State of Exception - Commentary - Aaron, Timothy, Tomasz
Since state of exception seems to be (often) used to abuse the legal system (bypass it) the question arises: should state of exception even exist?
The state of exception is terminology used to describe a nation's state in terms of being inside or outside some ambiguous sphere of law. Whether the state of exception is considered to be something existing only outside of law or provisioned for within the current legal system is not necessarily clear, and various positions have been evaluated in Agamben's text.
The primary danger being that by giving the right to bypass the law (paradox in itself) to a limited number of people the whole democratic system is being abolished.
Any suspension of law can break the democratic system. Since laws are established by an elected assembly, as soon as those laws are ignored, or pushed away, the power of the elected assembly is lessened.
If the law is unable to deal with an extreme situation, it is not a sign to invoke a state of exception; instead, it is a sign that the law is incomplete, and must be changed. And this is what is happening in the USA: the law is being changed to accomodate the needs of the current administration with, for example, the Patriot Act . The state of exception is being employed via the legal process.
The state of exception should not exist. If a government needs to deal with an extreme situation, the law should be adjusted, throught democratic means, to reflect the new reality. It should not be an arbitrary decision made by a select group in power. It can be argued that a select group is always in power, but that is a subject beyond this discussion.
The state of exception is terminology used to describe a nation's state in terms of being inside or outside some ambiguous sphere of law. Whether the state of exception is considered to be something existing only outside of law or provisioned for within the current legal system is not necessarily clear, and various positions have been evaluated in Agamben's text.
The primary danger being that by giving the right to bypass the law (paradox in itself) to a limited number of people the whole democratic system is being abolished.
Any suspension of law can break the democratic system. Since laws are established by an elected assembly, as soon as those laws are ignored, or pushed away, the power of the elected assembly is lessened.
If the law is unable to deal with an extreme situation, it is not a sign to invoke a state of exception; instead, it is a sign that the law is incomplete, and must be changed. And this is what is happening in the USA: the law is being changed to accomodate the needs of the current administration with, for example, the Patriot Act . The state of exception is being employed via the legal process.
The state of exception should not exist. If a government needs to deal with an extreme situation, the law should be adjusted, throught democratic means, to reflect the new reality. It should not be an arbitrary decision made by a select group in power. It can be argued that a select group is always in power, but that is a subject beyond this discussion.
posted by Anonymous at 7:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home