Cover not available
Article published In:
Environmental Argumentation
Edited by Marcin Lewiński and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1] 2019
► pp. 65–90

The 2015 Paris Climate Conference

Arguing for the fragile consensus in global multilateral diplomacy

| ArgLab, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
| ArgLab, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
The paper applies argumentative discourse analysis to a corpus of official statements made by key players (USA, EU, China, India, etc.) at the opening of the 2015 Paris Climate Conference. The chief goal is to reveal the underlying structure of practical arguments and values legitimising the global climate change policy-making. The paper investigates which of the elements of practical arguments were common and which were contested by various players. One important conclusion is that a complex, multilateral deal such as the 2015 Paris Agreement is based on a fragile consensus. This consensus can be precisely described in terms of the key premises of practical arguments that various players share (mostly: description of current circumstances and future goals) and the premises they still discuss but prefer not to prioritise (value hierarchies or precise measures). It thus provides an insight into how a fragile consensus over goals may lead to a multilateral agreement through argumentative processes.
Keywords: climate change discourse, COP21, environmental argumentation, Paris Climate Agreement, polylogue, practical argumentation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Research questions and data
  • 3.Method and theoretical background: Practical argumentation
  • 4.What shall we do now and why? Analysis
    • 4.1The circumstances (c-premise)
    • 4.2The desired state of affairs (goals)
    • 4.3What needs to be done (Claims for action)
    • 4.4Means-Goal premise
    • 4.5Values
  • 5.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18017.lew
References (64)
References
Aakhus, M. 2006. The act and activity of proposing in deliberation. In P. Riley (Ed.), Engaging Argument: Selected papers from the 2005 NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation (pp. 402–408). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
Aakhus, M., & Lewiński, M. 2017. Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy. Argumentation, 31(1), 179–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., & McBurney, P. 2006. Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese, 152(2), 157–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clémençon, R. 2016. The two sides of the Paris Climate Agreement: Dismal failure or historic breakthrough? The Journal of Environment & Development, 25(1), 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. 1995. Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory, 5(3), 248–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Depledge, J. 2005. The Organization of Global Negotiations: Constructing the Climate Regime. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Dimitrov, R. 2016. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Behind closed doors. Global Environmental Politics, 16(3), 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doelle, M. 2016. The Paris Agreement: Historic breakthrough or high stakes experiment? Climate Law, 6(1–2), 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, E. M. 1984. Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51(3), 227–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. 2012. Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
“Felipe Calderón: Developing countries should not be seen as single bloc at climate talks,” 2015, [URL]
Feteris, E. 2002. A pragma-dialectical approach of the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. Argumentation, 16(3), 349–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, F., & Forester, J. 1993. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. London: UCL Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fløttum, K., & Dahl, T. 2011. Climate change discourse: Scientific claims in a policy setting. Fachsprache, 3–41: 205–219.Google Scholar
Fløttum, K., & Drange, H. 2017. The Paris COP21 Agreement – Obligations for 195 countries. In K. Fløttum (ed.), The Role of Language in the Climate Change Debate (pp. 130–148). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gjerstad, Ø. 2017. Competing climate change narratives: An analysis of leader statements during COP21 in Paris. In K. Fløttum (ed.), The Role of Language in the Climate Change Debate (pp. 31–48). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, J. 2019. Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp. 40–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gupta, J. 2016. The Paris Climate Change Agreement: China and India. Climate Law, 6(1–2), 171–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
“Historic Paris Agreement on Climate Change,” 2015, [URL]
Ihnen Jory, C. 2016. Negotiation and deliberation: Grasping the difference. Argumentation, 30(2), 145–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. 1980. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 661, 251–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
“James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks ‘a fraud’,” 2015, [URL]
Van Laar, J. A., & Krabbe, E. C. W. 2019. Criticism and justification of negotiated compromises: The 2015 Paris agreement in Dutch parliament. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp. 91–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lahsen, M. 2007. Trust through participation? Problems of knowledge in climate decision making. In M. E. Pettinger (Ed.), The social construction of climate change (pp. 173–196). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M. 2014. Argumentative polylogues: Beyond dialectical understanding of fallacies. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36(1), 193–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M. 2015. Practical reasoning and multi-party deliberation: The best, the good enough and the necessary. In B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. Mitchell & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), The Eighth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) (pp. 851–862). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M. 2016a. Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues. Discourse & Communication, 10(6), 553–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M. 2016b. How to conclude practical argument in a multi-party debate: A speech act analysis. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewiński (Eds.) 2016. Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015. Vol. I (pp. 403–420). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M. 2017. Practical argumentation as reasoned advocacy. Informal Logic, 37(2), 85–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. Practical argumentation in the making: Discursive construction of reasons for action. In S. Oswald, T. Herman & J. Jacquin (Eds.), Argumentation and Language. Linguistic, cognitive and discursive explorations (pp. 219–241). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Aakhus, M. 2014. Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation, 28(2), 161–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D. 2015. Tweeting the Arab Spring: Argumentative Polylogues in Digital Media. In C. Palczewski (Ed.), Disturbing Argument: Selected Works from the 18th NCA/AFA Alta Conference on Argumentation (pp. 291–297). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D. 2016. Argumentation theory. In K. B. Jensen, R. Craig, J. Pooley & E. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy (pp. 1–15). New York: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Üzelgün, M. A. 2019. Environmental argumentation: Introduction. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp. 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., & Parsons, S. 2007. The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1), 95–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohammed, D. 2013. Pursuing multiple goals in European Parliamentary debates: EU immigration policies as a case in point. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(1), 47–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016a. Goals in argumentation: A proposal for the analysis and evaluation of public political arguments. Argumentation, 30(3), 221–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016b. “It is true that security and Schengen go hand in hand”. Strategic manoeuvring in the multi-layered activity type of European Parliamentary debates. In R. von Borg (Ed.), 2016, Dialogues in Argumentation (pp. 232–266). Windsor Studies in Argumentation.Google Scholar
2018a. Standing Standpoints and Argumentative Associates: What is at Stake in a Public Political Argument? Argumentation. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nerlich, B., & Jaspal, R. 2012. Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from catastrophe. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(2), 131–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
“Paris climate deal: reaction from the experts,” 2015, [URL]
Pauwelyn, J. 2013. The end of differential treatment for developing countries? Lessons from the trade and climate change regimes. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 22(1), 29–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pearce, W., Brown, B., Nerlich, B., et al. 2015. Communicating climate change: Conduits, content, and consensus. WIREs Climate Change, 61, 613–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (transl. by J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1958.)Google Scholar
Pickering, J., McGee, J. S., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I., & Wenta, J. (in press). Global climate governance between hard and soft law: Can the Paris Agreement’s ‘crème brûlée’ approach enhance ecological reflexivity? Journal of Environmental Law, DOI logo
Rajamani, L. 2016. Ambition and differentiation in the 2015 Paris Agreement: Interpretative possibilities and underlying politics. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(2), 493–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Rees, M. Agnes. 2009. Dissociation in Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savaresi, A. 2016. The Paris Agreement: A new beginning? Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 34(1), 16–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975. A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Günderson (Ed.), Language, mind, and knowledge, vol. 71 (pp. 344–369). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
2001. Rationality in action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
“Statement by the President [Barack Obama] on the Paris Climate Agreement,” 2015 available [URL]
“The world’s climate is in the hands of just three nations,” 2015, [URL]
Üzelgün, M. A., Lewiński, M., & Castro, P. 2016. Favorite battlegrounds of climate action: Arguing about scientific consensus, representing science-society relations. Science Communication, 38(6), 699–723. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Üzelgün, M. A., Mohammed, D., Lewiński, M., & Castro, P. 2015. Managing disagreement through yes, but… constructions: An argumentative analysis. Discourse Studies, 17(4), 467–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voigt, D., & Ferreira, F. 2016. Differentiation in the Paris Agreement. Climate Law, 6(1–2), 58–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, D. 2006. How to make and defend a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 14(3), 177–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Evaluating practical reasoning. Synthese, 157(2), 197–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
“World leaders hail Paris climate deal as ‘major leap for mankind’,” 2015, [URL]
Zarefsky, D. 2008. Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. Argumentation, 22(3), 317–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Kalebar, Vishal U. & Pritha Chakraborty
2024. Role of Bioactive Metabolites Produced by Plants and Microbes in Fuel Production. In Emerging Sustainable Technologies for Biofuel Production [Environmental Science and Engineering, ], ► pp. 427 ff. DOI logo
Lopes Cardoso, Henrique, Rui Sousa-Silva, Paula Carvalho & Bruno Martins
2023. Argumentation models and their use in corpus annotation: Practice, prospects, and challenges. Natural Language Engineering 29:4 ► pp. 1150 ff. DOI logo
Gâță, Anca
2021. Characteristics of a detached argumentative style in public policy analysis. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:1 ► pp. 46 ff. DOI logo
Üzelgün, Mehmet Ali & João Rui Pereira
2020. Beyond the co-production of technology and society: The discursive treatment of technology with regard to near-term and long-term environmental goals. Technology in Society 61 ► pp. 101244 ff. DOI logo
Fairclough, Isabela
2019. Deontic power and institutional contexts. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 136 ff. DOI logo
Goodwin, Jean
2019. Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 40 ff. DOI logo
Laar, Jan Albert van & Erik C. W. Krabbe
2019. Criticism and justification of negotiated compromises. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 91 ff. DOI logo
Lewiński, Marcin & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
2019. Environmental argumentation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Rodrigues, Soledade, Marcin Lewiński & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
2019. Environmental manifestoes. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 12 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 august 2024. 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.