Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This study will address the life and work of Carl Schmitt, highlighting his legal theory, his relationship with the Nazi regime and the impact of his ideas on the process of Nazification of German law. Schmitt was a controversial thinker of the 20th century, whose legal reflection was intertwined with his political ideas and the historical context of his time. His theory of decisionism established a direct correlation between Law and Sovereignty, questioning formal normativism and liberalism. Despite being criticized for his affiliation with the Nazi party in 1933, his legal work is considered profound and coherent, deserving scientific study independent of ideologies. During the Weimar Republic, Schmitt feared the crisis and fragmentation of the German State and defended exceptional powers for the President of the Reich. The rise of the Nazis to power surprised him, but he tried to realize his constitutional theory of the "Total State", which ended up influencing the Nazification of law. The use of general clauses and vague concepts allowed the interpretation of norms in accordance with the Nazi worldview. Schmitt argued that judges should fill out the content of the clauses in accordance with the Führer's vision, aligning the courts' actions with the interests of the German people. Schmitt's relationship with the Nazi regime was ambiguous, oscillating between moments of support and distrust of Hitler. The work highlights the importance of historical contextualization to understand Schmitt's reflections and the impact of his ideas on the application of law during the Nazi period. The research seeks to offer a critical and independent analysis, aiming to deepen the understanding of the thinker and his legacy, which still resonate in contemporary debates on law and politics.
Machado et al. (Mon,) studied this question.