FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2897525800> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2897525800 endingPage "143" @default.
• W2897525800 startingPage "143" @default.
• W2897525800 abstract "The Opposite of Apartheid:Further Notes on Mandela and the Law Adam Sitze (bio) In his interpretation of Plato's Laws, Cicero defined law (lex) as the written expression of the right reason that is common not only to all humans but also to all gods and therefore binds the entire universe into a single commonwealth (civitas).1 For Cicero, the purpose of law is to render immanent the transcendent unity—which is not the same thing as a higher law2—that only philosophic thought (nous for Plato, recta ratio for Cicero) can properly comprehend. As distinct from Plato's nomos, however, Cicero's lex would be unburdened by any reference to the concrete distribution and partition of space. Lex, Cicero would write, has a meaning much closer to choice or selection.3 As part of his attempt to create a new form of wisdom (which Cicero calls jurisprudentia) that surpasses that of Greek philosophy,4 Cicero's translation implied a jurisdiction for reason that could not be limited in spatial terms and was instead universal in scope. Because right reason for Cicero was shared by humans and gods alike and because it binds the universe into a single civitas, the law that expresses this right reason must also be by definition spatially unlimited, indeed imperial. A particularized lex, a law that was not in some way universal but was valid only for a spatially limited concrete distribution of lots and land, would be a contradiction in terms; it would not be law at all. [End Page 143] Writing in 1957, Carl Schmitt argued that Cicero's translation of nomos into lex was one of the heaviest burdens that the conceptual and linguistic culture of the Occident has had to bear.5 For Schmitt, who at that moment had already dedicated over a decade of work to the development of a far right-wing critique of Anglo-American imperialism, law is not lex but nomos and more exactly a specifically pre-Socratic iteration of nomos. In direct opposition to Cicero and to all of his heirs (both witting and unwitting), Schmitt would propose that a law is a law only and precisely to the extent that it inscribes itself on the ground—dividing and distinguishing, including and excluding, carving out relations between inside and outside, producing boundaries that, quite contrary to the postexilic interpretation of nomos that has been perpetrated upon the West by the Jewish philosopher Philo, are prior to any distinction between law and grace and are therefore also constitutively sacred in character.6 On these terms, what would be the antithesis of a single worldwide commonwealth or civilization united under the empire of law? Just this: a humanity united only and exclusively by the untouchable barriers that divide and separate it from itself. First conceived during the 1920s and 1930s but only fully fleshed out in the late 1940s and 1950s, Schmitt's theory of the nomos answered a classic Kantian question—for what may we hope?7—but in rigorously non-Kantian terms, with no reference to providence, with polemical fury against the particular universalism of Anglo-American imperialism, and with an eye toward the crises of his present. The years in which Schmitt developed the concept of nomos, after all, were decades in which peace was pursued by two very different means. On the one hand, these years witnessed a series of discourses, institutions, and practices whose mission was not only rational and universalistic, tending toward a world civilization united by law and commerce, but also, in more ways than one, imperial. Within this tradition, which predates Immanuel Kant and stretches back to the Abbé de St.-Pierre and Jean-Jacques Rousseau but also forward to Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, one could include the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) as well as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1948) and the International Monetary Fund (1945). On the other hand, coexisting with this first at times uneasily and at other times quite easily, there is a second tradition of thinking about peace, where peace is achieved by the formal separation of populations who could be geographically partitioned on the..." @default.
• W2897525800 created "2018-10-26" @default.
• W2897525800 creator A5062036795 @default.
• W2897525800 date "2018-01-01" @default.
• W2897525800 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2897525800 title "The Opposite of Apartheid: Further Notes on Mandela and the Law" @default.
• W2897525800 cites W1519526062 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W1555205933 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W1982231815 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W2003236969 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W2017665963 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W2037878452 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W2055936744 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W2108813651 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W2182539960 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W2264086940 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W2325395669 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W2484029574 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W2568296889 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W2796493129 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W2802370494 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W54040324 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W562080708 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W614174293 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W627620107 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W629106528 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W629185114 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W644863852 @default.
• W2897525800 cites W3148660346 @default.
• W2897525800 doi "https://doi.org/10.13110/discourse.40.2.0143" @default.
• W2897525800 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2897525800 type Work @default.
• W2897525800 sameAs 2897525800 @default.
• W2897525800 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2897525800 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2897525800 hasAuthorship W2897525800A5062036795 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConcept C1014953 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConcept C2779020154 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConcept C74916050 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConceptScore W2897525800C1014953 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConceptScore W2897525800C111472728 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConceptScore W2897525800C138885662 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConceptScore W2897525800C17744445 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConceptScore W2897525800C199539241 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConceptScore W2897525800C2779020154 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConceptScore W2897525800C41895202 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConceptScore W2897525800C527412718 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConceptScore W2897525800C74916050 @default.
• W2897525800 hasConceptScore W2897525800C95457728 @default.
• W2897525800 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2897525800 hasLocation W28975258001 @default.
• W2897525800 hasOpenAccess W2897525800 @default.
• W2897525800 hasPrimaryLocation W28975258001 @default.
• W2897525800 hasRelatedWork W2001168322 @default.
• W2897525800 hasRelatedWork W2010405835 @default.
• W2897525800 hasRelatedWork W2017837955 @default.
• W2897525800 hasRelatedWork W2017965266 @default.
• W2897525800 hasRelatedWork W2040277452 @default.
• W2897525800 hasRelatedWork W2079481371 @default.
• W2897525800 hasRelatedWork W2336864317 @default.
• W2897525800 hasRelatedWork W3147619960 @default.
• W2897525800 hasRelatedWork W4289526870 @default.
• W2897525800 hasRelatedWork W2182749290 @default.
• W2897525800 hasVolume "40" @default.
• W2897525800 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2897525800 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2897525800 magId "2897525800" @default.
• W2897525800 workType "article" @default.