---
title: "European Civilization’s “Free Space” and Modern China · 欧洲文明的“自由空间”与现代中国"
author: "Liu Xiaofeng"
translator: "S. Alexander Laurent (AI-assisted, 2026)"
title_ru: "«Свободное пространство» европейской цивилизации и современный Китай"
author_ru: "Лю Сяофэн"
languages: [zh, en]
shelf: "LCI editions"
section: 5 of 11
url: https://scriptura.si/works/liu-xiaofeng-free-space/5/
cite: "Liu Xiaofeng, tr. S. Alexander Laurent (AI-assisted, 2026), European Civilization’s “Free Space” and Modern China · 欧洲文明的“自由空间”与现代中国, section 5. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/liu-xiaofeng-free-space/5/"
---

# European Civilization’s “Free Space” and Modern China · 欧洲文明的“自由空间”与现代中国

*Liu Xiaofeng, tr. S. Alexander Laurent (AI-assisted, 2026)*

Russian: «Свободное пространство» европейской цивилизации и современный Китай, Лю Сяофэн

Liu Xiaofeng’s long essay of 2018 on Carl Schmitt’s The Nomos of the Earth: how Europe’s “free space” of conquest made modern international law, and what that order has meant for China, from the Treaty of Tordesillas to the Thirty-Eighth Parallel. With his 41 notes. In Chinese beside a new English translation.

> Chinese: 刘小枫，《欧洲文明的“自由空间”与现代中国——读施米特〈大地的法〉札记》, as republished on Sohu, 12 December 2018 (original journal pagination not reconstructed).

> English: Laurentium Cultural Industries, complete translation with the author’s 41 notes (9 October 2026).

## 5. 3. What Is “Global Linear Thinking”?

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/liu-xiaofeng-free-space/5/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/liu-xiaofeng-free-space/5/#p-N

[¶0] 3. What Is “Global Linear Thinking”?

> Chinese: 三、什么是“全球划界思维”

[¶1] If this is so, the first section of Chapter 2, entitled “The Appropriation of the New World,” is the key to the entire book; the following two sections merely begin to develop its basic argument. To grasp this section is to grasp the essential meaning of the book, and it therefore deserves close reading.

> Chinese: 倘若如此，题为“占取新世界”的第二章第一节是全书关键，随后两节不过是对第一节中的基本论点的初步展开。把握这一节也就能把握全书要义，因此值得细看。

[¶2] This section is not long, approximately fifteen pages. Let us first consider its title: “The First Global Lines.” The term “dividing line” implies an act of “division.” According to Schmitt’s etymological explanation of “nomos,” it means “division, appropriation, and nurturing.” Drawing a “dividing line” thus means establishing a “nomos of the earth” and the spatial order that follows from it. Hence his statement that the global division set in motion by “the circumnavigation of the globe and the discovery of the New World at the beginning of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries” brought about the formation of the world law of the European epoch, namely international law, and that the history of its formation “continued into the twentieth century” (p. 55).

> Chinese: 这一节篇幅不长（大约 15页），让我们首先关注标题：“最初的地球分界线”。“分界线”这个术语隐含“划分”行为，按施米特对“法”的词源学解释，“法”意味着“划分、占取、养育”。从而，“分界线”的划分意味着创立一种“大地法”以及随之而来的空间秩序。所以他说，“ 15、 16世纪伊始的环球航行以及新大陆的发现”引发的全球划分，促成了欧洲纪元的天下法——国际法的形成，而这个形成史“一直持续到20世纪”（页 55）。

[¶3] The discovery of the New World immediately brought disputes over land-appropriation and sea-appropriation (Land - und Seenahme). The division and structure of the earth increasingly became a shared concern among neighboring peoples and powers. The earth’s dividing lines now had to be redrawn, and the land of the globe required a new division and arrangement. (p. 55)

> Chinese: 新大陆的发现立即带来了有关占地和夺海（Land - und Seenahme）的纷争。地球的划分与结构越来越成为相邻人群与势力之间的共同话题。此时，地球的分界线需要重新设定，全球的土地需要作出新的划分与安排。（页55）

[¶4] This was the beginning of the European epoch, or the modern beginning of world history, and of course the beginning of “Eurocentrism.” It was accompanied by a heightened historical and scientific consciousness. Put another way, as the world law of the European epoch took shape, Europe produced a vast range of writings of every kind, whose hold on scholarly thought has yet to be broken.

> Chinese: 这就是欧洲纪元的开端，或者说世界历史的现代开端，当然也是“欧洲中心主义”的开端。随之而来的还有历史意识和科学意识的提升，或者说随欧洲纪元的天下法的形成，欧洲产生出大量各色著述，迄今的学术思考还没有摆脱这些著述的支配。

[¶5] Anyone would acknowledge that the facts Schmitt adduces are well founded. The question is how to understand this beginning. For Schmitt, “from the standpoint of political practice, what matters is not the regional division of the earth’s surface, but the actual content of the earth’s spatial order” (p. 55). Yet Mackinder likewise views the historical transformations of the world’s geopolitical configuration “from the standpoint of political practice.” Why, then, is his approach problematic? Is it really impossible to distinguish right from wrong in political matters?

> Chinese: 谁都会承认，施米特所说的事实有根有据，问题在于，如何理解这个开端。对施米特来说“从政治实践层面来看，重要的不是地球表面的区域划分，而是地球空间秩序的实际内容”（页 55）。可是，麦金德同样“从政治实践层面来看”世界地缘的历史嬗变，为何又有问题？难道人们在政治问题上真的没法判别对错？

[¶6] Schmitt goes on to point out that the Eurocentrism of the European epoch is essentially a doctrine of civilizational superiority. Once American-centrism replaces Eurocentrism, a doctrine of American civilizational superiority makes its historical entrance:

> Chinese: 施米特接下来指出，欧洲纪元的欧洲中心主义实质上是一种文明优越论。一旦美国中心论取代欧洲中心论，美国文明优越论就历史地出场了：

[¶7] From the sixteenth to the twentieth century, European international law regarded the Christian states of Europe as the creators and bearers of the entire world order. The “European standard” was taken as the normal standard of the time, naturally applicable to the other parts of the world. “Civilization” as such was equated with “European civilization.” In this sense, Europe continued to be regarded as the center of the world. When the “New World” appeared, Europe naturally assumed the position of the “Old World.” The appearance of the American continent disclosed an entirely new world: even those scholars and cosmographers of antiquity and the Middle Ages who knew that the world was spherical and that one could reach India by sailing continually westward had never imagined that such a vast continent existed between Europe and East Asia. (pp. 55–56)

> Chinese: 16到20世纪的欧洲国际法，将欧洲基督教国家视为整个世界秩序的创造者和承担者。“欧洲标准”被认为是当时的常态标准，理所当然地适用于世界其他板块。所谓“文明”即被等同于“欧洲文明”。在此意义上，欧洲依然被看作是世界的中心。当“新世界”出现之时，欧洲的地位自然就成了“老世界”。美洲大陆的出现，展现了一个全新的世界，因为即便是古代和中世纪那些了解世界是一个球体、一直向西航行即可抵达印度的学问家和宇宙学家们也不曾料想，在欧洲和东亚之间竟还有这样一片广袤大陆的存在。（页55 - 56）

[¶8] Strictly speaking, a civilizational doctrine of “self-centeredness” is a general characteristic of classical civilizations. Schmitt was of course well aware that “the Christian peoples and princes of the Middle Ages all regarded Rome in Europe or Jerusalem as the center of the world.” We might add that the ancient Chinese regarded China as the center of the world. The difference is that, although the ancients in Europe, like the ancient Chinese, knew nothing of the other ancient parts of the earth’s surface, they were fully aware that powerful and dangerous enemies surrounded them on every side, whereas the powerful foreign enemies threatening the ancient Chinese came chiefly from the west and the north.

> Chinese: 严格来讲，文明的“自我中心”论是古典文明的一般特征。施米特当然清楚，“中世纪的基督教各民族及其王侯们，都将欧洲的罗马或耶路撒冷看成世界的中心。”我们会补充说，中国古人会把中国看成世界的中心。不同的是，欧洲的古人尽管与古代中国人一样，对世界地表上的其他古老部分并无了解，却充分了解自己的周边到处是强大而又危险的敌人，而威胁着古代中国人的强大外敌，主要来自西面和北面。

[¶9] For Schmitt, the fact that 1492 marked the birth of a “New World” meant that the great geographical discoveries had radically transformed traditional concepts “ranging from the earth’s center (Mitte) to its age (Alter).” Europeans now saw “an immense, hitherto unknown, non-European space,” and proceeded to seize and possess this new space. From this Schmitt advances his central argument:

> Chinese: 在施米特看来， 1492年标志着一个“新世界”的诞生意味着，地理大发现彻底改变了“包括地球的中心（Mitte）到地球的年龄（Alter）”的传统概念。现在，欧洲人看到了“一个巨大的、迄今为止不为人知的、非欧洲的空间”，并进而夺取和占有这一新空间。施米特由此提出了自己的关键论点：

[¶10] The most fundamental and decisive point for the ensuing centuries was that this newly emergent world was not treated as an enemy, but as free space (freier Raum), that is, as ownerless land (freies Feld) freely available for European conquest and expansion. During the first three hundred years, Europe undoubtedly assigned itself an exceptionally commanding position: it was both the center of the world and the center of the old continent. Yet from the outset the New World overturned the previous content of such concrete concepts as “center” and “old.” For the struggle among the European powers for the New World now began, and behind these conflicts a new spatial order and a new pattern of division were on the verge of emerging. (p. 56)

> Chinese: 对之后几个世纪最本质和关键的一点是，这个新出现的世界并没有被当作敌人，而是被当作自由空间（freier Raum），即被当作可以任由欧洲去征服和扩张的无主土地（freies Feld）。在起初的三百年间，欧洲的自我定位无疑极其强势：欧洲既是世界的中心，也是老大陆的中心。但新世界从一开始就颠覆了以往关于“中心”或“古老”这些具体概念的内涵。因为从今往后，欧洲内部列强争夺新世界的争战拉开了序幕，在这些争斗背后，新的空间秩序和新的划分格局呼之欲出。（页56）

[¶11] The question Schmitt proceeds to investigate is this: what relationship does the European powers’ struggle for the New World bear to the rise and decline of European public law?

> Chinese: 施米特要进一步探究的问题是：欧洲列强争夺新大陆与欧洲公法的兴衰有什么关系。

[¶12] Treaty of Tordesillas

> Chinese: Tratado de Tordesillas

[¶13] The discovery of the New World and the struggle for it prompted attempts by European states to conclude treaties through “amicable negotiation,” dividing up the new space for appropriation. This was the beginning of European international law; in other words, European international law originated in efforts to settle the conflicts among European states arising from their struggle for newly discovered spaces on the earth’s surface. The Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 was only the beginning of such attempts. During the following three hundred years, wars among European states grew ever more numerous, as did treaties to settle or restrain them. In practical terms, therefore, the formation and development of European international law were chiefly intended to limit wars among the political entities within the community of Christian Europe. Yet Schmitt emphasizes that European international law was born with an inherent internal contradiction: wars among the European kingdoms grew increasingly fierce over the division and appropriation of new spaces in the world; if the original meaning of “nomos” is “division, appropriation, and nurturing,” how could European international law genuinely limit wars arising from division and appropriation?

> Chinese: 新大陆的发现和争夺，催生了欧洲国家之间通过“友好协商”签订条约来划分占取新空间的尝试。这是欧洲国际法的开端，或者说，欧洲国际法源于平息欧洲国家之间因争夺新发现的地表空间而产生的冲突。 1494年的《托尔德西利亚条约》仅仅是这种尝试的开端，在随后三百年的历史过程中，欧洲国家之间的战争越来越多，平息或约束战争的条约也越来越多。因此，从实践上讲，欧洲国际法的形成和发展，主要是为了限制基督教欧洲共同体内部各政治体之间的战争。但施米特强调，欧洲国际法的诞生在一开始就带有与生俱来的内在矛盾：欧洲王国之间的战争因划分和占取新的世界空间而日趋激烈，“法”的本义就是“划分、占取、养育”，欧洲国际法又何以可能真正限制因划分和占取而引发的战争。

[¶14] Schmitt therefore emphasizes that what matters is to recognize that the discovery of the New World and the ensuing struggle among the European powers gave rise to “a particular mode of thinking,” namely “global linear thinking” (globales Liniendenken):

> Chinese: 因此，施米特强调，重要的是应该看到，新大陆的发现以及引发的欧洲列强争夺，催生出“一种特定的思维方式”，即“全球划界思维”（globales Liniendenken）：

[¶15] This mode of thinking constituted a distinctive stage in the development of human spatial consciousness and began to take root with the discovery of the “New World” and the opening of the “modern age” (Beginn der “Neuzeit”). It advanced step by step alongside the development of cartography and of the globe itself. As the word global [worldwide] indicates, this thinking already encompassed the whole earth, both its surface and what lay beneath; its all-embracing character was already pronounced, and it rested on the equal juxtaposition (Gleichsetzung) of sea and land. (p. 57)

> Chinese: 这种思维方式在人类空间意识的发展历程中成为特别的一个阶段，并随着“新大陆”的发现与“新时代”的开场（Beginn der “Neuzeit”）而开始植根。这种思维方式，随着地图绘制和地球本身的发展，也一步一步向前发展。从global[全球]这个词语看来，这种思维已经覆盖了全部地球，包括地表和地下，其无所不包的特点已经很凸现，并基于海洋和陆地的平等并置（Gleichsetzung）。（页57）

[¶16] Here Schmitt refers to the critical argument he has already advanced in the “Preface”: this thinking “was highly political from the outset and cannot be understood merely in a geographical sense.” Mackinder is renowned as a geographer, but we should not imagine him to be a natural scientist with supposedly apolitical, neutral qualities. In fact, Mackinder’s historical-geographical conception of the world displays the unmistakably political features of “linear thinking”: the Eurasian heartland / the crescent belt / the outer crescent belt. The following sentence may be said to strike directly at the crux of Mackinder’s essay “The Geographical Pivot of History”:

> Chinese: 在这里，施米特提到他在“前言”中已经提出的批判性观点：这种思维“从一开始就是高度政治性的，而不能仅仅是地理学意义上的”。麦金德以地理学家著称，我们不能以为他是个自然科学家，似乎具有非政治的中性特征。事实上，麦金德的世界历史地理观带有非常明显的政治性“划界思维”特征：欧亚大陆腹地 / 新月形地带 / 外新月形地带。下面这句话可以说直指麦金德《历史的地理枢纽》一文的要害：

[¶17] The neutrality of geography itself failed to prevent the onset of a political struggle, a struggle that immediately unfolded around geographical concepts. (p. 57)

> Chinese: 地理学本身的中立性未能阻却一场政治斗争的开场，这是一场围绕地理概念而旋即上演的政治斗争。（页57）

[¶18] The word “neutrality” here recalls Schmitt’s famous critique of liberal political science and jurisprudence in The Concept of the Political: the “neutrality” vaunted by this political science and jurisprudence is either self-deception that deceives others or a form of political deception. Seen in this light, the questions Schmitt considers in The Nomos of the Earth belong to the same line of thought as those he considers in The Concept of the Political.

> Chinese: 这里出现的“中立性”一词会让我们想起施米特在《政治的概念》中对自由主义政治学- 法学的著名批判：这种政治学 - 法学所标榜的“中立性”不是自欺欺人，就是一种政治欺骗。由此看来，施米特在《大地的法》中所思考的问题，与他在《政治的概念》中思考的问题一脉相承。

[¶19] He immediately gives two examples. First, Hobbes’s political philosophy rests on geometry and arithmetic, making it appear that he is discussing “self-evident axioms,” whereas it actually implies “the urgent necessity of distinguishing friend from enemy.” Second, the location of the prime meridian on today’s globes is not the result of scientific neutrality, but of “the struggle between the French and the English for command of the seas and dominion over the world”: the English placed the meridian through Greenwich, while since the eighteenth century the French had placed the prime meridian at the Paris Observatory, only abandoning their contest with the English in the twentieth century. The German astronomical almanac, too, “did not submit to the Greenwich meridian until 1916.”

> Chinese: 他马上举了两个例子，第一，霍布斯的政治哲学有几何学和算术学垫底，似乎他谈论的是“不言自明的公理”，其实隐含着“急迫地划分敌我的必要性”。第二，今日地球仪上的本初子午线的定位，不是科学的中立性结果，而是“法国人和英国人在制海权和世界主宰权上斗争”的结果：英国人把子午线定在跨越格林威治的位置，而法国人自18世纪以来就将本初子午线定在巴黎天文台所处的位置，直到20世纪才放弃同英国人较劲，而德国的星象学年鉴“也直至1916年才屈就于格林威治子午线”。

[¶20] The example of Hobbes has theoretical implications: it means that the “global linear thinking” Schmitt discusses is a question of political philosophy. Thus The Nomos of the Earth is by no means merely a work on the legal history of international law; it is also a work of political philosophy.

> Chinese: 霍布斯的例子具有理论意涵，这意味着，施米特所讨论的“全球划界思维”是个政治哲学问题。从而，《大地的法》绝非仅仅是关于国际法的法学史论著，也是政治哲学论著。

[¶21] From the perspective of world history, the great geographical discoveries passed through three stages over almost three centuries. Overseas competition between the kingdoms of Spain and Portugal was only the first stage, during which Spain discovered and appropriated South America. Spain and Portugal used force to monopolize the sea routes and forbid other kingdoms from using them. The kingdoms of England and France therefore had to open alternative routes, proceeding westward from the north, northwest, or northeast in the direction pioneered by Columbus. This led to new discoveries: vast expanses of North American land stretching from the Caribbean to the Arctic, whose colonization began immediately.

> Chinese: 从世界史角度上讲，地理大发现经历了三个阶段，历时差不多三个世纪，西班牙与葡萄牙两个王国的海外竞争仅仅是第一阶段，西班牙发现并占取了南美洲。西班牙和葡萄牙凭靠武力霸占了航线，不准其他王国使用，英格兰和法兰西王国只有另辟航路，从北面、西北面或东北面沿哥伦布开辟的方向往西，结果有了新的发现——发现从加勒比海到北极的北美洲大片陆地，并随即开始殖民。

[¶22] After 1632, the kingdoms of England and the Netherlands rose to challenge the hegemony of the Spanish kingdom, forcibly using its sea routes and beginning trade wars for control of Asia. This period, which continued into the first thirty years of the eighteenth century, is historically known as the second stage of the great geographical discoveries. In the mid-eighteenth century, the European kingdoms led the exploration of the Americas and Asia: naval fleets took scientists on exploratory voyages, broadly establishing the general configuration of the land along the eastern and western shores of the Pacific and proving Ptolemy’s geographical conjectures wrong. This is historically known as the “Silver Age” of geographical discovery. After Cook discovered the lands of the South Pacific, very little coastline on the earth remained to be explored. This is historically known as the third stage of the great geographical discoveries; only then did the now-established world maps and globes we use today come into being.

> Chinese: 1632年以后，英格兰王国和荷兰王国崛起，冲撞西班牙王国的霸权，强行占用其航路，开始了争夺亚洲的贸易战，一直到 18世纪前 30年，史称第二阶段的地理大发现。 18世纪中期，欧洲王国主导了对美洲和亚洲的探索：航队由海军带着科学家进行探察，大致搞清了太平洋东西海岸陆地的一般结构，证实了托勒密的地理设想是错的——史称地理发现的“白银时代”。库克发现南太平洋的陆地之后，地球上留待探察的海岸线已经所剩无几——史称第三阶段的地理大发现，从此才有了今天作为定版的世界地图和地球仪。

[¶23] Here Schmitt focuses his account on the historic acts of boundary-drawing in the first two stages, seeking to reveal the differences between their respective forms of “linear thinking.” We must attend to the political-historiographical intention behind this manner of writing.

> Chinese: 施米特在这里着重记叙了前两个阶段的历史性划界事件，并力图揭示这两个阶段的“划界思维”的差异。我们必须关注，他的如此笔法的政治史学意图何在。

[¶24] Schmitt says that 1492 is merely the emblematic year in which Columbus was commissioned to undertake his voyage; it is not the beginning of “linear thinking.” The true beginning was the “papal meridian” promulgated by Pope Alexander VI on May 4, 1494, to resolve the dispute between the kingdoms of Spain and Portugal. In passing, Schmitt refutes the claim that a fixed land and a free sea have stood in opposition since antiquity:

> Chinese: 施米特说， 1492年仅仅是哥伦布受命远航的标志性年份，它并不是“划界思维”的开端。真正的开端是罗马教宗亚历山大六世在 1494年 5月 4日发布的“教宗子午线”，以此解决西班牙王国与葡萄牙王国的争端。施米特顺便驳斥了确定的陆地与自由的海洋自古对立的论调：

[¶25] The opposition between fixed land and free sea, embodied in the spatial order of international law between 1713 and 1939, was still unknown at the time these lines were drawn. (p. 58)

> Chinese: 1713年到1939年之间国际法空间秩序所体现出的确定陆地与自由海洋之间的对立，在划界的当时还是陌生的事情。（页58）

[¶26] The fixity of the land means that land belongs to a sovereign; the freedom of the sea means that the sea has not yet been placed under sovereignty. Only a month after the “papal meridian” was drawn, on June 7, Spain and Portugal drew another meridian by signing the Treaty of Tordesillas under the mediation of a papal envoy. In Schmitt’s view, this treaty divided, or more precisely carved up, the entire oceanic extent of the globe for the first time: “Taking this meridian as the boundary, newly discovered regions to the west belonged to Spain, and newly discovered regions to the east to Portugal.” In other words, the appropriation of land included the right to control maritime passages; henceforth, the sea no longer possessed the “free” character of something without an owner.

> Chinese: 陆地的确定性指陆地有主权归属，海洋的自由性指海洋尚未有主权归属。“教宗子午线”划过之后仅仅一个月（6月 7日），西班牙和葡萄牙在教宗使节调停下，通过签订《托尔德西利亚条约》又划定了另一条子午线。在施米特看来，这个条约首次划分——或更准确地说瓜分了——整个地球的海洋范围：“以该子午线为界，往西新发现的区域归西班牙，往东新发现的区域归葡萄牙。”换言之，对陆地的占取包含对海洋通道的控制权，从此海洋不再具有无主的“自由”性质。

[¶27] As a supplement to the Treaty of Tordesillas, Spain and Portugal signed the Treaty of Saragossa (Vertrag von Saragossa) in April 1529, drawing a so-called “raya line” (Raya) through eastern Siberia, Japan, and central Australia, running the length of the western Pacific. This global dividing line is of great importance not only in Schmitt’s subsequent discussion but also to us, because it lies close to China, quite apart from the fact that this remains to the present day what geopolitics calls a shatterbelt.

> Chinese: 作为《托尔德西利亚条约》的补充，西班牙和葡萄牙在 1529年 4月签订《萨拉戈萨条约》（Vertrag von Saragossa），划定了一条穿过东西伯利亚、日本和澳大利亚中部的所谓“拉亚线”（Raya），纵贯太平洋西部。这条地球分界线不仅在施米特随后的论述中非常重要，而且对我们也非常重要，因为这条线靠近中国，更不用说这里直到如今仍然是政治地缘学所谓的破碎地带。

[¶28] Then, in 1559, Spain and France signed the Peace of Cateau-Cambrésis (Cateau Cambrésis). This division marked a turning point in world history, because this time the dispute over partition was being settled between Spain and France. This meant that conflicts over boundary-drawing had extended beyond the great family of the Holy Roman Empire. Even so, this treaty dividing spheres of influence stressed its supposedly “amicable” character. In other words, although Spain and France did not belong to the same political unit, they nevertheless acknowledged that both belonged to the European family and believed in the same God, and that their dispute over partition should be resolved “amicably.”

> Chinese: 接下来的 1559年，西班牙和法国之间签订了《卡托-康布雷齐和约》（Cateau Cambrésis）。这次划分具有世界历史的转折意义，因为，这次是西班牙与法国解决争分。这意味着，划界冲突已经越出神圣罗马帝国这个大家庭范围。尽管如此，这次划分势力范围的条约强调了所谓“友好”性质。换言之，尽管西班牙与法国不属于同一个政治单位，毕竟认同双方都属于欧洲大家庭，信奉同一个上帝，应该“友好”解决争分。

[¶29] The Peace of Cateau-Cambrésis, or the symbolic reconciliation between France and Spain.

> Chinese: La paix du Cateau-Cambresis ou la réconciliation symbolique entre la France et l'Espagne.

[¶30] Schmitt’s world-historical gaze then suddenly turns to the Second World War in the twentieth century, and he mentions the rise of the United States.

> Chinese: 随后，施米特的世界史目光突然投向了 20世纪的第二次世界大战，并提到美国的崛起。

[¶31] Global linear thinking has its own distinctive developmental path and history. Its various instances must now be assessed further from the perspective of the spatial order of international law. Together, these instances form an interconnected and unified theoretical sequence extending from the discovery of the New World of the Americas in 1492 to American declarations during the Second World War. (p. 60)

> Chinese: 全球性的划界思维有其独特的发展路径和历史。这种思维的多个例证现在要以国际法空间秩序的眼光来进一步评断。这些例证共同构成自1492年发现美洲新大陆到二战时的美国声明期间一系列相互关联而统一的理论序列。（页60）

[¶32] What does Schmitt mean by placing the discovery of the American New World in 1492 alongside the United States during the Second World War and joining them into a long historical thread? Does he mean to say that the twentieth century’s Second World War was merely the latest of Europe’s repeated redrawing of global boundaries since 1492?

> Chinese: 施米特把 1492年发现美洲新大陆与二战时的美国相提并论，并连成一条历史的长段线索，其意何在？难道他想要说， 20世纪的第二次世界大战不过是欧洲自 1492年以来的多次更改全球划界的最近一次而已？

[¶33] It is not difficult to understand why Schmitt attaches greater importance to “raya lines” and “amity lines.” The “raya lines” show that lands and seas far from Europe had become objects of contention among the European powers; the “amity lines” show that more European powers had joined the struggle. Chapter 3 therefore begins with the following heading: the state becomes the leading force in the new interstate, Eurocentric global spatial order. This raises the need for European states to regulate their relations by establishing laws: a common law among European states, namely international law, became an urgent necessity.

> Chinese: 施米特更看重“拉亚线”和“友好线”，原因不难理解。因为，“拉亚线”表明，远离欧洲地域的陆地和海洋成了欧洲强国的争夺对象；“友好线”则表明，更多的欧洲强国加入了争夺行列。因此，第三章以这样一个标题开始：国家成为新的国家间欧洲中心主义全球空间秩序的主导力量。这就引出欧洲国家之间必须通过订立法律来规约相互关系的问题——欧洲国家之间的共同法即国际法成为当务之急。

[¶34] But why does Schmitt connect the “raya lines” and “amity lines” to the United States in the twentieth century? We may suppose that, according to the logic of “raya lines” and “amity lines,” a rising United States was bound to participate in the European kingdoms’ disputes over boundaries and partition, since it was, after all, a country born from Europe’s womb. We all know that, from the Cairo Declaration to the Yalta Agreement, the United States and Soviet Russia presided over a new round of global boundary-drawing. Needless to say, as had repeatedly happened throughout earlier history, the redrawing of boundaries depended on victory or defeat in wars between states. Even when the European states fought one another to pieces over global boundaries, they remained within the “amity lines.” Yet after the Second World War in the twentieth century, the United States revised the principle of “amity lines,” which could be called a modern European tradition, breaking the rules of European public international law that had developed over nearly three hundred years and overturning Europe’s “amicable” law of war.

> Chinese: 可是，施米特为什么要把“拉亚线”和“友好线”与 20世纪的美国联系起来呢？可以设想，按照“拉亚线”和“友好线”的逻辑，美国的崛起必定会参与欧洲王国之间的划界争分，因为美国毕竟是出自欧洲母腹的国家。我们都清楚，从开罗宣言到雅尔塔协议，美国和苏俄主持了新一轮全球划界。不用说，与过去的历史上一再出现的情形一样，重新划界取决于国家间的战争胜负。欧洲国家即便因全球划界相互之间打得一塌糊涂，毕竟都在“友好线”之内，但 20世纪的二战后的美国修改了堪称现代欧洲传统的“友好线”原则，打破了近三百年来形成的欧洲国际公法的规矩，颠覆了欧洲的“友好”战争法。

[¶35] We can thus understand why Chapters 3 and 4 of The Nomos of the Earth focus on the historical transformation of the nature of war: from medieval war to the “non-discriminatory war” of modern Europe, and then to discriminatory war at the end of the European epoch, from 1890 onward.

> Chinese: 由此我们可以理解，《大地的法》第三和第四两章的重点内容是战争性质的历史嬗变：从中世纪的战争到现代欧洲的“非歧视性战争”，再到欧洲纪元终结时（1890年以来）的歧视性战争。