Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Dimitrov, Radoslav S.
    2016 The Paris Agreement on climate change: Behind closed doors. Global Environmental Politics16:3. doi: 10.1162?GLEP_a_00361
    https://doi.org/10.1162?GLEP_a_00361 [Google Scholar]
  2. Van Eemeren, Frans H. & Rob Grootendorst
    2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 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. doi: 10.1075/jaic.18014.fai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18014.fai [Google Scholar]
  4. Fairclough, Isabela, & Norman Fairclough
    2012Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Fisher, Roger, William Ury, & Bruce Patton
    2011Getting to Yes: Negotiating an Agreement without Giving In, 3rd ed.London: Random House.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Goodwin, J.
    2019 Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp.40–64. 10.1075/jaic.18008.goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18008.goo [Google Scholar]
  7. Krabbe, Erik C. W.
    2002 Profiles of Dialogue as a Dialectical Tool. InF. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp.153–167). Amsterdam/Newport News, VA: Sic Sat & Vale Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Van Laar, Jan Albert, & Erik C. W. Krabbe
    2016 Splitting a difference of opinion. InPatrick 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]
  9. 2018a Splitting a difference of opinion: The shift to negotiation. Argumentation, 32(3), 329–350. Reworked part of van Laar & Krabbe 2016. 10.1007/s10503‑017‑9445‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-017-9445-7 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2018bThe role of argument in negotiation. Argumentation, 32, 549–567.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 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. doi: 10.1075/jaic.18017.lew
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18017.lew [Google Scholar]
  12. Mohammed, Dima
    2018Argumentation in Prime Minister’s Question Time: Accusations of Inconsistency in Response to Criticism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.15
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.15 [Google Scholar]
  13. Republican Platform
  14. 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. 10.1075/jaic.18036.rod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18036.rod [Google Scholar]
  15. UNFCCC
    UNFCCC 2017Climate: Get the Big Picture. Retrieved, March 20, 2017from: bigpicture.unfccc.int/#content-the-paris-agreemen
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Tweede Kamer [Dutch House of Commons]
    Tweede Kamer [Dutch House of Commons] 2017 Uitkomsten klimaattop Parijs [Results climate summit Paris]. In: Handelingen 2015 – 2016 [Proceedings, 2015 – 2016], number85, item 17, May19 2016 Retrieved onMarch 20 2017from: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/h-tk-20152016-85-17
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Walton, Douglas N., Chris Reed, & Fabrizio Macagno
    2008Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511802034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034 [Google Scholar]
  18. Weinstock, Daniel
    2013 On the possibility of principled moral compromise. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy16(4): 537–556. 10.1080/13698230.2013.810392
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2013.810392 [Google Scholar]
  19. Wendt, Fabian
    2016Compromise, Peace and Public Justification: Political Morality Beyond Justice. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑28877‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28877-2 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argument schemes; compromise; criticisms; Paris Agreement; profile of dialogue; stock issues
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error