This book analyses and compares how the USA's liberal allies responded to the use of torture against their citizens after 9/11. Did they resist, tolerate or support the Bush Administration's policies concerning the mistreatment of detainees when their own citizens were implicated and what were the reasons for their actions? Australia, the UK and Canada are liberal democracies sharing similar political cultures, values and alliances with America; yet they behaved differently when their citizens, caught up in the War on Terror, were tortured. How states responded to citizens' human rights claims and predicaments was shaped, in part, by demands for accountability placed on the executive government by domestic actors. This book argues that civil society actors, in particular, were influenced by nuanced differences in their national political and legal contexts that enabled or constrained human rights activism. It maps the conditions under which individuals and groups were more or less likely to become engaged when fellow citizens were tortured, focusing on national rights culture, the domestic legal and political human rights framework, and political opportunities.

Liberal international law analyses typically focus attention on the role of domestic politics in shaping state responses to international human rights violations. The analysis, exemplified in Beth Simmons's book, Mobilizing for Human Rights, assumes that stable liberal democracies will respond to international human rights issues in a similar fashion, based on the fact that political rights in these open, democratic systems are largely protected, leading to complacency among citizenries. This thesis tests this approach by examining the reactions of three liberal democracies - Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada - to the torture of their citizens detained overseas in the war on terror. It investigates why, despite sharing a common legal and political culture that values the protection of individual rights, they reacted quite differently to this phenomenon. I argue that the role of civil society as agents of accountability of government on matters of international human rights is a distinguishing factor in understanding the different responses of the three states. Where civil society mobilised, states tended to respond to concerns about the use of torture against their citizens in the war on terror and, where civil society did not, states were not so responsive. The thesis identifies the enabling and constraining factors that influenced civil society to mobilise, including domestic rights cultures, institutional frameworks and political opportunity structures. I suggest that civil society is more likely to mobilise when it exists within a strong human rights culture and has the right institutional tools and political opportunities at its disposal.

This book analyses and compares how the USA's liberal allies responded to the use of torture against their citizens after 9/11. Did they resist, tolerate or support the Bush Administration's policies concerning the mistreatment of detainees when their own citizens were implicated and what were the reasons for their actions? Australia, the UK and Canada are liberal democracies sharing similar political cultures, values and alliances with America; yet they behaved differently when their citizens, caught up in the War on Terror, were tortured. How states responded to citizens' human rights claims and predicaments was shaped, in part, by demands for accountability placed on the executive government by domestic actors. This book argues that civil society actors, in particular, were influenced by nuanced differences in their national political and legal contexts that enabled or constrained human rights activism. It maps the conditions under which individuals and groups were more or less likely to become engaged when fellow citizens were tortured, focusing on national rights culture, the domestic legal and political human rights framework, and political opportunities.

This open access book aims to show which factors have been decisive in the rise of successful countries. Never before have so many people been so well off. However, prosperity is not a law of nature; it has to be worked for. A liberal economy stands at the forefront of this success - not as a political system, but as a set of economic rules promoting competition, which in turn leads to innovation, research and enormous productivity. Sustainable prosperity is built on a foundation of freedom, equal opportunity and a functioning government. This requires a stable democracy that cannot be defeated by an autocrat. Autocrats claim that "illiberalism" is more efficient, an assertion that justifies their own power. Although autocrats can efficiently guide the first steps out of poverty, once a certain level of prosperity has been achieved, people begin to demand a sense of well-being - freedom and codetermination. Only when this is possible will they feel comfortable, and progress will continue. Respect for human rights is crucial. The rules of the free market do not lean to either the right or left politically. Liberalism and the welfare state are not mutually exclusive. The "conflict" concerns the amount of government intervention. Should there be more or less? As a lawyer, entrepreneur, and board member with over 40 years of experience in this field of conflict, the author clearly describes the conditions necessary for a country to maintain its position at the top.

In this contribution to contemporary political philosophy, Jensen aims to develop a model of civil society for deliberative democracy. In the course of developing the model, he also provides a thorough account of the meaning and use of "civil society" in contemporary scholarship as well as a critical review of rival models, including those found in the work of scholars such as John Rawls, Jurgen Habermas, Michael Walzer, Benjamin Barber, and Nancy Rosenblum. Jensen's own ideal treats civil society as both the context in which citizens live out their comprehensive views of the good life as well as the context in which citizens learn to be good deliberative democrats. According to his idealization, groups of citizens in civil society are actively engaged in a grand conversation about the nature of the good life. Their commitment to this conversation grounds dispositions of epistemic humility, tolerance, curiosity, and moderation. Moreover, their regard for the grand conversation explains their interest in deliberative democracy and their regard for democratic virtues, principles, and practices. Jensen is not a naive utopian, however; he argues that this ideal must be realized in stages, that it faces a variety of barriers, and that it cannot be realized without luck.

"Transnational Torture by Jinee Lokaneeta reviewed with Prachi Patankar" on the blog Kafila. Evidence of torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and harsh interrogation techniques at Guantánamo Bay beg the question: has the “war on terror” forced liberal democracies to rethink their policies and laws against torture? Transnational Torture focuses on the legal and political discourses on torture in India and the United States—two common-law based constitutional democracies—to theorize the relationship between law, violence, and state power in liberal democracies. Analyzing about one hundred landmark Supreme Court cases on torture in India and the United States, memos and popular imagery of torture, Jinee Lokaneeta compellingly demonstrates that even before recent debates on the use of torture in the war on terror, the laws of interrogation were much more ambivalent about the infliction of excess pain and suffering than most political and legal theorists have acknowledged. Rather than viewing the recent policies on interrogation as anomalous or exceptional, Lokaneeta effectively argues that efforts to accommodate excess violence—a constantly negotiated process—are long standing features of routine interrogations in both the United States and India, concluding that the infliction of excess violence is more central to democratic governance than is acknowledged in western jurisprudence.

Illustrated most dramatically by the events of 9/11 and the subsequent ‘war on terror’, violence represents a challenge to democratic politics and to the establishment of liberal-democratic regimes. Liberal-democracies have themselves not hesitated to use violence and restrict civil liberties as a response to such challenges. These issues are at the centre of global politics and figure prominently in political debates today concerning multiculturalism, political exclusion and the politics of gender. This book takes up these topics with reference to a wide range of case-studies, covering Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Europe. It provides a theoretical framework clarifying the relationship between democracy and violence and presents original research surveying current hot-spots of violent conflict and the ways in which violence affects the prospects for democratic politics and for gender equality. Based on field-work carried out by specialists in the areas covered, this volume will be of high interest to students of democratic politics and to all those concerned with ways in which the recourse to violence could be reduced in a global context. This book has significant implications for policy-makers involved in attempts to develop safer and more peaceful ways of handling political and social conflict. This book was published as a special issue of Democratizations.