This article critiques the articulation of the legal framework applicable to Australian Defence Force operations in Afghanistan found in the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan Inquiry Report (Brereton Report). In particular, using the Australian experience in Afghanistan as a case study, the article argues, on the basis of the rules of treaty interpretation, that where a foreign State party to Additional Protocol II (AP II) intervenes in a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) to which AP II applies, that foreign State is bound by AP II, in addition to the host State and non-State armed actors that are parties to the NIAC. The article concludes by outlining the reasons why the Brereton Report's silence in relation to AP II matters.

本文批评澳大利亚国防军阿富​​汗调查报告（布里尔顿报告）监察长中发现的适用于澳大利亚国防军在阿富汗行动的法律框架的表述。文章特别以澳大利亚在阿富汗的经历为案例，根据条约解释规则，认为当第二附加议定书（AP II）的外国缔约国介入非国际性武装冲突时(NIAC) 适用于 AP II，该外国除了作为 NIAC 缔约方的东道国和非国家武装行为体之外，还受 AP II 的约束。文章最后概述了为什么布雷顿报告对第二附加议定书问题保持沉默的原因。