TY - JOUR
T1 - The 2015 Paris Climate Conference
T2 - Arguing for the fragile consensus in global multilateral diplomacy
AU - Lewiński, Marcin
AU - Mohammed, Dima
N1 - info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/5876/147240/PT#
UID/FIL/00183/2019
DL 57/2016/CP1453/CT0049
PTDC/MHC-FIL/0521/2014
TUBITAK/0010/2014
PY - 2019/1/1
Y1 - 2019/1/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Climate change discourse
KW - COP21
KW - Environmental argumentation
KW - Paris Climate Agreement
KW - Polylogue
KW - Practical argumentation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067024064&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://apps.webofknowledge.com/InboundService.do?product=WOS&Func=Frame&DestFail=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.webofknowledge.com&SrcApp=RRC&locale=pt_BR&SrcAuth=RRC&SID=E1zeERtR6aPGZZHejpk&customersID=RRC&mode=FullRecord&IsProductCode=Yes&Init=Yes&action=retrieve&UT=WOS%3A000464308500004
M3 - Conference article
AN - SCOPUS:85067024064
SN - 2211-4742
VL - 8
SP - 65
EP - 90
JO - Journal of Argumentation in Context
JF - Journal of Argumentation in Context
IS - 1
ER -