Legal 12/11/25

Geneva Convention and Australian Compliance Breakdown

Under the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), Articles 16–20 require that civilians harmed by conflict receive medical care and protection without delay or discrimination.

In practice, Australia limits recognition and care to service veterans under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act.  Civilians and second-generation descendants of exposed veterans receive no coverage or monitoring.  This omission amounts to a failure to protect civilians affected by wartime activities.

Articles 27 and 32–34 of the same Convention guarantee humane treatment and forbid degrading or discriminatory neglect.  The repeated administrative delays and dismissals experienced by toxic-exposure civilians, together with the lack of trauma-informed processes, demonstrate ongoing discrimination by omission.

Additional Protocol I (1977) extends these duties further.  Articles 35 and 55 prohibit methods of warfare that cause long-term environmental and health damage and require states to identify and remediate contaminated areas.  Australia has never created a national dioxin registry or any specific environmental-remediation program related to Vietnam-era exposure, breaching those obligations.

Article 91 of the same Protocol states that a state responsible for a breach of humanitarian law is liable to pay compensation.  Australia has no standing redress or compensation mechanism for civilians or descendants affected by military toxins; the existing CDDA scheme is purely discretionary and excludes systemic harm.

Articles 146 and 147 of the Fourth Convention classify deliberate harm to civilians as a “grave breach” and require states to investigate and prosecute those responsible.  Australia has never held an independent inquiry into toxic-warfare exposure or the suppression of related health data.  Past royal commissions addressed only limited aspects of veterans’ health, leaving systemic exposure unexamined.

Common Article 1 across all Geneva Conventions obliges states to respect and ensure respect for the conventions “in all circumstances.”  Although Australia has ratified the Geneva instruments, it has never implemented their civilian-protection provisions into domestic law, failing to meet that core duty.

Related international instruments reinforce these obligations.

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2004) requires states to eliminate and remediate dioxins and to inform and protect public health.  Australia has ratified the convention but provides no TCDD-specific screening or monitoring.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) obliges states to provide health care and rehabilitation for people disabled by environmental harm.  Again, Australia has ratified but not applied these protections to inherited toxic injury, breaching Articles 25 and 26.

Finally, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) demands protection of children from environmental and war-related harm.  Australia has ratified it but has not integrated those safeguards into domestic health or defence policy, breaching Article 24(2)(c).

Summary:

Australia has ratified the Geneva Conventions and related treaties but confined recognition and assistance to uniformed veterans.  Civilians and descendants affected by wartime toxic agents remain excluded from medical monitoring, compensation, and remediation.  This violates Articles 16–20, 55, 91, and Common Article 1 of the Geneva framework and represents regression under international humanitarian and human-rights law.

What this really means is that people like me were never supposed to be forgotten.

The Geneva Conventions, the Stockholm Convention, and every other treaty Australia has signed all promise that civilians and their children will be protected from the long-term consequences of war.

Instead, those promises were quietly narrowed until only uniformed veterans counted.

I was born into the aftermath of a chemical war. My father served, my body carries the proof, and my government still pretends that second-generation exposure doesn’t exist.

That silence isn’t a mistake—it’s a choice.

My ICC submission is not just about my own case; it’s about restoring the intent of international law: that when war poisons people and the land, the State must recognise it, treat it, and repair it.

Until that happens, the record will stand as evidence of what was done, what was ignored, and who chose to look away.