Who or what defines the sovereign ruler and it's political subject? Within legal and political framework of the modern world, questions about sovereignty and power always remain open. Human life is conditioned by the sovereignty of the state he resides in, and that, in turn, conditions the concept of the political which defines a person as a citizen, as well as his status, and political actions. The aim of this research is to compare two concepts of the political in the sphere of a man's position and role as a legal - political subject in modern philosophy of politics and law. The paper compares two distinguished political theorists, who have made their most relevant contributions to political philosophy during the time of Weimar Republic between two World Wars, as well as during the immediate post - war period during the 1950s of the 20th century. This paper interprets and compares the perspective of Hannah Arendt, a theorist whose entire legal - political thought is based on the idea of a human being that is conditioned to live among others, with capability of autonomous action, which is the basis of every political action. As such, human being is unavoidably a plural being. Also, the paper explores the view of a controversial German legal philosopher Carl Schmitt, whose concept of the political is based on the value of state above the individual, and the eternal legitimacy of the concept of the political is the human capability for making the friend/enemy criteria. The aim of the paper is not to discuss which framework is more or less ethically "justifiable", pro - social or humanitarian, the aim is to show their implications on the human being itself, as an authentic political subject. Implications concern political and human rights, as well as physical existence. The similarities, as well as differences in the philosophical views of the above mentioned philosophers are explored, and especially vital is their opposite view of the nature of conflict among human beings, for it is the possibility of conflict that leads to different consequences (political and physical) on human beings in their philosophies.