/lit/ - Literature

>>21591955
It seems like law is more of a means to an end, rather than the end in itself like a perpetual motion machine in which the legal system runs perfectly smoothly like a mechanical watch where everything can be predicted perfectly, but we know that the reality of the legal systems in liberal-democratic nations is not like that.

It's more visible because it's in-your-face, and some Chinese scholars have found Schmitt interesting, after the PRC passed this "National Security Law" to crack down on Hong Kong protesters. Just to illustrate it btw, but it was interesting watching CGTN which tries to be "nice" or "decent" and not too "crazy" like Russian T.V. in English but the anchor was walking the viewer into a rather draconian law that will throw protesters in prison 4ever:

https://youtu.be/TA7nEYNUN94?t=69

But the "law" is just a fiction here, if people chose not to obey it, it wouldn't matter. But there is power behind it, which the law is somewhat of a smokescreen. This isn't to say the CCP has endless powers, but I do think they made a Schmittian state-of-exception move here because they reasoned that the protesters had reached the point where the sovereign (i.e. the party) chose to essentially move outside the law to protect the state, and then used a legal fiction to underwrite this maneuver.

However, I'm pretty sure Schmitt would see every state basically operating like this in some kinda way including the United States.