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.