Ausnahmezustand [Giorgio Agamben] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Giorgio Agamben, Ausnahmezustand (Homo Sacer II). German „Homo Sacer“, the book that made Giorgio Agamben famous, ended with the cons-. Numerous authors such as Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Giorgio Agamben, Otto Depenheuer and Matthias Lemke still conceive the figure of.
|Published (Last):||23 August 2005|
|PDF File Size:||8.72 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.31 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Page references in the text refer to this issue. Yet, ausnahmezustanc mean guy does the bulk of the work, provocative, often aggressive in style and tone, but more often than not successful in making the suspect more willing to cooperate at least with the good cop. Now, the casting in the case is clear: And the big question now is: In selling his point Somsen has come up with a decent and sincere, as well as thought-provoking argument, which deserved the well-argued response Corrias has written.
But, in reaction to Corrias, I would say: Or is this just an epistemological attempt to monopolize the discourse on ecological concerns? Corrias neither launches this kind of attack, nor accuses Somsen of a manipulating strategy.
Cambridge University Press, My guess is that Somsen is very well aware of the ethical grounding of environmental policy, and he might be also more than willing to accept the critique of instrumental rationality. His argument, though, aims at meeting the political challenge of an impending ecological catastrophe 48, passim.
So the urgent question that he poses is what we are going to do in order to change the behaviour of the people if — better: To start with, environmental policy has been a classic example of the asymmetry between individual and collective rationality and the many problems of free-riding on various levels.
Machiavelli reminds us that morality and political rationality are separate concepts and that politics has its own logic. It means, in short, that politics is a space that emerges, if social norms morality, tradition etc. Pitkin, Wittgenstein and Justice. University of California Press, The lack of consensus and a considerably high degree of uncertainty about the future are the main characteristics of politics which make political decision and their legally binding consequences at the same time necessary and at least in a democratic setting time-consuming.
State of exception
This is even truer when it comes to policy change in the complex institutional setting of representative democracies, because of the considerably high numbers of veto players and of the complex forms of learning processes that each of the different political actors are involved in.
But this catastrophe is also an example of the severe difficulties policy-makers encounter if they have to organize policy changes on an European or international level. It is to a large extent an ongoing struggle about the proper instruments necessary for coordinating collective actions and about the limited resources in particular time and money that need to be allocated.
And if you take a closer look at the instruments that are also of importance in the field of environmental policy, we see that the very same forces powerfully driving modernity do not only produce these eminent ecological risks, they can also be expected to contribute substantially to the problem solving of the risks they created among them most significantly the economy and the natural and technological sciences.
To be sure, I am not saying that more technology will mitigate the risks created by technology. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne Frankfurt a. Suhrkamp,ff.
In a liberal democracy political regulations with binding legal consequences are based on constitutional provisions. For him the truth is that effective regulations will have to be at the expense of the legitimacy of law grounded in a liberal constitution 52 ; and there is no way around it: I will not enter the details here, but the bottom line for the state of exception in a Schmittian understanding is the suspension of the legal order by a sovereign political decision that itself has no legal, but rather existential grounds.
Who would these sovereign regulators be? And what source of political power would they be able to rely upon for the binding legal? Of course, it is possible to argue that if a regulator has the power a to overrule constitutional safeguards and b to enforce compliance to the law, that this is in fact a suspension of the legal order making the regulator the sovereign of the new political order. In times of the Weimar Republic or nowadays, for instance in Egypt or Libya, it is easy to imagine charismatic military leaders seizing power in order to re-establish a legal order.
Techno-regulation and law: rule, exception or state of exception?
But if they do not define them as part of the suspension of the legal order, who then is in charge to do so? What matters to Schmitt is the decision- maker ; keep in mind that it is the sovereign who decides about the state of exception, 13 x Schmitt, Politische Theologie Thus, his concern about law as code is justified: Suhrkamp, Suhrkamp,f. The suspension of the legal system does not so much empower the sovereign to act as it sets the forces of the sovereign free to do whatever they want to do.
Whereas Schmitt sees the state of exception as a temporary split between political actions on the avamben side and the legal frame for such actions on the other side, Agamben understands the state of exception as an emanation of the original split within the law being law and violence at the same time. Agamben, Ausnahmezustand For this reason they may supplement the ausnamhezustand system as a ausnahmezustahd resort regulation, similar to other legal provisions which exclude non-compliance by pure force.
Knopf, see Howard Friel: Yale University Press, Somsen does not dispute this assumption at all, instead he quotes a passage from Lawrence Lessiga prominent advocate of code law, which is so telling that all Corrias needs to do is to cite Lessing again in his response But its perfection makes it something different. One obeys these laws as code not because one should; one obeys these laws as code because one can do nothing else.
There is no choice about whether to yield to the demand for a password; one complies if one wants to enter the system. In the well implemented system, there is no civil disobedience.
Law as code is a start to the perfect technology of justice. For Corrias the concept of law as code contradicts the very notion of citizenship inherent in the idea of democratically enacted law In a fine summary of his argument he writes: It may be all too simple, but certainly not all wrong to say that Kantians turn the Aristotelian concept around by arguing that justice is the precondition for citizenship and not citizenship for justice — a citizenship that needs to be defined ultimately in cosmopolitan terms in order to get rid of the exclusion problem.
It seems to me that much of the opposition both authors talk about between legitimacy and effectiveness with respect to environmental regulations is due to the different time structures which Corrias and Somsen use for their reference scheme.
Paperroom – Demokratie im Ausnahmezustand
If that assumption is correct, then it becomes apparent that the concept of citizenship in the context of trans-generational justice invites the question of who decides about the future of future generations. And the answer of the concept of citizenship as introduced by Corrias may have an unintended effect of exclusion: By avoiding necessary steps concerning the life of future generations — in the name of our citizenship — we treat them not as future citizens but as non-members of our present polis or better: Two last agakben in favour of Aagmben.
Firstly, I would like to take up his point of citizenship again by refining the political argument in the following way. What makes code law so upsetting in a moral sense, to agambsn sure, is the paternalistic mode which disregards the concept of agency.
Instruments like those may actually contribute to the active role of the citizen. People may not have the choice to disobey, but they certainly have the choice as citizens to protest against abuse or mismanagement, and thus means to alter effectively a certain kind of techno-regulation in their community. The ethical argument that something should be done is insufficient for binding legal decisions.
On this issue which mirrors mainly the first point of my arguments I could not agree more with Corrias. Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2