This is a story of costs of 114 million EUR incurred by stubbornness and unwillingness to cooperate, or, in other words, by sticking to dead ends in discussions where parties disagree strongly enough that they cannot find common ground. This paper proposes an approach to analyzing such cases of disagreement by employing a multidimensional model involving deontic, ontological, and ethical axes. We use an example of the Turów coal mine disputes, which, from March 2020 to February 2022, involved the governments of the Republic of Poland, the Czech Republic, and the European Court of Justice. Our model results in a tree-like structure of the consecutive issues being considered, represented by questions, governed by the dependency between questions and external actions and events related to the dispute. We aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics and resolution paths in such complex disagreements.
BaumtrogMD (2021) Designing critical questions for argumentation schemes. Argumentation35(4): 629–643.
2.
BudzynskaKKoszowyMPereira-FariñaM (2021) Associating ethos with objects: Reasoning from character of public figures to actions in the world. Argumentation35(4): 519–549.
3.
CastroD (2022) Argumentation in suboptimal settings. Argumentation36(3): 393–414.
4.
ChinCOsborneJ (2010) Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case studies in science classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences19(2): 230–284.
5.
GinzburgJ (2012) The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
GoddenD (2019) On the rational resolvability of deep disagreement through meta-argumentation: A resource audit. Topoi38(4): 725–750.
7.
GoddenDCaseyJ (2020) No place for compromise: Resisting the shift to negotiation. Argumentation34: 499–535.
Hautli-JaniszABudzynskaKMcKillopC, et al. (2022) Questions in argumentative dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics188: 56–79.
10.
JanierMLawrenceJReedC (2014) OVA+: An argument analysis interface. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA 2014) (ed. ParsonsS.OrenN.ReedC., et al.), 9–12 September 2014. Scottish Highlands: Pitlochry: IOS Press, pp. 463–464.
11.
KiktevaZGorskaKSiskouW, et al. (2022) The keystone role played by questions in debate. In: Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on computational approaches to discourse, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, ACL, 16-17 October 2022, pp.54–63.
12.
KundaZ (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin108(3): 480–498.
13.
ŁupkowskiP (2015) Question dependency in terms of compliance and erotetic implication. Logic and Logical Philosophy24(3): 357–376.
14.
ŁupkowskiP (2016) Logic of Questions in the Wild. Inferential Erotetic Logic in Information Seeking Dialogue Modelling. London: College Publications.
15.
ŁupkowskiP (2017) IEL-based formal dialogue system for tutorials. Logic and Logical Philosophy26(3): 287–320.
16.
ŁupkowskiPMajerOPelišM, et al. (2018) Epistemic erotetic search scenarios. Logic and Logical Philosophy27(3): 301–328.
17.
MacagnoF (2008) Dialectical relevance and dialogical context in Walton’s pragmatic theory. Informal Logic28(2): 102–128.
18.
MathesonJ (2021) Deep disagreements and rational resolution. Topoi40(5): 1025–1037.
19.
MoldovanA (2022) Questions, Presuppositions, and Fallacies. Argumentation, 36(2): 287-303.
20.
ToulminSE (2003) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
ToulminSERiekeRDJanikA (1984) An Introduction to Reasoning. New York, NY: Macmillan.
22.
van EemerenFHGarssenBKrabbeECW, et al. (2014) Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
23.
van EemerenFHHoutlosserPHenkemansAFS (eds) (2007) Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
24.
van KuppeveltJ (1995) Discourse structure, topicality, and questioning. Journal of Linguistics31: 109–147.
25.
van LaarJAKrabbeEC (2018a) Splitting a difference of opinion: The shift to negotiation. Argumentation32(3): 329—350.
26.
van LaarJAKrabbeEC (2018b) The role of argument in negotiation. Argumentation32(4): 549–567.
27.
WaltonD (2008) Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
WaltonDN (1984) Logical Dialogue Games and Fallacies.Lanham: University Press of America.
29.
WaltonDGordonT (2011) Modeling critical questions as additional premises. Argument cultures. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference of the Ontario society for the study of argumentation (OSSA), 3-6 June 2009. Windsor: University of Windsor, pp. 1–13.
30.
WaltonDReedCMacagnoF (2008) Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
WintersteinG (2018) A probabilistic view on erotetic argumentation within language. In:JSAI international symposium on artificial intelligence, 12–14 November 2018. Yokohama: Springer, pp. 385–400.
32.
WiśniewskiA (1991) Erotetic arguments: A preliminary analysis. Studia Logica50(2): 261–274.
33.
WiśniewskiA (1996) The logic of questions as a theory of erotetic arguments. Synthese109(1): 1–25.
WróblewskiŁBoháčABöhmH (2023) The Turów coal mine international dispute as a determinant of the cross-border integration of inhabitants of the Polish-Czech border. Moravian Geographical Reports31(4): 203–213.
ŻukP (2023a) “Eco-terrorists”: Right-wing populist media about “ecologists” and the public opinion on the environmental movement in Poland. East European Politics39(1): 101–127.
38.
ŻukP (2023b) The sense of socio-economic threat and the perception of climate challenges and attitudes towards energy transition among residents of coal basins: The case of Turoszów Basin in Poland. Resources Policy82: 103509.
39.
ŻukPSzuleckiK. (2020) Unpacking the right-populist threat to climate action: Poland’s pro-governmental media on energy transition and climate change. Energy Research & Social Science66: 101485.
40.
ŻukPŻukP (2022) The Turów Brown Coal Mine in the shadow of an international conflict: Surveying the actions of the European Union Court of Justice and the populist policies of the Polish government. The Extractive Industries and Society10: 101054.
