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. 91–111

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Criticism and justification of negotiated compromises

The 2015 Paris Agreement in Dutch parliament

 | University of Groningen
 | University of Groningen
Published online: 14 February 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18009.laa
Abstract
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 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
References (19)
References
Dimitrov, Radoslav S. 2016. The Paris Agreement on climate change: Behind closed doors. Global Environmental Politics 16:3. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H. & Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Isabela, & Norman Fairclough. 2012. Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, J. 2019. Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp. 40–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018a. Splitting a difference of opinion: The shift to negotiation. Argumentation, 32(3), 329–350. Reworked part of van Laar & Krabbe 2016. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018b. The role of argument in negotiation. Argumentation, 321, 549–567.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Republican Platform 2016. [URL]
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
UNFCCC 2017. Climate: Get the Big Picture. Retrieved, March 20, 2017 from: [URL]
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: [URL]
Walton, Douglas N., Chris Reed, & Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weinstock, Daniel. 2013. On the possibility of principled moral compromise. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 16(4): 537–556. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wendt, Fabian. 2016. Compromise, Peace and Public Justification: Political Morality Beyond Justice. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Moore, Brendan, Lucas Geese, John Kenny, Harriet Dudley, Andrew Jordan, Alba Prados Pascual, Irene Lorenzoni, Simon Schaub, Joan Enguer & Jale Tosun
2024. Politicians and climate change: A systematic review of the literature. WIREs Climate Change 15:6 DOI logo
van Laar, Jan Albert
2024. Conversational Integrity: Argument, Commitment, and Compromise. Philosophy & Rhetoric 57:3 ► pp. 306 ff. DOI logo
Godden, David & John Casey
2020. No Place for Compromise: Resisting the Shift to Negotiation. Argumentation 34:4 ► pp. 499 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
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
van Laar, Jan Albert & Erik C. W. Krabbe
2018. The Role of Argument in Negotiation. Argumentation 32:4 ► pp. 549 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue