Carl Schmitt argues that all the attempts which aim to remove sovereignty are obliged to fail. He defines the sovereign as the one who decides on the exception, meaning someone who makes a move and a decision when there’s a speculative situation either politically or economically. These exceptional situations disturb the interest, order and the safety of the state along with the public. Thus they’re are not well defined with laws or constitutions. There is no certain act that can be made while the existence of state is in peril. In this case the subject of sovereignty - the only one who can answer the only question of sovereignty - will enact what should be done. At this point Schmitt contradicts with the modern liberal constitutional developments claiming that there should not be jurisdictional limitations on the path of fixing extreme emergencies. However these liberal approaches would generally ban competence, deciding on “who should act” while eliminating the actual sovereign with checks and balances.
Schmitt then claims that there have been many definitions on the concept of sovereignty and that they’re all focused on empty abstract formulas. Except Jean Bodin who explained sovereignty as “a play between two parties where sometimes the people sometimes the prince would rule” in his book Republic. He also spoke on the violations of the situations and the new law-making or even overleaping any laws at all in cases of emergencies just like Schmitt.
According to Schmitt public order along with security of the public and the state changes from situation to situation, from ideology to ideology, from political party to political party, thus in reality in cases of disturbed situations the need of general good falls into controversy. Every legal order is based on a decision not on a norm, when there’s a problem the subject of the sovereignty is the one to answer it or fix it with a decision or an act. That is the “exception.” Norms, laws, rules are not capable of restoring orders. The rationalist scheme might believe that the exception is actually the enemy of the unity of the people of the state while the laws fixate everything. However the exception proves the existence of laws. Schmitt finalises his article quoting from Soren Kierkegaard “A Protestant Theologian” : talking endlessly about the general means nothing and only by figuring out exceptions we are able to understand the general. The general norms are only available within free of hazard borders. “The exception thinks the general with intense passion.”
Carl Schmitt clearly is the Thomas Hobbes of the modern era considering their thoughts on unity of the state, public order and such. His belief in a monopoly, strong state who ensures peace, stability is related to the Weimar order and of course with the Great War.