Universally ratified, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 form the cornerstone of modern international humanitarian law (IHL). They reflect the collective commitment of all States to protect victims of armed conflict and regulate the conduct of warfare, while embodying shared humanitarian ideals that “transcend national constitutions, borders, religions, and cultures”,Footnote 1 and evolving contexts.
While the universal acceptance of the Geneva Conventions affirms a shared normative commitment to adhering to basic humanitarian principles during armed conflict, this consensus requires “strong and sustained political commitment to respect and implement IHL”.Footnote 2 In practice, diverse and inconsistent interpretations and applications of the laws of war, as well as implementation gaps and widespread examples of non-compliance, constantly undermine the potential of this branch of public international law.Footnote 3 Indeed, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has noted that “[d]espite a global consensus supporting the Geneva Conventions, adherence to even the most fundamental humanitarian norms is shockingly insufficient in today’s warzones”.Footnote 4
Recognizing this, the Global Initiative to Galvanise Political Commitment to IHL (Global IHL Initiative), jointly launched by the ICRC and a group of co-convening States, calls on States to reaffirm their commitment to compliance with IHL and to undertake sustained and measurable action in this regard.Footnote 5 Central to this is embedding IHL within national institutions, legal frameworks, policies and practices. This is particularly important to do during peacetime, when a foundation for meaningful compliance can be established before conflict arises. Within this framework, national IHL committees (NIHLCs) have been repeatedly recognized as one of the most effective tools for strengthening IHL implementation.Footnote 6
To illustrate the potential value and impact of an NIHLC, and in line with the Global IHL Initiative’s goal of encouraging the exchange of best practices among NIHLCs, this article traces the evolution of Australia’s NIHLC. Australia’s NIHLC was established in 1977 as a mechanism focused primarily on planning for the ratification of the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, and on IHL dissemination. These goals were reflective of the priorities of the Committee’s members at the time. Since then, however, Australia’s NIHLC has evolved and matured into a forum for strategic consultation, knowledge-sharing and international engagement.
A recent review of the purpose and operations of Australia’s NIHLC both reflected and harnessed the evolved nature of the Committee and demonstrates the continuing political commitment to the Committee’s role in IHL implementation. It also provides a realistic example of how long-standing NIHLCs can strengthen and reaffirm their roles in IHL implementation through reviewing their mandate and modalities. Australia’s NIHLC demonstrates that political will is not only foundational to national IHL implementation but is also reinforced and sustained through the very structures it establishes.
This paper proceeds in four parts. The first part provides an overview of NIHLCs and their role in IHL implementation at the domestic level. The second part charts the history of Australia’s long-standing NIHLC, including the evolution of its mandate, before part three details the process and key elements of recent reforms to its mandate and modalities. Part four contextualizes these reforms within broader initiatives, including the Global IHL Initiative and the regional Pacific Partnership Project.
Overview of national IHL committees
While not mandated by the Geneva Conventions, NIHLCs have emerged as best-practice governance mechanisms for translating universal IHL obligations into national legislation, policy and practice.Footnote 7 Established by States in forms suited to their national context, and with diverse mandates and varying compositions, these bodies can play a key role in supporting the adoption, implementation, dissemination and ongoing development of IHL through cross-sectoral collaboration.Footnote 8
The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (the Movement) has played, and continues to play, a crucial role in the conceptualization, promotion and support of these committees. Recommendations from the 1993 International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, as well as from an intergovernmental group of experts, called for States to consider creating “national committees, with the possible support of National Societies, to advise and assist governments in implementing and disseminating IHL”.Footnote 9 NIHLCs were similarly encouraged under Resolution 1 of the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (International Conference) in 1995.Footnote 10
Since then, NIHLCs have gained widespread recognition as best-practice structures for advancing IHL compliance domestically. Their importance has been consistently reaffirmed in successive International Conferences, most recently under Resolution 1 of the 33rd International Conference (2019), “Bringing IHL Home”,Footnote 11 and Resolution 1 of the 34th International Conference (2024), “Building a Universal Culture of Compliance with IHL”.Footnote 12 These resolutions underscore the critical role of NIHLCs and call on States to establish or strengthen them as cross-sectoral platforms for ensuring IHL implementation, compliance and accountability. The Global IHL Initiative has likewise identified NIHLCs as a priority workstream, noting that such committees hold significant potential to further strengthen IHL implementation and promote the identification and sharing of good practices that lead to more effective, outcome-oriented strategies.Footnote 13
As of July 2025, approximately 121 NIHLCs existed globally.Footnote 14 Their mandates vary, and include inter-agency coordination and legislative review, advising on training, and public reporting. While resourcing models differ, many committees operate effectively with minimal additional cost, relying on existing institutional capacities such as staff time and the use of member offices for meetings. In some instances, dedicated funding is available to support their work.Footnote 15
Membership typically includes representatives from relevant ministries (such as defence, justice and foreign affairs), armed forces, the judiciary, academia, and other legal and humanitarian experts.Footnote 16 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (National Societies) are often key members of these committees. Their contributions can include chairing or providing secretariat functions, offering legal or operational expertise, and participating as full members, observers or advisers.Footnote 17 The ICRC may also participate in NIHLCs in an observer capacity.Footnote 18
One of the key strengths of NIHLCs lies in their capacity to facilitate collaboration within and between States and, where included, National Societies. Under Article 1 common to the four Geneva Conventions, States bear the primary responsibility to respect and ensure respect for IHL.Footnote 19 This includes treaty ratification, the adoption of implementing legislation, training, dissemination, and the protection of the red cross, crescent and crystal emblems.Footnote 20 National Societies, in turn, are recognized under the Statutes of the Movement as auxiliaries to public authorities in the humanitarian field, including with respect to armed conflict.Footnote 21 This auxiliary status, grounded in international instruments and often reflected in domestic legal frameworks,Footnote 22 gives National Societies a distinct and complementary role in supporting their governments with IHL dissemination, IHL implementation and emblem protection. National Societies also have a specific mandate to disseminate and promote respect for IHL.Footnote 23
NIHLCs offer a formal structure through which this mutually reinforcing relationship can be operationalized, serving as a tangible demonstration of political will and commitment to IHL.Footnote 24 They can bring together a State’s whole-of-government legal, diplomatic, policy and military expertise, complemented by the independence, technical expertise and local-to-global Movement perspective that National Societies contribute. This collaboration enables the development of coordinated, context-specific strategies that reflect and impact both national priorities and the broader international IHL landscape.
In this way, the establishment of an NIHLC is reflective of political will to respect and ensure respect for IHL, while the sustained and meaningful operation of such a committee ensures that this commitment translates into coordinated, practical action. By advancing IHL through tailored national collaboration, NIHLCs also reflect the core aims of the Global IHL Initiative. They can function as local-to-global mechanisms rooted in national systems, informed by international norms, and sustained through inter-sectoral collaboration and shared humanitarian commitment. As such, they have the potential not only to strengthen domestic IHL implementation and compliance but also to help build a global culture of respect for IHL.
Australia’s NIHLC: A history
Australia’s NIHLC serves as a practical example of how national mechanisms can translate IHL commitments into sustained domestic action with potential for broader regional and global impact. Established in 1977, it is one of the longest-standing NIHLCs globally.Footnote 25 On matters of IHL, including the promotion of respect for IHL in Australia, Australia’s NIHLC serves as the primary forum for in-confidence collaboration between senior executives of the Australian government and Australian Red Cross.Footnote 26
The composition, mandate and objectives of Australia’s NIHLC have evolved throughout its almost fifty years of operation, and it has benefited from its members’ ongoing logistical collaboration and funding contributions. This has helped to ensure continued relevance, responsiveness and effectiveness, considering changing international and domestic priorities, and stands as a testament to Australia’s sustained commitment to IHL.
Establishment of Australia’s NIHLC
The early establishment of Australia’s NIHLC was itself an act of political will, catalyzed by Australia’s participation in the 1974–77 Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of IHL Applicable in Armed Conflicts (Diplomatic Conference) and the involvement of Australian Red Cross in the delegation.Footnote 27 The Diplomatic Conference ultimately culminated in the adoption of Additional Protocols I and II to the Geneva Conventions.Footnote 28 Resolution 21 of the Diplomatic Conference invited States “to take all appropriate measures” to ensure that IHL was effectively disseminated, and urged National Societies to “offer their service to the authorities” to that same end.Footnote 29
Following the Diplomatic Conference, it was agreed in November 1977 that Australian Red Cross would establish “a Joint Australian Red Cross and Government IHL Committee, an Australian Red Cross National Dissemination Committee, and an IHL Committee in each of the eight States and Territories of Australia”.Footnote 30 These committees were essentially the foundations of what later became known as Australia’s NIHLC, which was the third NIHLC established globally, following the establishment of France’s NIHLC in 1947Footnote 31 and Germany’s NIHLC in 1973.Footnote 32
The Joint Australian Red Cross and Government IHL Committee was established more formally in December 1978 and became known as the Geneva Conventions Dissemination Committee.Footnote 33 The Committee initially comprised officers from the Australian Attorney-General’s Department (AGD), the Department of Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, together with representatives of Australian Red Cross.Footnote 34 Reflecting the global and domestic IHL priorities at the time, which included the dissemination of knowledge of the Geneva Conventions and the intensification of teaching of IHL within armed forces and administrative services and universities,Footnote 35 the Committee’s “principal function [was] to consider proposals for, and advise the Attorney-General and the Chairman of the Australian Red Cross [on], the dissemination of the Geneva Conventions”.Footnote 36 Likely reflecting the prioritization of work regarding the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, the Geneva Conventions Dissemination Committee initially appeared to focus on discussing Australia’s position on the Protocols and planning for “dissemination of the Protocols once ratified”.Footnote 37 It prepared periodic reports to the attorney-general and to the chairman of Australian Red Cross, issuing its first report in 1979 and its second in 1988.Footnote 33 These reports described the IHL dissemination activities undertaken by Australian Red Cross and the Australian Defence Force (ADF) over this period.
The Australian Red Cross National Dissemination Committee was also formally established in 1978 to assist the Australian government in disseminating knowledge of the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols.Footnote 38 This national committee’s membership included representatives from Australian Red Cross and the Department of Defence as well as independent volunteer IHL experts, and was intended to facilitate liaison with the Commonwealth Government on Australian Red Cross-led IHL initiatives.Footnote 39 A National Seminar was held in 1979, and state- and territory-based IHL dissemination committees, known as Divisional IHL Committees, were then established in states and territories across Australia to disseminate IHL within each jurisdiction.Footnote 40 These Divisional IHL Committees brought together diverse volunteer stakeholders, including local uniformed ADF legal officers, academics, teachers, medical professionals and legal practitioners.Footnote 41 The Australian Red Cross National Dissemination Committee changed its name to the Australian Red Cross National Committee on International Humanitarian Law, or the NIHLC, in November 1983.Footnote 42
Annual reports of Australian Red Cross from the late 1970s and 1980s indicate that the NIHLC oversaw the implementation of a country-wide IHL dissemination strategy.Footnote 43 The Divisional IHL Committees focussed initially on trying to introduce IHL into the curriculum of schools across Australia and on creating awareness and interest in IHL among Red Cross membership and the general public.Footnote 44 Over the years, the work of the Divisional IHL Committees broadened to include the coordination of seminarsFootnote 45 and conferencesFootnote 46 on IHL, involvement in military exercises,Footnote 47 and the development of a range of IHL publicationsFootnote 48 and other dissemination material such as videos, pamphlets and speakers’ notes,Footnote 49 among other activities. The Divisional IHL Committees also coordinated education campaigns targeting “key sectors of the business and medical communities about the protected status of the Red Cross emblem” following a “series of cases involving unauthorised use of the emblem by companies advertising or selling commercial products”.Footnote 50 The NIHLC and Divisional IHL Committees were also leveraged over this time in preparation for successive International Conferences of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.Footnote 51 With funding received from the AGD and other sources,Footnote 52 Australian Red Cross was able to appoint part-time IHL officers throughout Australia in 1989, markedly increasing dissemination activities.Footnote 53
Although Additional Protocols I and II were adopted in 1977, annual reports of Australian Red Cross in the late 1980s refer to ongoing efforts to encourage the Australian government to ratify them. One report notes that in June 1988, an ICRC legal adviser visited Australia.Footnote 54 This was said to complement a “series of meetings that were held by the Secretary General and members of the National Committee on IHL with members of Parliament”.Footnote 55 In another report, it was noted that “[m]uch of September [1989] was devoted to dialogue with key Parliamentarians in a bid to achieve the Australian ratification of the Additional Protocols”.Footnote 56 Finally, in June 1990, Australian Red Cross “welcomed Australia’s ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions”, noting that the NIHLC had “dedicated many hours on consultative and educational campaigns to achieve this result”.Footnote 57
Expanding mandate
After Australia ratified the Additional Protocols in 1991, the Geneva Conventions Dissemination Committee stopped meeting.Footnote 58 To ensure consultation and collaboration between Australian Red Cross and the Australian government on matters relating to IHL continued, representatives of the AGD and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade were formally appointed as members of Australia’s NIHLC in 1995.Footnote 59 Membership of Australia’s NIHLC also broadened to include academics and independent IHL experts, as well as Australian Red Cross leaders and departmental representatives with responsibilities for IHL, youth and communications.Footnote 60 Specialists in areas such as parliamentary liaison, legal research and medical dissemination also contributed to the Committee’s work.Footnote 61 Additionally, the ICRC began sending a delegate to observe meetings. Committee meetings were chaired by an independent IHL expert, with Australian Red Cross acting as the secretariat.Footnote 62
During the 1990s and mid-2000s, Australian Red Cross and the Australian government continued to disseminate IHL across the country by taking part in military exercises, encouraging the teaching of IHL in universities and hosting IHL moots, conferences and seminars,Footnote 63 among other things. Over this time, the mandate of the NIHLC expanded beyond its initial focus on the Additional Protocols and IHL dissemination. Reflecting the changing legal and policy landscape following Australia’s ratification of the Additional Protocols, the Committee developed a broader consultative function on IHL-related issues while also developing dissemination programmes and materials.Footnote 64 During this period, the NIHLC met up to six times a year, with its members circulating reports on recent developments in IHL jurisprudence, including summaries of judgments from the ad hoc international criminal tribunals and recent academic and policy publications.Footnote 65 Experts were regularly invited to present on emerging issues such as developments from the Review Conference of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons,Footnote 66 the 1999 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction,Footnote 67 and the ratification of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.Footnote 68 This supported the progression of related initiatives such as a regional intergovernmental meeting with twenty-three Asia-Pacific States, co-hosted by the Australian government, Australian Red Cross and the ICRC, to discuss the concept and the desirability of an International Criminal Court.Footnote 69 Indeed, Australia’s NIHLC played a role in the negotiations of the 1998 Rome Statute, with NIHLC members in the ICRC’s delegation at the negotiationsFootnote 70 and in attendance at preparatory meetings and conferences prior to the Statute’s adoption.Footnote 71
Following Australia’s ratification of the Rome Statute, and with the focus shifting once again from treaty ratification to implementation, Australia’s NIHLC altered its priorities from the early 2000s onwards to consider other substantive, thematic IHL issues.Footnote 72 This included matters arising from existing treaty obligations, evolving domestic priorities, and emerging regional and global IHL concerns, particularly those identified at successive International Conferences.Footnote 73
For example, following the launch of the ICRC “Health Care in Danger” initiative in 2011,Footnote 74 Australian Red Cross and the Australian government undertook independent and joint dissemination activities on this topic. This included the publication of an IHL magazine with a focus on health care in danger (HCiD)Footnote 75 and a panel event hosted by the ICRC entitled “Australia: Ways Forward to Protect Health Care” in September 2014.Footnote 76 Then, between 2015 and 2019, Australia’s NIHLC engaged on Resolutions 1, 2 and 4 of the 32nd International Conference (2015).Footnote 77 In particular, in support of Resolution 4 on “Health Care in Danger: Continuing to Protect the Delivery of Health Care Together”,Footnote 78 the NIHLC supported consultations on the findings of an Australian Red Cross HCiD report. This report assessed Australia’s existing legal protections for the delivery of health care during armed conflict and other emergencies and identified certain areas in which the Australian domestic legal framework could be strengthened. The success of this initiative was later shared with the HCiD Movement Reference Group in June 2019 as a model of effective National Society and government collaboration.Footnote 79
The ICRC has noted that State practice shows that it is common for the role and functions of an NIHLC to evolve over time. Indeed,
[i]n some cases, the committee gradually expands its functions and assumes new tasks. Others develop structures that, over the years, become an integral part of their country’s governmental architecture, with regular activities, or they acquire a recognized advisory function that goes beyond the promotion of IHL knowledge and domestic implementation to encompass, more generally, the implementation of all international norms relating to the protection of people and objects affected by violence.Footnote 80
The experience of Australia’s NIHLC from its establishment in 1977 reaffirms this trend in State practice.
Australia’s NIHLC: Reforms
As noted above, in September 2024, the ICRC and a group of co-convening States launched the Global IHL Initiative. This initiative includes a workstream on the role of NIHLCs and asks States to reflect on the under-utilized potential of these important domestic mechanisms in implementing and ensuring respect for IHL.Footnote 81
Australia undertook an examination of its own NIHLC a year prior to the launch of the Global IHL Initiative. In 2023, Australia’s NIHLC, in response to a series of recommendations made by Australian Red Cross in respect of the Committee, commenced a process of examining its purpose and working modalities, with a view to ensure the ongoing relevance and utility of the Committee for all its participants. This review was in part borne from the fact that, despite having been an effectively operating and industrious NIHLC for decades, the contemporary iteration of the Committee did not have clear written guidance on its structure or operations. While the mandate for Australia’s NIHLC was recorded in written form in the ICRC’s table of NIHLCs, it also required reviewing and updating to reflect the Committee’s evolved work focus. Australian Red Cross made recommendations to the NIHLC including reviewing the composition of the Committee, adopting a new chairing arrangement and clarifying the role and responsibilities of a chair, proactive planning of Committee priorities, and clarifying the purpose, objectives and operations of the Committee.
A small working group representing the permanent NIHLC members was thus established to explore Australian Red Cross’s recommendations and to make its own recommendations to the Committee. The working group met multiple times over a year to discuss in detail each of the recommendations made by Australian Red Cross, reflecting on historical and more recent practice of the Committee and drawing on known practice of other committees. The working group benefited from bringing together people who had been members of Australia’s NIHLC for a long time and those less familiar with the Committee’s practices. The working group made recommendations to the NIHLC on each point, and in some cases, such as when formalizing the model for the chairing of the Committee, several potential options were put to the NIHLC for discussion. As a result, in 2024, Australia’s NIHLC adopted new terms of reference which updated the mandate and objectives of the Committee; formalized guidance on the composition and structure of the Committee; a new co-chair arrangement for meetings to better reflect the joint stewardship of the Committee between the Australian government and Australian Red Cross; and more rigorous yearly planning to proactively identify items for substantive discussion at Committee meetings for the next year.
A modern mandate
The Australian NIHLC’s mandate needed to capture that its work had evolved beyond its initial focus on the Additional Protocols and IHL dissemination to also include a broader consultative function on IHL-related issues, increasing understanding of the contemporary issues in IHL application, and creating a culture of compliance with IHL. The ICRC notes that where NIHLCs have broader mandates, they are proven to be effective in bringing about domestic changes through legislative reform, advocating for treaty ratification, establishing training for domestic audiences, and publishing voluntary reports on IHL implementation.Footnote 82
Australia’s NIHLC is a key mechanism through which the Australian government and Australian Red Cross fulfil their complementary obligations regarding IHL implementation under the Geneva Conventions and the Statutes of the Movement respectively. It is also a practical embodiment of the auxiliary relationship of the National Society to its public authorities in the humanitarian field. This breadth of the NIHLC’s role and nature, along with the slow expansion of the Committee’s work that has occurred since its establishment, has been captured in the updated mandate adopted by the Committee in 2024.Footnote 83 Australia’s NIHLC now has a mandate to:
1. promote dialogue and cooperation between Australian Red Cross and the Australian government on IHL principles, obligations and priorities, as well as IHL implementation and dissemination in Australia;
2. serve as a forum for appraising members on contemporary IHL developments and discussing their implications in the Australian context;
3. exchange information among members on current dissemination activities being undertaken by Australian Red Cross and the Australian government on IHL;
4. coordinate preparation for International Conferences of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, including the preparation of joint pledges; and
5. coordinate follow-up action from International Conferences.
Balancing government representation and independence
A mandate also needs to reflect a committee’s role in respect to, and its relationship with, the relevant State government. As the work of an NIHLC expands and becomes more difficult to define, so can its relationship with government as it becomes more deeply integrated into a domestic IHL framework. As such, updating the Australian NIHLC’s mandate necessarily involved an examination of the relationship between the Committee and the Australian government.
The nature of NIHLCs and their relationship with and within government has been examined for decades. In 2002, it was reflected from a meeting of representatives of NIHLCs that the effectiveness of a committee’s work in the area of implementation increased in proportion to the closeness of its ties with government.Footnote 84 It has also long been accepted that NIHLCs themselves are not responsible for the ultimate adoption or otherwise of such measures by their governments.Footnote 85 NIHLCs are generally linked to the executive branch of the State’s government, though they can form part of the government or be inter-institutional in nature – i.e., comprising representatives from the executive, legislative and judicial branches.Footnote 86
While Australia’s NIHLC includes representatives from key Australian government departments in its membership, it is not a part of the Australian government, nor does it have any decision-making power that would bind the Australian government – that is, the Australian government retains its independence in making decisions and taking actions as it sees fit in respect of IHL matters which may be discussed by the Committee. This is common across NIHLCs and reflects that implementing IHL is primarily the responsibility of the State government.Footnote 87 The ICRC’s Guidelines for Success for NIHLCs acknowledge that such decision-making power is not necessary for the effective functioning of an NIHLC.Footnote 88 Similarly, the NIHLC is not empowered to make decisions on behalf of Australian Red Cross. Australian Red Cross can act in accordance with its mandate as it deems fit, and independently of the Australian government, in accordance with the Fundamental Principles of the Movement, irrespective of what is discussed during Committee meetings.
In Australia’s experience, respect for the independence of NIHLC members has enhanced the effectiveness of the Committee’s role in serving as the primary forum for in-confidence collaboration between senior executives of the Australian government and Australian Red Cross. With the knowledge that discussions and recommendations made at Committee meetings are not binding, members are able to deliberate more openly. This enables the Australian government to consider diverse viewpoints before subsequently making any decisions. The consultative purpose of the NIHLC was retained and the structural independence of both government and Australian Red Cross from the Committee was preserved in the reform process.
Composition and structure
The ICRC has identified that it is important for NIHLCs to “include other qualified persons”, those being individuals who are not associated with government ministries but who are appointed for their legal, educational, communications or other expertise.Footnote 89
In Australia’s experience, non-government and non-Movement expert members of the NIHLC, who serve as permanent members of the Committee in their personal capacity, have continuously brought richness and rigour to Committee discussions. These independent members contribute diverse expertise and experience, often from academia, the military, diplomacy and humanitarian advocacy, which allows them to bridge theory, policy and practice and bring valuable external perspectives to the NIHLC’s work. They are able to challenge assumptions and perspectives and enhance contestability in Committee discussions.
Such members are appointed to the NIHLC for three-year terms (renewable for an additional two years) and have included members of the judiciary, academia, the private sector, and other relevant civil society organizations, as well as current and former government or defence force officials who sit on the NIHLC in their personal capacities. These “individual expert members” are appointed based on demonstrable and relevant subject matter expertise in IHL and are required to respect the confidential nature of the Committee.
The expert members sit alongside the other permanent members of the NIHLC, those being senior representatives from the Australian Departments of the Attorney-General, Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence, and a senior representative of Australian Red Cross. The ICRC Mission in Australia has observer status at Committee meetings. The NIHLC also continues to invite independent experts from time to time to be ad hoc members of the Committee, or guest speakers to provide in-depth insights on particular topics of current relevance in IHL. While the composition of the NIHLC brings diversity of views and its confidential nature encourages discussion and collaboration, respecting the classified nature of certain matters is a continual challenge, and one the Committee examines on both an ongoing and case-by-case basis.
The composition and structure of Australia’s NIHLC set out in the adopted terms of reference was seen to reflect an appropriate balance of government, Movement and individual members while maintaining a manageable committee size to support focused discussion. Putting in place term limits on expert members was also seen as a mechanism to balance corporate knowledge of the Committee with regular renewal of new members, which in the past had been lacking.
Co-chair arrangement
The chair of Australia’s NIHLC was traditionally an individual expert member of the Committee. Australian Red Cross adopted the role of chair of the Committee as an interim arrangement that continued until the Committee’s operation was reviewed. Previous reflections of NIHLCs have emphasized the role of the Committee chair and secretariat in preparing for and ensuring the smooth running of committee meetings. In addition to having the necessary authority to direct proceedings, the chair must enjoy the recognition on the part of the political authorities and civil society that is needed, in turn, to gain recognition for the Committee.Footnote 90
In reviewing the functioning of Australia’s NIHLC, it was recognized that the role of chair had naturally come to be associated with a sense of ownership of the Committee and its agenda. Accordingly, it was considered appropriate that the chairing of the NIHLC be shared between the permanent members on a rotating basis, to reinforce the Committee as a collaboration between Australian Red Cross and the Australian government. A shared chairing arrangement would also ensure that meetings could be tailored to the needs and interests of all members and would increase collaboration and ownership of the workings of the Committee.
Yearly planning and priorities
Reflecting current best practice amongst NIHLCs, the new terms of reference for Australia’s NIHLC prescribe that the Committee agree on a set of objectives for each year based on the Committee’s mandate (examples of such objectives are explored in the next section). However, it is the process of proactively identifying objectives that seeks to maximize the Committee’s time. Australia’s NIHLC currently meets quarterly and forward-planning objectives for the year, which enables the Committee to use its meetings to their full potential but also ensures that the Committee is forward-focused and engaging with contemporary challenges in IHL. However, the terms of reference also recognize that the NIHLC requires flexibility to accommodate the dynamic nature of the global IHL landscape and provide the Committee with the ability to engage in discussions on issues as they arise. This was seen as an important feature in harnessing the capabilities of the NIHLC as a forum for discussing IHL issues. Whilst some members of the NIHLC report on outcomes of the Committee’s work in their respective annual reports, the Committee is self-regulating and has no specific reporting obligations. This is appropriate for a body whose main function is to facilitate discussion and provide advice, rather than make binding decisions or produce deliverables. That being said, establishing clear objectives enhances the Committee’s self-regulating and self-evaluating capability.
Current goals and activities: A culture of IHL compliance
The reform of Australia’s NIHLC reflects the current goals and activities of the Committee whilst enabling the Committee to continue its work with increased effectiveness. Overall, the NIHLC seeks to reinforce and progress a culture of IHL compliance in Australia through enabling dialogue, both across government and between government and Australian Red Cross, on IHL implementation, interpretation and application, and coordinating efforts to increase understanding of and respect for IHL.Footnote 91
Preventing violations of IHL starts with “sowing the seeds of compliance long before conflict breaks out and setting a clear expectation that the rules will be scrupulously followed if and when it does”.Footnote 92 To this end, the value of collaboration with other committees in the region is being increasingly recognized. The 2025 Asia and the Pacific Regional Conference on IHL highlighted that many States were seeking opportunities to benefit from exchange of experiences with others within their regions.Footnote 93 Continued efforts to strengthen regional collaboration between NIHLCs could further enhance Australia’s contribution to IHL compliance in the region.
Strengthening the domestic framework of IHL implementation is also essential to creating an environment which will be conducive to compliance with IHL should an armed conflict arise. Continuing to prioritize preparation for and follow-up work to the International Conferences has been a feature of the Australian NIHLC’s work in creating a culture of compliance with IHL in Australia. This has included Australia’s work in response to Resolution 1 of the 33rd International Conference (2019), “Bringing IHL Home: A Road Map for Better National Implementation of International Humanitarian Law”.Footnote 94 In 2024, Australia published its Report on Implementation of International Humanitarian Law at the Domestic Level (Voluntary Report).Footnote 95 This report fulfils a voluntary pledge made by Australia, along with numerous other States, in connection with Resolution 1, and provides an overview of IHL implementation by Australia, with relevant examples of Australian practice. It aims to help improve understanding of IHL and encourage and inform dialogue on IHL issues domestically. The Voluntary Report outlines the strength of Australia’s domestic legislation, comprehensive training and dissemination programmes (particularly within the ADF), and effective legal mechanisms in ensuring conformity with IHL, as well as noting the NIHLC’s role as a consultative forum to coordinate this framework for IHL compliance within and beyond government.Footnote 96 Development of the Voluntary Report required coordination across government and with Australian Red Cross, which the NIHLC played a key role in facilitating.
The NIHLC also enables collaboration between the Australian government and Australian Red Cross in reporting on the progress of resolutions. Indeed, the progress report for the 33rd International Conference (including the publication of the Voluntary Report) was submitted jointly and outlined both Australian Red Cross and Australian government efforts on IHL implementation.Footnote 97
Australia’s preparation for the 34th International Conference, held in 2024, was also facilitated, in part, by the NIHLC. Australia’s active involvement in the 34th International Conference included leading an open pledge on “Enhancing the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel”.Footnote 98 This pledge calls on signatories to enhance promotion of, respect for, and compliance with IHL, particularly in relation to the protection of humanitarian personnel and principled humanitarian action. Australia has continued this work by pursuing a Declaration on the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel, along with several other States, through the Ministerial Group for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel.Footnote 99 The NIHLC has served as forum for discussing the development and progress of the Declaration.
In anticipation of further advancing priorities from the 34th International Conference, Australia’s NIHLC has served, and continues to serve, as a forum for domestic consultations on emerging issues. This includes Resolution 2 of the 34th International Conference (2024), “Protecting Civilians and Other Protected Persons and Objects against the Potential Human Cost of ICT Activities during Armed Conflict”.Footnote 100 This resolution, among other things, encourages consultation between the Movement and States on the Digital Emblem Project to develop a digital signal identifying protected digital assets and infrastructure of medical and humanitarian actors. Similarly, and as noted above, Resolution 1 of the 34th International Conference (2024), “Building a Universal Culture of Compliance with IHL”, highlighted the critical role of NIHLCs and called on States to establish or strengthen them as cross-sectoral platforms for ensuring IHL implementation, compliance and accountability.Footnote 101 In terms of the Global IHL Initiative, discussed in more detail below, updates about Australia’s engagement across the various workstreams of the Initiative have been reported and discussed in NIHLC meetings.
One of the weaknesses identified in International Conferences is, at times, a lack of follow-up and failure to implement the resolutions adopted, though reports have identified that this weakness can be remedied through the establishment of follow-up mechanisms.Footnote 102 Australia’s NIHLC is a key example of how NIHLCs can be such a mechanism for this follow-up work.
In addition to progressing thematic initiatives prompted by both International Conferences and broader global priorities, dissemination remains a core focus of the Australian NIHLC. Members regularly share updates on their respective agency activities through quarterly reports and often collaborate on, or participate in, each other’s events. The Australian government and Australian Red Cross continue to organize a range of IHL training and dissemination events, both independently and jointly.Footnote 103
Australia’s NIHLC has historically played a part in collaborating on, planning, informing, reporting on and/or monitoring these engagements, with Committee members and representatives from the Australian government and Australian Red Cross often contributing to such events as speakers or organizers.
Global considerations
The Global Initiative to Galvanize Political Commitment to International Humanitarian Law
The launch of the Global IHL Initiative provided a new context for recent reforms to Australia’s NIHLC. The Global IHL Initiative’s Workstream 2 on NIHLCs seeks to examine how these committees can most effectively be used to assist governments in implementing and promoting IHL at the national level. In doing so, the Initiative is looking beyond encouraging States to establish NIHLCs where they do not yet have one, recognizing the number of NIHLCs already in existence. Instead, the focus is on how these committees operate: the ICRC posits that only around half of the established NIHLCs are functioning effectively.Footnote 104 Workstream 2 seeks to identify good practice on the mandates, composition, roles and duties of NIHLCs, with the potential of formulating a non-binding charter for such committees. In the position of having reviewed and reaffirmed the mandate, composition, role and duties of its own NIHLC, Australia’s engagement with this workstream of the Global IHL Initiative can be seen as dual-focused: sharing Australia’s experiences in reviewing its NIHLC, and continuing to learn from others and evolve.
In the first State consultation on NIHLCs, Australia’s intervention highlighted its commitment to implementing and upholding its IHL obligations and outlined the make-up, structure and operation of its NIHLC. The intervention was also used as an opportunity to share Australia’s recent experience in reviewing the Committee’s ongoing relevance and utility and the process of developing new terms of reference for the Committee. This was welcomed by the hosts of the consultation as instructive, particularly in the context of several other States having discussed being in the midst of evaluating the utility of their committees.Footnote 105
As one of the longest-standing NIHLCs, Australia’s reforms to its Committee illustrate the iterative nature of NIHLCs as well as the importance of continued review of such committees’ function and mandate. This is particularly so as both the legal landscape and the nature of the Australian NIHLC’s work evolves, and demonstrates how long-standing committees can ensure that they remain impactful – a key objective of Workstream 2. Australia’s experience also demonstrates how reviewing an NIHLC’s practical functions, composition, modes of work and other aspects can guide a committee through larger philosophical questions of the purpose, intention and nature that a committee should have. It further demonstrates the utility of reflecting on the effectiveness of an NIHLC not because issues in its operation have arisen, but rather to ensure that its potential is being realized. This is particularly relevant for long-standing committees that have become entrenched in the domestic IHL framework and whose activities have evolved beyond the easily identifiable and measurable task of obtaining signature and ratification of key IHL treaties.
However, Australia’s reforms also provide similarly helpful guidance to States in the process of establishing NIHLCs for the first time. The same considerations apply for new NIHLCs: a sufficient mandate to cover all activities of the committee; an inclusive and relevant composition; intentional and practical working methods; and an effective chairmanship model.
Australia is by no means the first State to discuss self-evaluation of an NIHLC. There are published accounts from the SlovenianFootnote 106 and sub-Saharan African committees,Footnote 107 and Australia seeks to add to this rich dialogue through sharing its own experiences. In the context of the Global IHL Initiative’s Workstream 2 encouraging States to establish NIHLCs and to ensure that those already established are impactful, Australia’s NIHLC reforms offer an example of potential considerations and how to approach them.
The process of ensuring an impactful NIHLC is an ongoing one, and Australia’s NIHLC needs to continue to reflect and evolve. The effective implementation of IHL domestically has been described as a process of “continuous improvement” which can be assisted by NIHLCs.Footnote 108 In this sense, focus is often placed on the role of NIHLCs in improving IHL implementation – however, the institutions and mechanisms for domestic implementation, including NIHLCs themselves, also need continuous improvement.Footnote 109 Australia’s recent reforms to its NIHLC do not mean that this process is complete; rather, they have placed Australia’s NIHLC in a better position to further learn from other States’ experiences and practices through the Global IHL Initiative, and to continue its process of improvement.
Regional cooperation: Pacific Partnership Project on NIHLCs
Regionally, Australian Red Cross, New Zealand Red Cross and the ICRC Mission in Australia, working in collaboration with National Societies in the Pacific and with support from the embassies of Switzerland in Australia and New Zealand, designed and implemented the Pacific Partnership Project (2023–24). This project aimed to enhance collaboration between existing NIHLCs in the Pacific region and to support States and National Societies in the region that were considering establishing such committees. It culminated in a Pacific Partnership Forum (the Forum), held on 24–25 July 2024 in Wellington, New Zealand, following the Fourth Pacific Island Roundtable on IHL (the Roundtable).
The Forum brought together thirty-five participants from fourteen countries in the Pacific to share their commitment to IHL and explore opportunities for, and barriers to, setting up, reinvigorating or strengthening NIHLCs. The Australian government and Australian Red Cross, alongside representatives from the governments or National Societies of Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, the Cook Islands and Kiribati, gave presentations on their respective NIHLCs and shared lessons learned.Footnote 110
The Forum and regional exchange between NIHLCs also helped Australia to reform its own Committee. Terms of reference of other committees in the region were consulted as sources of inspiration, comparison and contrast in the development of new terms of reference for Australia’s NIHLC.
The Forum and Roundtable concluded with the creation of a pledge on “Enhancing a Culture of Respect for International Humanitarian Law in the Pacific” for the 34th International Conference. The pledge includes a key action item on “[e]stablish[ing], renew[ing] or maintain[ing] a national IHL committee or similar body that is active in its functions”.Footnote 111 To date, eight governments and National Societies have signed the pledge,Footnote 112 progressing toward a shared regional goal that continues to be actively pursued and aligns with broader global priorities set out by the 34th International Conference and the Global IHL Initiative.
Conclusion
The collaboration that an NIHLC enables between government, National Societies and the civil sector is critical to preventing violations of IHL. It also fosters a more cooperative, unified approach to addressing the ongoing challenges to IHL and related humanitarian considerations in contemporary armed conflicts. In a global context where respect for IHL is being increasingly undermined, the importance of domestic implementation of IHL and creating a culture of compliance with IHL principles cannot be overstated – and neither can the role of NIHLCs in establishing such a culture.
Since its establishment in 1977, Australia’s NIHLC has evolved in its purpose, focus, composition and operation, but what has persisted is a political will and commitment to both the Committee and to respecting and ensuring respect for IHL. The Global IHL Initiative highlights the importance of political will in establishing structures like NIHLCs and reviewing these structures for effectiveness in order to create a culture of compliance with IHL. Strengthening the role and functionality of an existing NIHLC can have multiple benefits for a State; in particular, it reflects the State’s commitment to IHL by demonstrating that it is taking steps towards fulfilling its fundamental obligation to respect and ensure respect for IHL.Footnote 113 Mapping the history and recent reforms and actions of Australia’s NIHLC provides a practical example of this, and also a model of how to strengthen the role and effectiveness of a long-standing committee whose functions have evolved beyond implementation of the key IHL treaties.
Open access
