Blog

Carl Schmitt indulges in polemics with the well-known neo-Kantian law theorist on the nature of juridical cognition, while the English translation neglects the historical background of the concept.

I tackle the misinterpretation of the syntactical role of the verb “schöpft” in the fourth paragraph of the Introduction. Surprisingly enough, this misinterpretation is common to all translations of Hegel’s book into English.

Carl Schmitt demonstrates the arbitrariness of the central concept of sovereignty as employed in the German theory of state, while the English translation claims this concept was derived from another principle.

Carl Schmitt describes a futile tendency in the jurisprudence of his time to strive for scientific objectivity, while the English translation actually attributes it to them.

Carl Schmitt draws our attention to the inherent limitations of practical jurisprudence when it comes to thinking the extreme, while the English translation turns his argument upside down.

Carl Schmitt explicitly discards the traditional definition of sovereignty as an empty formalism, and this characterization is lost in the English translation.