{"id":64697,"date":"2026-03-10T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-10T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/trafo.hypotheses.org\/?p=64697"},"modified":"2026-03-17T11:53:03","modified_gmt":"2026-03-17T10:53:03","slug":"carl-schmitts-afterlife-in-decolonial-theory-rereading-walter-mignolo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trafo.hypotheses.org\/64697","title":{"rendered":"Carl Schmitt\u2019s Afterlife in Decolonial Theory: Rereading Walter Mignolo"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Harald K\u00fcmmerle<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Living with Schmitt\u2019s Ghost<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To say that Carl Schmitt is a controversial figure would be an understatement. Called the \u201ccrown jurist of the Third Reich\u201d for his proactive engagement with Nazi politics, he remains a key point of reference for the New Right.[1]<\/a> His influence, however, reaches far beyond this milieu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Writing about contemporary political discourse in the United States, political philosopher Jan-Werner M\u00fcller remarked in June 2025 that we are now living in \u201cCarl Schmitt\u2019s world\u201d[2]<\/a>. One concrete manifestation of this claim could be seen in Vice President J. D. Vance\u2019s justification for the forced detention and expulsion of illegal immigrants: he invoked Augustine\u2019s concept of ordo amoris <\/em>\u2013 the theological principle of a rightly ordered hierarchy of love, from God and family outward to the wider world \u2013[3]<\/a> to argue that one must care more for those close to oneself than for those who are not. Some have argued that this aligns with Schmitt\u2019s conception of Political Theology<\/em>[4]<\/a>, as outlined below.[5]<\/a> Yet the picture is more complex. Rather than merely drawing on Schmitt to justify his own positions, Vance had, two months before becoming Donald Trump\u2019s vice-presidential candidate, accused the Left of disregarding positive law on the basis that \u201cthese guys have all read Carl Schmitt\u201d[6]<\/a>. Putting possible accusations of projection aside \u2013 in the sense that it takes one to know one \u2013 Vance is not entirely wrong: Schmitt\u2019s work has indeed been studied and appropriated by prominent leftist intellectuals.[7]<\/a> Ironically, during the George W. Bush administration it was the liberal world order and American dominance that were criticized through Schmitt-inspired arguments from the Left,[8]<\/a> the very order whose current decline many moderates on the Left now mourn.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Old

Carl Schmitt as a student, 1912. Unknown – Aus Paul Noack, Carl Schmitt, 1993, PD-alt-100, https:\/\/de.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?curid=7405802<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Seeking to understand Schmitt\u2019s lasting and conflictual influence \u2013 including his appropriation by prominent critical area studies scholars such as Naoki Sakai[9]<\/a> \u2013 I organized a reading group at the German Institute for Japanese Studies (DIJ) from April 2024 to February 2025. The thinkers whose reception of Schmitt we examined also included Argentinian semiotician Walter Mignolo, one of the most prominent figures of the Latin American decolonial school. As became clear both from circulated manuscripts and from the discussion at the workshop De-centering Academia: InterAsian Perspectives<\/em> at the DIJ (13. September 2024), Mignolo\u2019s work has served as a reference point for several participants of Shaping Asia<\/em>, an interdisciplinary research network exploring connectivities, comparisons, and collaborations across Asian societies. When I explained in my own presentation during the workshop that Mignolo had welcomed the Russian invasion of Ukraine as harbinger of a new multipolar world order,[10]<\/a> some German participants who had previously invoked Mignolo for their own arguments were surprised, if not shocked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Building on my workshop presentation, this article argues that while Mignolo’s alignment with Russia cannot be solely attributed to his appropriation of Schmitt, his ultimate stance reveals deeper contradictions inherent in Schmitt’s work itself. The article develops this argument by first delineating two phases in Schmitt’s thought that are mostly distinct.[11]<\/a> The section that follows examines how Mignolo positions Schmitt at the center of his work \u2013 in a way that, while questionable from the perspective of contemporary political science scholarship on Schmitt, raises fundamental questions about the grounds on which such appropriations can be critiqued. This is discussed in the last section.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schmitt I: Pluralism, Homogeneity, and the Concept of Great Spaces<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first phase reveals two aspects. The first aspect aims to go beyond a universalism that Schmitt sees as reducing the world to rational calculations in liberal democracy. Interested in how the order that appeared as relatively stable until the First World War had come into being, his 1922 work Political Theology<\/em> argued that all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts.[12]<\/a> The emphasis of such continuity would later prove alluring for decolonial theory. This holds even more for Schmitt’s declaration that \u201cthe political world is a pluriverse, not a universe\u201d[13]<\/a> in the 1927 article The Concept of the Political<\/em>. This appears as unproblematic, even emancipatory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the second aspect is that for Schmitt, the call for global pluralism was closely connected to an affirmation of ethnic homogeneity inside of a state. In the extended version of Concept of the Political<\/em> that appeared as a book in 1932, he argued that references to \u201chumanity\u201d in \u201cethical-humanitarian form\u201d are a vehicle for an \u201ceconomic imperialism\u201d,[14]<\/a> and that \u201cwhoever invokes humanity wants to deceive\u201d[15]<\/a>. For Schmitt, economic imperialism was beneficial to the United States and \u2013 even though the US did not join it \u2013 the foundation for the League of Nations as conceived by then-President Woodrow Wilson.[16]<\/a> Schmitt was not opposed to imperialism, past or present \u2013 in fact, he came up with a conception that allowed for territorial expansion while guaranteeing sufficient homogeneity for a functioning political entity. Positioning \u201cGreat space against universalism\u201d (Gro\u00dfraum gegen Universalismus<\/em>)[17]<\/a> in spring 1939, Schmitt argued that if a certain number of empires (Reiche<\/em>) would respect each other’s interests and not interfere in their respective spheres of influence, it would help achieve global stability.[18]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Germany and the Soviet Union, beginning in September 1939, divided up Eastern Europe in accordance with the Secret Protocol of the Molotov\u2013Ribbentrop Pact signed only weeks before, Schmitt’s conception seemed to appear viable for managing imperial competition. Schmitt’s work The Order of Great Spaces of International Law with a Ban on Intervention for Spatially Foreign Powers<\/em>,[19]<\/a> first published in 1939, developed this idea further and was met with both interest and critique while going through several revisions in less than two years. However, when the fourth edition was published in summer 1941, Germany had already attacked the Soviet Union, violating the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and betraying Schmitt’s hope. The prediction of stability was also disproven by Japan’s attack on the US later that year. Schmitt had justified the concept of great spaces partly based on how Japan’s territorial interests in East Asia had been debated in international law, under the title of the \u201cAsian Monroe Doctrine\u201d.[20]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schmitt II: Mythologizing the International Order<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the Second World War, Schmitt’s The Order of Great Spaces of International Law with a Ban on Intervention for Spatially Foreign Powers<\/em> drifted into relative obscurity.[21]<\/a> It was Schmitt’s 1950 work Nomos of the Earth<\/em>[22]<\/a>, largely completed during wartime, that became a prominent reference for decolonial theorists and Walter Mignolo in particular. In it, Schmitt constructed a genealogy of how the jus publicum europaeum<\/em> \u2013 European public international law \u2013 emerged in the early modern period. He framed colonialism outside of Europe in a distinctly positive light, arguing that it helped tame war between states inside of Europe.[23]<\/a> This interpretation has generated significant scholarly engagement \u2013 as evidenced, for instance, by a volume on \u201cgeographies and the nomos\u201d edited by historical geographer Steven Legg.[24]<\/a> However, as prominent international law scholar Martti Koskenniemi has pointed out, Schmitt’s Nomos<\/em> was not based on rigorous historiography but rather represented an arrangement of the theory he had already developed in Political Theology<\/em>: Schmitt \u201cgives the impression of describing a \u2018concrete order\u2019 when he is simply describing the logical corollaries of a theory of domestic absolutism.\u201d[25]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Book
First edition of Carl Schmitt’s “Nomos of the Earth” (1950, Greven Verlag K\u00f6ln). Scan by Harald K\u00fcmmerle. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

However, the Nomos of the Earth<\/em> also contained an aspect that Schmitt had first outlined in the article State Sovereignty and Free Sea<\/em> from early 1941: the dichotomy between sea powers rooted in the universalism he opposed, and the land powers rooted in the particularism he defended.[26]<\/a> Great Britain was, as a sea power, the most prominent bearer of universalism in the jus publicum europeaum<\/em>.[27]<\/a> The role of the US, by contrast, is something Schmitt has trouble pinning down in the 1950 Nomos<\/em>. He gestures toward an America that no longer fits into the land-sea dichotomy, but he stops short of naming what he intuits.[28]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To better understand the reception of the Nomos of the Earth<\/em> in decolonial theory, it is key to note that the English edition from 2003 included the 1955 article New Nomos of the Earth<\/em>[29]<\/a> as one of three \u201cconcluding corollaries\u201d.[30]<\/a> It is this text that Mignolo references most prominently.[31]<\/a> Writing before the Sino-Soviet split and thus perceiving a confrontation between the West and the East, he judged that the \u201cEurocentric nomos of the earth\u201d[32]<\/a> that existed was destroyed following the First World War. Schmitt sketched three scenarios for the future: The first was the emergence of a \u201cmaster of the world\u201d[33]<\/a> (Herr der Welt<\/em>) \u2013 a single power capable of enforcing a binding order everywhere. Schmitt regarded this as incompatible with human nature, and it would have gone far beyond what would come to be referred to as Pax Americana<\/em>. The second scenario was a continuation of the \u201ccurrent nomos of the earth\u201d[34]<\/a>, marked by the shift of maritime predominance from Britain to the United States and the extension of this predominance into the aerial sphere, actively balancing between the other powers in the world. Although he regarded this as the most probable trajectory, he viewed it with marked antipathy. The third scenario was the rise of multiple great spaces each having a certain homogeneity and with the principle of non-intervention between them.[35]<\/a> He strongly hoped for the third one \u2013 though by 1941, the expectation that such non-intervening great spaces would stabilize international order had already been disproven when the very powers Schmitt envisioned as respecting each other’s spheres of influence shattered that arrangement in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, in this exposition of Schmitt’s thinking, it should be emphasized that although he viewed the second scenario with marked antipathy, it structurally resembled \u2013 as political theorist and historian of ideas Herfried M\u00fcnkler has pointed out \u2013 the very world order promoted by the EU over the last decades: the attempt to secure peace through increasing global economic interdependence under the protection of the United States.[36]<\/a> Appropriating his arguments encompassed questioning this broader consensus at least partially.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mignolo’s Appropriation of Schmitt<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before elucidating how Mignolo appropriated Schmitt, it is worth noting that Schmitt’s thought can be \u2013 almost by design \u2013 operationalized against American dominance. This greatly helped a theoretical reappreciation in states that question this dominance, like Russia and China.[37]<\/a> The idea that a \u2018multipolar\u2019 world order \u2013 structurally similar to Schmitt’s third scenario \u2013 is desirable is not only fully consistent with Schmitt’s convictions laid out in The Concept of the Political<\/em> \u2013 \u201cthe political world is a pluriverse, not a universe\u201d[38]<\/a>; he reinforced it when he later spoke of the \u201cpluralist-multipolar\u201d[39]<\/a> world order. It is, then, no wonder that since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the idea of great spaces in the Schmittian sense has again gathered attention.[40]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schmitt’s centrality to Walter Mignolo’s thought is evident in the fact that his 2011 book The Darker Side of Western Modernity<\/em>, his most systematic work, opens its first chapter with a discussion of Schmitt’s Nomos of the Earth<\/em> (1950), together with The New Nomos of the Earth<\/em> (1955), which was included in the English edition he uses. Following Schmitt\u2019s characterization of the jus publicum europeaum<\/em> as the \u201csecond nomos of the earth\u201d[41]<\/a>, Mignolo chose the heading \u201cdecolonizing the second nomos of the earth\u201d[42]<\/a>. Referring to the three scenarios above, or rather, the nomoi<\/em> they would create, Mignolo holds that Schmitt gives the impression that \u201cone of the three would obtain and hold the world together\u201d. Laying out the complete framework that Mignolo proposes instead is beyond the scope of this article, but in essence, the development in the forthcoming decades will be characterized by \u201cstruggles, negotiations, competitions, and collaborations\u201d; this will only end if \u201cthe agreement is reached that global futures shall be polycentric and noncapitalist\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"A
Walter Mignolo, 2021. Photo by John West, Duke University. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

In another form and without reference to Schmitt, this general outlook had already been contained in his earlier book Local Histories\/Global Designs<\/em> (2000).[43]<\/a> However, a new ingredient that features prominently in The Darker Side of Western Modernity<\/em> is the concept of ‘dewesternization’, which had entered his writing shortly before, building on arguments of former Singaporean diplomat Kishore Mahbubani.[44]<\/a> For Mignolo, the process of \u2018dewesternization\u2019, while unable to transcend capitalism, could nevertheless help in overcoming fundamental problems in Western epistemology.[45]<\/a> By explicitly privileging the East over the West, Mignolo’s perspective becomes compatible with geopolitical actors who rhetorically pursue the third scenario of multiple great spaces \u2013 particularly China and Russia. This holds all the more since Mignolo explicitly considers dewesternization to be a \u201cstate-led project\u201d[46]<\/a>. Furthermore, from Mignolo\u2019s perspective the possible critique that great spaces with non-intervention principle are \u2013 as evidenced during the Second World War \u2013 not a stabilizing configuration can be countered at least from two positions: one, if the empires are non-Western, they may be less selfish than Western ones; and two, that arguments from established, and thus still Western-dominated, political science should not be a standard for decolonial practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This also becomes clear when he judges the declaration on international relations that Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping signed on 4 February 2022, mere weeks before the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine. Even though the statement mentions the US multiple times with decidedly negative connotations,[47]<\/a> according to Mignolo, \u201cDecolonially read, the statement is not \u2018against the West\u2019 but rather \u2018pro the East.\u2019\u201d[48]<\/a> In the same article, Mignolo discusses the Chinese concept of \u2018all under heaven\u2019 (tianxia<\/em>) as proposed by philosopher Zhao Tingyang[49]<\/a> in a decidedly favorable manner, implying that it fills an important conceptual gap with regard to \u2018dewesternization\u2019 and also connects to the above-mentioned statement by Putin and Xi: \u201cWhat Zhao proposes is a theoretical-political frame to make sense of de-Western pluriversal political philosophy and de-Western multipolarity for global interstate relations proposed by the joint statement.\u201d[50]<\/a> Mignolo’s positioning does not stop at framing China as a constructive actor. In the same work, adopting official Russian language, he clearly states: \u201cRussia’s 2022 special operation in Ukraine, responding to NATO’s provocations, with the collaboration of Ukrainian government, to \u2018contain\u2019 Russia, is a signpost of the change of era and the advent of the multipolar world order that is tantamount with the advent of the third nomos of the Earth.\u201d[51]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Challenge of Critique: Decolonial Theory’s Academic Entrenchment<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The troubling alignment between Mignolo’s decolonial theory and authoritarian geopolitics raises a crucial question: How can we effectively critique such positions when they are embedded in established academic frameworks that themselves resist challenge?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mignolo’s work has gained legitimacy through endorsement by prominent figures in progressive academia. In a 2018 work, he acknowledged feminist philosopher of science Sandra Harding as \u201ca mentor over the past years\u201d[52]<\/a> \u2013 highly significant given Harding’s central role in developing standpoint epistemology. Harding herself, writing about decolonial theory in 2016, argued that \u201cthe moral and political energies that continue to generate such discussions in [Latin America] are themselves productive for the rest of us.\u201d[53]<\/a> Standpoint epistemology, as political scientist Yascha Mounk has argued, has become a powerful force in shaping academic discourse and political consensus.[54]<\/a> Within such a context, critique becomes problematic: who has the standing to challenge a decolonial theorist’s interpretation of non-Western alternatives? Can Western scholars critique Mignolo’s embrace of \u2019dewesternization\u2019 without being accused of perpetuating epistemic violence?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Mignolo frames Russia’s invasion as merely responding to NATO provocations and heralding a multipolar world order, the critical tools that might challenge such apologetics are neutralized by appeals to epistemic diversity. The same theoretical frameworks that have productively challenged Western universalism may now shield questionable political alignments from scrutiny. This suggests that addressing the reception of thinkers like Schmitt in decolonial theory requires more than historical scholarship or theoretical analysis. It demands confronting how the very architecture of contemporary critical scholarship \u2013 particularly its emphasis on positional authority and epistemic pluralism \u2013 can inadvertently immunize authoritarian appropriations against critique. Schmitt’s ghost persists not only in geopolitical projects but also in the conceptual architectures that shape how critique itself is distributed in contemporary academia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> For a prominent account, see Volker Wei\u00df, Die autorit\u00e4re Revolte: Die Neue Rechte und der Untergang des Abendlandes<\/em> (Klett-Cotta, 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> Jan-Werner M\u00fcller, \u201cNazi Jurist Carl Schmitt\u2019s Lessons for Today,\u201d Foreign Policy<\/em>, June 30, 2025, https:\/\/foreignpolicy.com\/2025\/06\/30\/nazi-carl-schmitt-authoritarian-government-international-law\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> The concept of ordo amoris<\/em> originates in Augustine, De Civitate Dei<\/em> XV, and was later developed by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologiae<\/em> II-IIae. Vance did not use the term explicitly in his Fox News interview on January 29, 2025, but posted \u201cJust google \u2018ordo amoris\u2019\u201d on X the following day in response to criticism. See Associated Press, \u201cWhat Is \u2018ordo Amoris?\u2019 Vice President JD Vance Invokes This Medieval Catholic Concept,\u201d AP News, February 6, 2025, https:\/\/apnews.com\/article\/jd-vance-catholic-theology-migration-e868af574fb2e742c6ed3d756c569769<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> Carl Schmitt, Politische Theologie: Vier Kapitel zur Lehre von der Souver\u00e4nit\u00e4t<\/em>, Elfte, korrigierte Auflage (Duncker & Humblot, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> On this interpretation, see Carlotta Vo\u00df, \u201cDie Politische Theologie von J.D. Vance,\u201d Politik & \u00d6konomie Blog<\/em>, April 16, 2025, https:\/\/politischeoekonomie.com\/die-politische-theologie-von-j-d-vance\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> Ross Douthat, \u201cWhat J.D. Vance Believes,\u201d Opinion, The New York Times<\/em>, June 13, 2024, https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2024\/06\/13\/opinion\/jd-vance-interview.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> Matthew G. Specter, \u201cWhat\u2019s \u2018Left\u2019 in Schmitt? From Aversion to Appropriation in Contemporary Political Theory,\u201d in The Oxford Handbook of Carl Schmitt<\/em>, ed. Jens Meierhenrich and Oliver Simons, Oxford Handbooks (Oxford University Press, 2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> Jan-Werner M\u00fcller, \u201cMit Schmitt gegen Schmitt und gegen die liberale Weltordnung. Zur transatlantischen Diskussion um Globalisierung, Empire und Pax Americana,\u201d in Der Staat des Dezisionismus<\/em>, ed. R\u00fcdiger Voigt (Nomos, 2007).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> E.g. Naoki Sakai, The End of Pax Americana: The Loss of Empire and Hikikomori Nationalism<\/em>, Asia-Pacific: Culture, Politics, and Society (Duke University Press, 2022), 101.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> See, for example, Walter D. Mignolo, \u201cThe Explosion of Globalism and the Advent of the Third Nomos of the Earth,\u201d in Globalization: Past, Present, Future<\/em>, ed. Manfred B. Steger et al. (University of California Press, 2023), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1525\/luminos.172.m. In the abstract, Mignolo describes the invasion as \u201cRussia\u2019s 2022 special operation in Ukraine, responding to NATO’s provocations, with the collaboration of Ukrainian government, to \u2018contain\u2019 Russia\u201d and calls it \u201ca signpost of the change of era and the advent of the multipolar world order that is tantamount with the advent of the third nomos of the Earth.\u201d For a critique of Mignolo\u2019s position but from perspective that also aligns itself with the decolonial movement, see Selbi Durdiyeva, \u201c\u2018Not in Our Name\u2019: Why Russia Is Not a Decolonial Ally or the Dark Side of Civilizational Communism and Imperialism – The SAIS Review of International Affairs,\u201d The SAIS Review of International Affairs, May 29, 2023, https:\/\/saisreview.sais.jhu.edu\/not-in-our-name-why-russia-is-not-a-decolonial-ally-or-the-dark-side-of-civilizational-communism-and-imperialism\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> A systematic investigation would without a doubt carry out a more fine-grained division. For expositions of Schmitt’s thought, see Reinhard Mehring, Carl Schmitt zur Einf\u00fchrung<\/em>, 6., erg\u00e4nzte Auflage 2021 (Junius Verlag, 2021); Jean-Fran\u00e7ois Kerv\u00e9gan, Was tun mit Carl Schmitt?<\/em>, trans. Bernd Schwibs, with Benno Zabel (Mohr Siebeck, 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> Schmitt, Politische Theologie<\/em>, 43.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a> Carl Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen: Synoptische Darstellung der Texte<\/em>, ed. Marco Walter (Duncker & Humblot, 2018), 166\u201367.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a> Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen<\/em>, 168\u201369.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a> Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen<\/em>, 168\u201369.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a> Carl Schmitt, \u201cV\u00f6lkerrechtliche Formen des modernen Imperialismus,\u201d in Positionen und Begriffe, im Kampf mit Weimar \u2013 Genf \u2013 Versailles 1923\u20131939<\/em>, Vierte, korrigierte Auflage (Duncker & Humblot, 2014).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a> Carl Schmitt, \u201cGro\u00dfraum gegen Universalismus,\u201d in Positionen und Begriffe, im Kampf mit Weimar \u2013 Genf \u2013 Versailles 1923\u20131939<\/em>, Vierte, korrigierte Auflage (Duncker & Humblot, 2014).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a> Carl Schmitt, \u201cRaum und Gro\u00dfraum im V\u00f6lkerrecht,\u201d in Staat, Gro\u00dfraum, Nomos: Arbeiten aus den Jahren 1916-1969<\/em>, Zweite, unver\u00e4nderte Auflage, ed. G\u00fcnter Maschke (Duncker & Humblot, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/a> Carl Schmitt, V\u00f6lkerrechtliche Gro\u00dfraumordnung mit Interventionsverbot f\u00fcr raumfremde M\u00e4chte: Ein Beitrag zum Reichsbegriff im V\u00f6lkerrecht<\/em>, Vierte, um ein Personenregister erg\u00e4nzte Auflage der Ausgabe von 1941 (Duncker & Humblot, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/a> Schmitt, \u201cGro\u00dfraum gegen Universalismus.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/a> It was only recently translated into English:\u00a0Carl Schmitt, Writings on War<\/em>, ed. Timothy Nunan (Polity, 2011). For an international bibliography of primary and secondary literature on Schmitt, see Alain de Benoist, Carl Schmitt: Internationale Bibliographie der Prim\u00e4r- und Sekund\u00e4rliteratur<\/em> (Ares Verlag, 2010). Its editor Alain de Benoist, though a leading figure of the global New Right, received support also from scholars on the Left like Chantal Mouffe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/a> Carl Schmitt, Der Nomos der Erde im V\u00f6lkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europeaeum<\/em>, F\u00fcnfte Auflage (Duncker & Humblot, 2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/a> Schmitt, Der Nomos der Erde<\/em>, F\u00fcnfte Auflage, 171\u201372.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/a> Stephen Legg, Spatiality, Sovereignty and Carl Schmitt: Geographies of the Nomos<\/em>, Interventions (Routledge, 2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/a> Martti Koskenniemi, \u201cInternational Law as Political Theology: How to Read Nomos Der Erde?,\u201d Constellations<\/em> 11, no. 4 (2004): 495, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1351-0487.2004.00391.x<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26]<\/a> Carl Schmitt, \u201cStaatliche Souver\u00e4nit\u00e4t und freies Meer: \u00dcber den Gegensatz von Land und See im V\u00f6lkerrecht der Neuzeit,\u201d in Staat, Gro\u00dfraum, Nomos: Arbeiten aus den Jahren 1916-1969<\/em>, Zweite, unver\u00e4nderte Auflage, ed. G\u00fcnter Maschke (Duncker & Humblot, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[27]<\/a> Schmitt, Der Nomos der Erde<\/em>, F\u00fcnfte Auflage, 144.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[28]<\/a> See especially the chapter \u201cSinnwandel der v\u00f6lkerrechtlichen Anerkennung\u201d in Schmitt, Der Nomos der Erde<\/em>, F\u00fcnfte Auflage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[29]<\/a> Carl Schmitt, \u201cDer neue Nomos der Erde,\u201d in Staat, Gro\u00dfraum, Nomos: Arbeiten aus den Jahren 1916-1969<\/em>, Zweite, unver\u00e4nderte Auflage, ed. G\u00fcnter Maschke (Duncker & Humblot, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[30]<\/a> We use the paperback edition: Carl Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum<\/em>, First paperback edition, trans. G. L. Ulmen (Telos Press, 2006), 324\u201335.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[31]<\/a> See Walter D. Mignolo, The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options<\/em>, Latin America Otherwise (Duke University Press, 2011), passim. On page 27, Mignolo incorrectly claims that this text was also part of the second edition of the German version from 1974; but see Carl Schmitt, Der Nomos der Erde im V\u00f6lkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europeaeum<\/em>, Zweite Auflage (Duncker & Humblot, 1974).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[32]<\/a> Schmitt, \u201cDer neue Nomos der Erde,\u201d 520.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[33]<\/a> Schmitt, \u201cDer neue Nomos der Erde,\u201d 521.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[34]<\/a> Schmitt, \u201cDer neue Nomos der Erde,\u201d 521.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[35]<\/a> Schmitt, \u201cDer neue Nomos der Erde,\u201d 521.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[36]<\/a> Herfried M\u00fcnkler, Welt in Aufruhr: Die Ordnung der M\u00e4chte im 21. <\/em>Jahrhundert<\/em> (Rowohlt Berlin, 2023), 328.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[37]<\/a> However, especially in China, the reception of Schmitt cannot be reduced to merely justifying state positions; see e.g.\u00a0Sebastian Veg, \u201cThe Rise of China\u2019s Statist Intellectuals: Law, Sovereignty, and \u2018Repoliticization,\u2019\u201d The China Journal<\/em>, no. 82 (July 2019): 23\u201345, Chicago, IL, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1086\/702687<\/a>; Xie Libin and Haig Patapan, \u201cSchmitt Fever: The Use and Abuse of Carl Schmitt in Contemporary China,\u201d International Journal of Constitutional Law<\/em> 18, no. 1 (2020): 130\u201346, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/icon\/moaa015<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[38]<\/a> Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen<\/em>, 166\u201367.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[39]<\/a> Carl Schmitt, \u201cDie Ordnung der Welt nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg,\u201d in Staat, Gro\u00dfraum, Nomos: Arbeiten aus den Jahren 1916-1969<\/em>, Zweite, unver\u00e4nderte Auflage, ed. G\u00fcnter Maschke (Duncker & Humblot, 2021), 602.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[40]<\/a> Brendan Simms, Die R\u00fcckkehr des Gro\u00dfraums?<\/em>, Carl-Schmitt-Vorlesungen 6 (Duncker & Humblot, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[41]<\/a> Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth<\/em>, 352; Schmitt, \u201cDer neue Nomos der Erde,\u201d 519.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[42]<\/a> Mignolo, The Darker Side of Western Modernity<\/em>, 27\u201335. The following quotes in this paragraph are on page 33.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[43]<\/a> Walter D. Mignolo, Local Histories\/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking<\/em> (Princeton University Press, 2000).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[44]<\/a> Walter D. Mignolo, \u201cEpistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and Decolonial Freedom,\u201d Theory, Culture & Society<\/em> 26, nos. 7\u20138 (2009): 161, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0263276409349275<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[45]<\/a> Mignolo, The Darker Side of Western Modernity<\/em>, 47. More explicitly, he writes: \u201cWhile dewesternization shares with rewesternization the \u2018survival of capitalism,\u2019 the confrontation takes place at other levels of the colonial matrix of power: the sphere of authority, of knowledge, and of subjectivity.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[46]<\/a> Walter D. Mignolo, \u201cOn Pluriversality and Multipolar World Order: Decoloniality after Decolonization; Dewesternization after the Cold War,\u201d in Constructing the Pluriverse: The Geopolitics of Knowledge<\/em>, ed. Bernd Reiter (Duke University Press, 2018), 92. On the often-underestimated continuities between Schmittian thought and the early realist school of International Relations \u2013 where states are frequently treated as ‘black boxes’ \u2013 see Matthew Specter, The Atlantic Realists: Empire and International Political Thought Between Germany and the United States<\/em> (Stanford University Press, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[47]<\/a> Russian Federation and People\u2019s Republic of China, \u201cJoint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People\u2019s Republic of China on the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development,\u201d April 2, 2022, https:\/\/www.lawinfochina.com\/display.aspx?id=8215&lib=tax&SearchKeyword&SearchCKeyword.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[48]<\/a> Mignolo, \u201cThe Explosion of Globalism and the Advent of the Third Nomos of the Earth,\u201d 203.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[49]<\/a> Tingyang Zhao, Alles unter dem Himmel: Vergangenheit und Zukunft der Weltordnung<\/em>, trans. Michael Kahn-Ackermann, suhrkamp taschenbuch wissenschaft 2282 (Suhrkamp, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[50]<\/a> Mignolo, \u201cThe Explosion of Globalism and the Advent of the Third Nomos of the Earth,\u201d 203.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[51]<\/a> Mignolo, \u201cThe Explosion of Globalism and the Advent of the Third Nomos of the Earth,\u201d 193.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[52]<\/a> Walter D. Mignolo, \u201cForeword: On Pluriversality and Multipolarity,\u201d in Constructing the Pluriverse: The Geopolitics of Knowledge<\/em>, ed. Bernd Reiter (Duke University Press, 2018), xv.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[53]<\/a> Sandra Harding, \u201cLatin American Decolonial Social Studies of Scientific Knowledge: Alliances and Tensions,\u201d Science, Technology, & Human Values<\/em> 41, no. 6 (2016): 1080, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0162243916656465<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[54]<\/a> Yascha Mounk, Im Zeitalter der Identit\u00e4t: Der Aufstieg einer gef\u00e4hrlichen Idee<\/em>, trans. Helmut Dierlamm and Sabine Reinhardus (Klett-Cotta, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

About the Author<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. phil. Harald K\u00fcmmerle<\/strong>, M.Sc., is Principal Researcher at the German Institute for Japanese Studies (DIJ) in Tokyo, where he heads the Knowledge Lab, which is focused on knowledge production and knowledge infrastructures. He has organized reading groups on topics including the international reception of Carl Schmitt’s thought and \u201cimaginaries and modernities\u201d. His research interests include the history of mathematics, new materialism, digital humanities, and critical data studies. His recent publications include \u201cFrom Data Universalism to Data Particularism: Epistemologizing Digital Sovereignty Based on Germany’s and Japan’s COVID-19 Responses\u201d Global Studies Quarterly<\/em>, 2025, with Johannes Thumfart) and \u201cDatenstr\u00f6me und Raumordnung: Japans Regulierungsmodell im globalen Kontext\u201d (Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Digitalisierung und Recht<\/em>, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Other Articles in the Series “De-centering Academia: InterAsian Perspectives<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Claudia Derichs, Riho Isaka and Joanna Pfaff-Czarnecka, De-centering academia: InterAsian Perspectives<\/a>, in: TRAFO \u2013 Blog for Transregional Research, 03.02.2026, https:\/\/trafo.hypotheses.org\/64183<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Citation: Harald K\u00fcmmerle, Carl Schmitt\u2019s Afterlife in Decolonial Theory: Rereading Walter Mignolo, in: TRAFO \u2013 Blog for Transregional Research, 10.03.2026, https:\/\/trafo.hypotheses.org\/64697<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Harald K\u00fcmmerle. To say that Carl Schmitt is a controversial figure would be an understatement. Called the \u201ccrown jurist of the Third Reich\u201d for his proactive engagement with Nazi politics, he remains a key point of reference for the New Right. His influence, however, reaches far beyond this milieu. This article argues that while Mignolo’s alignment with Russia cannot be solely attributed to his appropriation of Schmitt, his ultimate stance reveals deeper contradictions inherent in Schmitt’s work itself. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7278,"featured_media":64717,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_license":"","publish_to_discourse":"","publish_post_category":"","wpdc_auto_publish_overridden":"1","wpdc_topic_tags":"","wpdc_pin_topic":"","wpdc_pin_until":"","discourse_post_id":"","discourse_permalink":"","wpdc_publishing_response":"","wpdc_publishing_error":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[5466927],"tags":[5467029,561317,5467036],"ppma_author":[5466756],"class_list":["post-64697","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-de-centering-academia","tag-carl-schmitt","tag-decolonization","tag-walter-mignolo"],"authors":[{"term_id":5466756,"user_id":7278,"is_guest":0,"slug":"forumtransregionalestudien","display_name":"Forum Transregionale Studien","avatar_url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/69dd3666a04650fb8fd80d0381cc604d01ed0935b387553edcf978070fd5dc50?s=96&d=mm&r=g","1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/trafo.hypotheses.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64697","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/trafo.hypotheses.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/trafo.hypotheses.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trafo.hypotheses.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7278"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trafo.hypotheses.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64697"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/trafo.hypotheses.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64697\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":64817,"href":"https:\/\/trafo.hypotheses.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64697\/revisions\/64817"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trafo.hypotheses.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/64717"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/trafo.hypotheses.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64697"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trafo.hypotheses.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64697"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trafo.hypotheses.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64697"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trafo.hypotheses.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=64697"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}