From Globalisation to Planetarisation: The Principle of Interdependence as a Vector for a New Law of the Earth: The Lex Anthropocenae

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Even though the author's aim is not to offer a comprehensive interpretation of Carl Schmitt's thought in the field of international law, but only to use some of his concepts to argue his/her thesis, it would be appropriate to make explicit the awareness of some Schmitt’s theses on the issue that is discussed in the article.

1. Carl Schmitt from his early writings to the writings of his maturity had a great distrust of any attempt to conceive of 'humanity' as a single political community. Schmitt believes, following some Church Fathers, that the total political unification of the world is the work of the Antichrist. Since the argumentation of the article is - also - theological, the mention might not be out of place (cf. Schmitt's essay Die Einheit der Welt).

2. Very interesting is the resumption and discussion of the Ordnung/Ortung relationship and the Nehmen/Teilen/Weiden dynamic. Keep in mind that the dynamics of land occupation is what grounds the relationship of responsibility for that land and its population. Schmitt is critical of air warfare or other forms of exploitation without occupation because they are totally irresponsible.

For Schmitt, the pivotal theme (of appropriation as well as of sovereignty) is that of responsibility and his critique of universalism is based on its dissolution of responsibility. Responsibility is always a particular concept (because man is limited) and can be exercised only with respect to the piece of land we occupy. Which precisely disproves the idea that appropriation is the modern ownership of land as a mere commodity.

3. Perhaps historically, the idea of the Common Home cannot be said to have been introduced by Pope Francis, but that is secondary. Certainly the idea of humanity as a unique political entity is present in the Stoics with the idea of interdependence, which is strong in modern neo-stoicism (Wolff but also Vattel).

A part from these remarks, the text is very clear and well thought, definitely provoking and stimulating.

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for his timely, pertinent and stimulating remarks, which I welcome for their constructive intent, and promise to take them into account in a more systematic way in any further development of the reflection initiated around the notion of interdependence (I would like to point out that I am carrying out a further elaboration of this concept in the corresponding lemma I have drafted for a Digital Lexicon of the Common House of CITER [UCP] which will soon be put online). As far as the article in question is concerned, I note that the lack of mention of certain aspects of Schmitt’s thought is essentially due to the non-historical-critical, but systematic-programmatic intention of the text, whose fundamental aim is to think about the need for new forms of legal obligation that are not exclusively ‘intra-human’ (anthropic-societal), but include an intersystemic normativity, of an ecological character.

This priority focus on a possible extrasocietal and non-anthropic source of legal normativity (whereby the ecosystem is not to be thought of simply as a resource, a patrimony for whose maintenance we are responsible and that we have to take care of, but as an autonomous holder of rights), to be contained in the limited space of an article, has forced me to relegate to the background the discussion of certain political and theological aspects of Schmittian thought (such as the strong rejection of a unified world political order), which are very important for thinking about current globalization, but which relate to an exclusively intra-human view of history, international relations, and the geo-strategic balance of the world, whose one-sidedness is being challenged today precisely by the geological change denoted by the term Anthropocene.

In any case, I have tried to integrate the remarks made in points 1 and 3 in a single note (No. 2 of the revised version).

With regard to the considerations presented in point 2, I understand the objection, but it seems to me that the notion of responsibility associated by Schmitt with the categories of property and territorial dominion (which make it superior to the deterritorialised form of exploitation of the planet that is produced in the maritime and aerial domains thanks to the improvement of technology) excludes any real responsibility for the ecosystem (which is the diriment aspect of the establishment of a new intersystemic normativity),which only includes  the political responsibility of the ruler towards his representative, the community (“Volk”) entrusted to him within the state (including the material conditions of this responsibility, such as the defence of the state’s borders against military attacks). Schmitt’s aversion to the political and military domination of sea and air space (which can only to a limited extent be converted into their appropriation) is based on the fact that, in his view, these two forms of power feed solely on technical and economic power, neutralising any dimension of identity (spiritual, cultural, memorial) that is an essential factor in shaping the occupation of land. From this perspective, however, it becomes impossible to see that from the point of view of interdependence environmental responsibility is effective even when there is neither domination nor ownership of the spaces in question (air and sea pollution are glaring examples of the need to formulate a legal notion of responsibility even for areas of the planet completely removed from state sovereignty and public and private ownership). Including  this discussion in the text would entail the formulation of a whole new section. I hope to return to this issue in the future.

_____________

 New Note Nr 2:

The notion of the Common Home actually has ancient roots, referring both to the Cynic-Stoic idea of “cosmopolis”, the universal community of human beings, rooted in a feeling of belonging, affinity, familiarity, towards others (Oikeiôsis) (Kleingeld and Brown 2019 ), and to the historical-geographical idea of “ecumene”, which - beginning with Xenophan - came to designate the ‘civilised’ terrestrial area, either inhabited or habitable by human beings (or by the Greeks and Romans alone, to the exclusion of the barbarians) (Schmitt 2000).

Nevertheless, one should not, underestimate the novelty of the contemporary use of this concept, in which the two perspectives, of the social unity of the human race and its terrestrial habitat, converge without, however, prejudicially implying cosmopolitan political solutions (the ethical, social and environmental unity of the human race does not necessarily have to translate into its political unity). Thinking about the common destiny of humanity and the Earth’s ecosystem determined by the growing technical, economic, media and environmental integration is an unprecedented contemporary challenge in its factual concreteness, which transcends the utopian perspective traditionally associated with philosophical and juridical cosmopolitanism, in its programmatic option for the centralisation of political and institutional power at the supranational level. The growing integration of the peoples of the earth, brought about by globalisation and planetarisation requires increasingly robust and effective legal and decision-making federative instruments, but this ever-increasing coordination does not necessarily translate into concentration, fusion, monopolisation. On the contrary, the maintenance of plurality and difference is the core of that multipolarism which is the very infrastructure of interdependence and which allows universalism to be thought of in a political horizon that is pluriverse and not universe, monological (Resta 1999).  In this perspective, Carl Schmitt's vehement objections (sometimes charged with a katechontic apocalypticism) to the philosophical-legal universalist cosmopolitanism of the Enlightenment and its two arms (politico-military humanitarian and techno-economic), which for him represent the ideological cover for the US strategy of imposing its imperialist supremacy on the rest of the world, transforming post-war bipolarism into the monopoly of a hegemonic “global political unity” (Schmitt [1952] 1985), seem associated with the Cold War situation and somehow out of touch with the current political landscape.

Reviewer 2 Report

Excellent article, worth to publish soon. 

Author Response

Many thanks for your sympathetic reading

Reviewer 3 Report

Moving from Carl Schmitt's reflections on the spatial nature of law, property and sovereignty, the paper considers the concept of interdependence in an innovative perspective, aimed at revealing the inter-human and inter-system relations between society and the Earth. Meaningful considerations are made on the potential relevance of the proposed approach to elaborate a new ethical and legal normativity, as a tool to govern the current world ecological crisis. Significant similarities and connections are pointed out between these philosophical reflections and theological concerns about the idea of interdependence, clearly reflected in the papal concept of the 'Common home'.    

The topic covered is currently relevant in many fields of research and the paper deals with it in a multidisciplinary fashion, which takes into account law, philosophy, theology and politics. The manuscript is very well-structured, clear, scientifically sound and original. Conclusions are consistent and supported by relevant references. No suggestions for improvements are advisable.     

Author Response

Many thanks for your careful, timely and generous reading