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



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 . 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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aakhus, M.
    2006 The act and activity of proposing in deliberation. InP. 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]
  2. Aakhus, M., & Lewiński, M.
    2017 Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy. Argumentation, 31(1), 179–207. 10.1007/s10503‑016‑9403‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9403-9 [Google Scholar]
  3. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., & McBurney, P.
    2006 Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese, 152(2), 157–206. 10.1007/s11229‑005‑3488‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-3488-2 [Google Scholar]
  4. 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. 10.1177/1070496516631362
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496516631362 [Google Scholar]
  5. Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K.
    1995 Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory, 5(3), 248–272. 10.1111/j.1468‑2885.1995.tb00108.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1995.tb00108.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Depledge, J.
    2005The Organization of Global Negotiations: Constructing the Climate Regime. London: Earthscan.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dimitrov, R.
    2016 The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Behind closed doors. Global Environmental Politics, 16(3), 1–11. 10.1162/GLEP_a_00361
    https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00361 [Google Scholar]
  8. Doelle, M.
    2016 The Paris Agreement: Historic breakthrough or high stakes experiment?Climate Law, 6(1–2), 1–20. 10.1163/18786561‑00601001
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-00601001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S.
    1993Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Eisenberg, E. M.
    1984 Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51(3), 227–242. 10.1080/03637758409390197
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390197 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fairclough, I.
    2019 Deontic power and institutional contexts: The impact of institutional design on deliberation and decision-making in the UK fracking debate. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp.136–171. 10.1075/jaic.18014.fai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18014.fai [Google Scholar]
  12. Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N.
    2012Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. “Felipe Calderón: Developing countries should not be seen as single bloc at climate talks” 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/felipe-calderon-developing-countries-should-not-be-seen-as-single-bloc-at-climate-talks
  14. Feteris, E.
    2002 A pragma-dialectical approach of the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. Argumentation, 16(3), 349–367. 10.1023/A:1019999606665
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019999606665 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fischer, F., & Forester, J.
    1993The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. London: UCL Press. 10.1215/9780822381815
    https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822381815 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fløttum, K., & Dahl, T.
    2011 Climate change discourse: Scientific claims in a policy setting. Fachsprache, 3–4: 205–219.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fløttum, K., & Drange, H.
    2017 The Paris COP21 Agreement – Obligations for 195 countries. InK. Fløttum (ed.), The Role of Language in the Climate Change Debate (pp.130–148). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315456935‑8
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456935-8 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gjerstad, Ø.
    2017 Competing climate change narratives: An analysis of leader statements during COP21 in Paris. InK. Fløttum (ed.), The Role of Language in the Climate Change Debate (pp.31–48). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315456935‑3
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456935-3 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. Gupta, J.
    2016 The Paris Climate Change Agreement: China and India. Climate Law, 6(1–2), 171–181. 10.1163/18786561‑00601012
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-00601012 [Google Scholar]
  21. “Historic Paris Agreement on Climate Change” 2015, newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/finale-cop21/
  22. Ihnen Jory, C.
    2016 Negotiation and deliberation: Grasping the difference. Argumentation, 30(2), 145–165. 10.1007/s10503‑014‑9343‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9343-1 [Google Scholar]
  23. Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S.
    1980 Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251–265. 10.1080/00335638009383524
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638009383524 [Google Scholar]
  24. “James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks ‘a fraud’” 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud
  25. 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. 10.1075/jaic.18009.laa.18009.laa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18009.laa.18009.laa [Google Scholar]
  26. Lahsen, M.
    2007 Trust through participation? Problems of knowledge in climate decision making. InM. E. Pettinger (Ed.), The social construction of climate change (pp.173–196). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lewiński, M.
    2014 Argumentative polylogues: Beyond dialectical understanding of fallacies. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36(1), 193–218. 10.2478/slgr‑2014‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2014-0010 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lewiński, M.
    2015 Practical reasoning and multi-party deliberation: The best, the good enough and the necessary. InB. 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]
  29. Lewiński, M.
    2016a Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues. Discourse & Communication, 10(6), 553–575. 10.1177/1750481316674773
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481316674773 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lewiński, M.
    2016b How to conclude practical argument in a multi-party debate: A speech act analysis. InD. 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]
  31. Lewiński, M.
    2017 Practical argumentation as reasoned advocacy. Informal Logic, 37(2), 85–113. 10.22329/il.v37i2.4775
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v37i2.4775 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2018 Practical argumentation in the making: Discursive construction of reasons for action. InS. Oswald, T. Herman & J. Jacquin (Eds.), Argumentation and Language. Linguistic, cognitive and discursive explorations (pp.219–241). Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑73972‑4_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_10 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lewiński, M., & Aakhus, M.
    2014 Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation, 28(2), 161–185. 10.1007/s10503‑013‑9307‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x [Google Scholar]
  34. Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D.
    2015 Tweeting the Arab Spring: Argumentative Polylogues in Digital Media. InC. Palczewski (Ed.), Disturbing Argument: Selected Works from the 18th NCA/AFA Alta Conference on Argumentation (pp.291–297). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D.
    2016 Argumentation theory. InK. B. Jensen, R. Craig, J. Pooley & E. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy (pp.1–15). New York: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect198
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect198 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lewiński, M., & Üzelgün, M. A.
    2019 Environmental argumentation: Introduction. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp.1–11. 10.1075/jaic.00004.int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00004.int [Google Scholar]
  37. McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., & Parsons, S.
    2007 The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1), 95–132. 10.1002/int.20191
    https://doi.org/10.1002/int.20191 [Google Scholar]
  38. 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. 10.1075/jaic.2.1.03moh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.2.1.03moh [Google Scholar]
  39. 2016a Goals in argumentation: A proposal for the analysis and evaluation of public political arguments. Argumentation, 30(3), 221–245. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9370‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9370-6 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2016b “It is true that security and Schengen go hand in hand”. Strategic manoeuvring in the multi-layered activity type of European Parliamentary debates. InR. von Borg (Ed.) 2016, Dialogues in Argumentation (pp.232–266). Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2018a Standing Standpoints and Argumentative Associates: What is at Stake in a Public Political Argument?Argumentation. 10.1007/s10503‑018‑9473‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9473-y [Google Scholar]
  42. 2018bArgumentation 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]
  43. Nerlich, B., & Jaspal, R.
    2012 Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from catastrophe. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(2), 131–147. 10.1080/10926488.2012.665795
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2012.665795 [Google Scholar]
  44. “Paris climate deal: reaction from the experts” 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/13/paris-climate-deal-reaction-experts
  45. 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. 10.1111/reel.12017
    https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12017 [Google Scholar]
  46. Pearce, W., Brown, B., Nerlich, B.,
    2015 Communicating climate change: Conduits, content, and consensus. WIREs Climate Change, 6, 613–626. 10.1002/wcc.366
    https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.366 [Google Scholar]
  47. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
    1969The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (transl. byJ. Wilkinson & P. Weaver). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1958.)
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 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:  10.1093/jel/eqy018
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqy018 [Google Scholar]
  49. Rajamani, L.
    2016 Ambition and differentiation in the 2015 Paris Agreement: Interpretative possibilities and underlying politics. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(2), 493–514. 10.1017/S0020589316000130
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589316000130 [Google Scholar]
  50. Van Rees, M. Agnes
    2009Dissociation in Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑9150‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9150-6 [Google Scholar]
  51. 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]
  52. Savaresi, A.
    2016 The Paris Agreement: A new beginning?Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 34(1), 16–26. 10.1080/02646811.2016.1133983
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02646811.2016.1133983 [Google Scholar]
  53. Searle, J. R.
    1969Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  54. 1975 A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. InK. Günderson (Ed.), Language, mind, and knowledge, vol.7 (pp.344–369). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 2001Rationality in action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. “Statement by the President [Barack Obama] on the Paris Climate Agreement” 2015 availablehttps://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/12/statement-president-paris-climate-agreement
  57. 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. 10.1177/1075547016676602
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016676602 [Google Scholar]
  58. 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. 10.1177/1461445615578965
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615578965 [Google Scholar]
  59. Voigt, D., & Ferreira, F.
    2016 Differentiation in the Paris Agreement. Climate Law, 6(1–2), 58–74. 10.1163/18786561‑00601004
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-00601004 [Google Scholar]
  60. Walton, D.
    2006 How to make and defend a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 14(3), 177–239. 10.1007/s10506‑006‑9025‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-006-9025-x [Google Scholar]
  61. 2007 Evaluating practical reasoning. Synthese, 157(2), 197–240. 10.1007/s11229‑007‑9157‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9157-x [Google Scholar]
  62. “World leaders hail Paris climate deal as ‘major leap for mankind’” 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/13/world-leaders-hail-paris-climate-deal
  63. Zarefsky, D.
    2008 Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. Argumentation, 22(3), 317–330. 10.1007/s10503‑008‑9096‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9096-9 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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