Logic of Arguing

The logic of arguing is a concept introduced by German IR theorist Thomas Risse in his 2000 International Organization article "Let's Argue!: Communicative Action in World Politics." It identifies a third mode of social interaction alongside the logic of consequences (rational-choice bargaining over fixed preferences) and the logic of appropriateness (rule-guided behavior shaped by identity and norms), as set out by James March and Johan Olsen.

Drawing on Jürgen Habermas's theory of communicative action, Risse argues that under certain conditions actors enter a discursive mode in which they try to convince one another of the validity of their claims, remain genuinely open to persuasion, and may change their interests, preferences, or even identities as a result. Success depends on the better argument rather than on material power or institutional position. Actors challenge each other's truth claims (facts), normative claims (rightness), and sincerity claims (truthfulness).

Risse specifies scope conditions under which arguing is more likely:

• A common lifeworld of shared norms and language among participants.
• Uncertainty about interests or about the situation, which makes pure bargaining difficult.
• Settings that approximate an ideal speech situation: relative equality, access to information, and insulation from public posturing (often closed-door diplomacy, expert committees, or quiet drafting groups).

The concept has been applied to human-rights socialization, EU enlargement negotiations, and treaty-drafting bodies. It is central to constructivist scholarship that treats interests and identities as endogenous to interaction. Critics—particularly rationalists—argue that what looks like principled argument often masks strategic rhetorical action (a term Frank Schimmelfennig developed in his work on EU enlargement, where actors get shamed into commitments they did not originally want). The empirical challenge is distinguishing genuine persuasion from tactical concession, which has spawned a sizable methodological literature on tracing argumentative processes in negotiation records.