in social doctrines of the Orthodox Church. The author focuses on the social doctrines of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Russian Orthodox Church and on the social-political provisions of the documents adopted by the Council of Crete (2016). Social doctrines of the Orthodox Church mention some issues that can be attributed to the discursive field of political theology. Thus, international justice is a part of the Orthodox Church concept of contemporary international relations and global human challenges. Such social doctrines state the impossibility of achieving international justice due to the sinful depravity of human nature. This human sinfulness determines all types of global discrimination not only against individuals or social groups (religious, racial, national, gender, etc.), but also against peoples and states. In social doctrines, war is defined as an unacceptable way to solve world problems. Orthodox churches call for fair international relations based on Christian values, thereby criticizing the existing world order based on the ideology of liberal globalism and secularism. Documents of the Council of Crete directly state that true peace (international justice) is possible only after the universal triumph of Christian principles. In conclusion, the author summarizes the features of the Orthodox Church approach to international justice and political theology. |
Book reviews
|
139–158
|
Book review: Shnirelman V. A a. (2022). Katechon. From Apocalypse to Conspiracy Theories, Moscow; Saint Petersb urg: Nestor–History, 424 p. |
|
159–165
|
Book Review: Bashkov V. Repeticija politicheskogo. Seren K’erkegor i Karl Shmitt [The Rehearsal of the Political: Søren Kierkegaard and Carl Schmitt], Saint-Petersb urg: Vladimir Dal’. |
|