Oakeshott, Hayek and Schmitt are associated with a conservative reaction to the 'progressive' forces of the twentieth century. Each was an acute analyst of the juristic form of the modern state and the relationship of that form to the idea of liberty under a system of public, general law. Hayek had the highest regard for Schmitt's understanding of the rule of law state despite Schmitt's hostility to it, and he owed the distinction he drew in his own work between a purpose-governed form of state and a law-governed form to Oakeshott. However, the three have until now rarely been considered together, something which will be ever more apparent as political theorists, lawyers and theorists of international relations turn to the foundational texts of twentieth-century thought at a time when debate about liberal democratic theory might appear to have run out of steam.
Author(s): David Dyzenhaus, Thomas Poole
Edition: 1
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Year: 2015
Language: English
Commentary: TruePDF 6x9 Format | Cover | TOC
Pages: 349
Tags: Rule Of Law; Oakeshott, Michael: 1901–1990; Hayek, Friedrich A. von (Friedrich August): 1899–1992; Schmitt, Carl: 1888–1985
Cover
Half title
Title
Copyright
Contents
Contributors
1 | Introduction
2 | The mystery of the state
3 | Law as concrete order
4 | Nomos
5 | Carl Schmitt's defence of sovereignty
6 | Schmitt, Oakeshott and the Hobbesian legacy in the crisis of our times
7 | The mystery of lawlessness
8 | Reconfiguring reason of state in response to political crisis
9 | The rules of the game
10 | Dreaming the rule of law
11 | What, if anything, is wrong with Hayek's model constitution?
12 | Hayek and the state
13 | Local and global knowledge in the administrative state
Index