Article published in:
Environmental Argumentation
Edited by Marcin Lewiński and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1] 2019
► pp. 91–111

Criticism and justification of negotiated compromises

The 2015 Paris Agreement in Dutch parliament

| University of Groningen
| University of Groningen
The paper focuses on conflicts about an already negotiated compromise, taking as its example a debate in Dutch parliament about the approval of the Paris Agreement on climate change of 2015. It deals with a variety of worries that opponents of approval may advance and the arguments in its defense thus invited. It concludes with a profile of dialogue providing reasonable options for those involved in such a conflict.
Keywords: argument schemes, compromise, criticisms, Paris Agreement, profile of dialogue, stock issues
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Justifying a second best outcome
  • 2.Conflicts about compromise
  • 3.Should we settle for a compromise?
  • 4.Should we settle for this compromise?
    • 4.1Examining the inventory premise
    • 4.2Examining the progress premise
    • 4.3Examining the optimality premise
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 February 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18009.laa
References
Dimitrov, Radoslav S.
2016 The Paris Agreement on climate change: Behind closed doors. Global Environmental Politics 16:3. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H. & Rob Grootendorst
2004 A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Isabela
2019 Deontic power and institutional contexts: The impact of institutional design on decision-making in the UK fracking debate. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp. 136–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Isabela, & Norman Fairclough
2012 Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fisher, Roger, William Ury, & Bruce Patton
2011 Getting to Yes: Negotiating an Agreement without Giving In, 3rd ed. London: Random House.Google Scholar
Goodwin, J.
2019 Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp. 40–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krabbe, Erik C. W.
2002 Profiles of Dialogue as a Dialectical Tool. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 153–167). Amsterdam/Newport News, VA: Sic Sat & Vale Press.Google Scholar
Van Laar, Jan Albert, & Erik C. W. Krabbe
2016 Splitting a difference of opinion. In Patrick Bondy & Laura Benacquista (Eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18–21 2016 Windsor, ON: OSSA. (pp. 1–19). Windsor, Ontario: OSSA.Google Scholar
2018a Splitting a difference of opinion: The shift to negotiation. Argumentation, 32(3), 329–350. Reworked part of van Laar & Krabbe 2016. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018b The role of argument in negotiation. Argumentation, 321, 549–567.Google Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin, & Dima Mohammed
2019 The 2015 Paris Climate Conference: Arguing for the fragile consensus in global multilateral diplomacy. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp. 65–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mohammed, Dima
2018 Argumentation in Prime Minister’s Question Time: Accusations of Inconsistency in Response to Criticism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, S., Lewiński, M., & Üzelgün, M. A.
2019 Environmental manifestoes: Argumentative strategies in the Ecomodernist Manifesto . Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp. 12–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
UNFCCC
2017 Climate: Get the Big Picture. Retrieved, March 20, 2017 from: http://​bigpicture​.unfccc​.int​/#content​-the​-paris​-agreemen
Tweede Kamer [Dutch House of Commons]
2017 Uitkomsten klimaattop Parijs [Results climate summit Paris]. In: Handelingen 2015 – 2016 [Proceedings, 2015 – 2016], number 85, item 17, May 19 2016 Retrieved on March 20 2017 from: https://​zoek​.officielebekendmakingen​.nl​/h​-tk​-20152016​-85​-17
Walton, Douglas N., Chris Reed, & Fabrizio Macagno
2008 Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weinstock, Daniel
2013 On the possibility of principled moral compromise. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 16(4): 537–556. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Fabian
2016 Compromise, Peace and Public Justification: Political Morality Beyond Justice. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Godden, David & John Casey
2020. No Place for Compromise: Resisting the Shift to Negotiation. Argumentation 34:4 ► pp. 499 ff. Crossref logo
Goodwin, Jean
2019. Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 40 ff. Crossref logo
Lewiński, Marcin & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
2019. Environmental argumentation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Rodrigues, Soledade, Marcin Lewiński & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
2019. Environmental manifestoes. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 12 ff. Crossref logo
van Laar, Jan Albert & Erik C. W. Krabbe
2018. The Role of Argument in Negotiation. Argumentation 32:4 ► pp. 549 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.