The schmittian model of international law; Conceptual Consistency and Justificatory inadequacy

 Inspired by Machiavelli, Carl Schmidt considers politics to be the realm of reality, not ethics. Therefore, he observes the basic concepts of modern state theory in a historical context: the theological concepts have become secularized and replaced the omnipotent transcendental God with the absolute Sovereigns. Later, the modern wisdom with the ideal of the“rule of law” displaced the absolute rulers from the throne of the throne, and replaced the plural and degenerate pseudo-diviners. Pseudo-diviners who are sometimes bladed against themselves. And all the controversy is the same: the modern state guarantees the order and stability of society. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain it and not to blade against itself. Here the Schmidt's claim to describe "what the ruler is" finds a prescriptive aspect: if the political is tied to the absolute ruler, he must "restore the personal character of sovereignty and make it indistinguishable again." But what presuppositions and implications the retrieval of this sovereign would have for international politics and how much its worldview is successful in explaining the facts of contemporary international law? We believe that "Schmitt's success in explaining the contemporary international law bares its Hobbesian foundations. At the same time, the only way to abandon Schmitt's ingenious doctrines is to leave his realistic playground and move from the point where he escaped, namely, ethics.