Member St,ates and a letEer to the relevant international organizations inviting them to communicate to him before 15 AuEust 1985 any views they might wish tosubmit in response to paragraph 2 of resolution 39/80. 3. ?he present report reproduces replies that have been received as at5 Septenber 1985. Replies that might still be forthcoming will be circulated in addenda Eo the present report.. L/ See Official Records ofthe General Assembl -ninth Session, Supplement No. I0 lA/39/L0). U See A,/C.6/39/5R.47-49 and 63. 2/ Se. W General Assembly, Thirty- ,Supplement No. 10 (A/39/L01.A/40/4sr English Page 3 II. REPLIES RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENTS AUSTRALIA lOriginal; Englishl [12 August 1985] l. The Australian Governrnent is of the view that if the proposed Code of Offencesagainst the Peace and Security of Mankind is to serve a useful purpose as aninternational charter, it should be conceptually clear, juridically sound and asprecise in its terminology as possible. ft has therefore been eneouraged by the approach taken thus far by tbe International Law Commission in its discussion ofthe topic and considers that if this methodology is naintained, the most seriouspitfalls in the area can be avoided. fn partieular it weleomes the deeision of the Conrnission to limit the application of the Code at this stage to the crirninalliability of individuals and not to try to tackle the conceptually dubious problem of alloeating crininal liabilities to States. while Austrialia is of the view thatthe question of the responsibility of States for actions and poliees that cause danage to others is a legitinate and inportant subject for the consideration of the Commission, it dods not believe that such consideration in the context of this item would do anything but obseure the eentral objective in the exercise ancl delayconpletion of the Code. 2- The Australian Government also roelcones the decision of the Commission to
**Analysis**
The text appears to be related to international law and the development of a code of offenses against the peace and security of mankind. The Australian Government's response focuses on the conceptual clarity, juridical soundness, and precision of the code, as well as the Commission's decision to limit the code's application to individual criminal liability. This suggests that the category is more closely related to international law and governance rather than economic development or humanitarian aid.

**Category**
International law, Humanitarian aid and relief