While acknowledging that the European Convention was merely dominated by strategic behaviors, like former treaty changes, this paper examines the role played by arguments in the process. It first shows that the Laeken mandate comprised rules which could be used by the majority of the conventioneers to promote a deliberative norm. It then analyses, using Perelman's Treaty of argumentation, the different kinds of arguments used by the conventionneers to solve incompatibilities, and stresses the major role played by the "rhetoric of simplification". It concludes that, although these formalist arguments proved inefficient where questions of power were at stake, the potential long-term effect of this deliberative process should not be neglected.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.: