My research will attempt to study how the implementation of deliberative arguing mechanisms could influence the outcomes of a global common international forum.
In this work, the definition of “deliberative arguing” will differ from the normative standpoint of Habermas’ theory of communicative action, and will instead be inspired by works of more recent constructivist scholars, such as Müller, Deitelhoff and Risse. “Deliberative arguing” will therefore indicate any action that aims to change another actor’s perception of the issue by providing new reliable knowledge, questioning the true intentions of the interlocutor and defending or challenging the morality or the coherence of a certain behavior.
The term “global common international forum” will include all international negotiations with the mandate of protecting a global natural resource and preserving the public goods such resource provides.
The hypothesis I will present is the following: in this particular kind of negotiation, a situation where actors interact between each other predominantly through deliberative acts of speech will more likely result in a higher fulfillment of the forum’s mandate. Such hypothesis will be theoretically explained and justified through the building of a model of social interaction within international forums, that will integrate contributions both from rationalist and constructivist scholars.
I’ll test this hypothesis by analyzing two most-similar case studies: two different rounds of Antarctic negotiations; the one that gave birth to the Convention for Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resources and Activities and the one that brought to the elaboration of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty.
