Abstract:
The republics in Kant's theory of 'perpetual peace' gain consent from their subjects before waging war. Indeed it is this role of the subjects that leads to the theoretical exclusive peace between republics. Subjects are viewed as being cautious to wage war because of the subsequent costs they would bear as a result. This thesis examines the role of the public in contemporary Western liberal democracies through a case study of Australia and New Zealand's response to public opinion prior to the Iraq war of 2003. The idea that the public should participate in decisions to go to war is challenged using the theories of Walter Lippmann, who claims the public is incapable of making good decisions of foreign policy because of a lack of specialist knowledge. Another challenge to the notion that public opinion on the decision to go to war will be cautious is based on the changing role that Western citizens play in contemporary war. Western armies are made up of professional forces, battlefields are now likely to be on foreign territory and new weapons technology has significantly reduced the risk posed to Western military forces. Western citizens' isolation from conflict has increased the importance of the media in representing war to Western audiences. Limiting factors, such as bias in the media and proposed compassion fatigue hinder Western audiences in understanding the direct experiences of war that are encountered by foreign civilians unfortunate enough to be living in a war zone. The moral worth of a significant role for public opinion in decisions to go to war will be questioned given the privileged position of Western citizens and the barriers that hinder meaningful understanding of the experiences of foreign civilians affected by war.
