Australia's responsible stewardship of its nuclear capabilities is conditioned upon us continuing to fulfil our international obligations of security and safeguards, as a non nuclear weapons state. Our entry into the AUKUS agreement makes Australia unique, as the first non-nuclear power to adopt nuclear technology for non-peaceful purposes. This course unpacks the implications of this for professionals responsible for the security and safeguarding of nuclear material and technologies. It provides an overview of the history of non-proliferation, international safeguards theory, the network of treaties that are the sources of legal authority for safeguards, Australia's obligations within that framework, relevant international and domestic regulatory institutions including the International Atomic Energy Agency and Australia's role in these, as well as recent debates and negotiations catalysed by the AUKUS agreement. At the regulatory level, it explores the role of standards in safeguards regulation; radiation monitoring and safeguards systems; tools and technique of inspection and verification; enforcement and compliance; export controls; and nuclear security.

Learning Outcomes

Upon successful completion, students will have the knowledge and skills to:

1. Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the international legal frameworks and institutions that regulate nuclear security and safeguards, in particular the treaty framework and Australia's international legal obligations.
   
2. Explain the principles of nuclear physics relevant to regulating nuclear technology and ensuring safeguards and security standards are met, including in relation to new technologies.
3. Analyse the role of international and domestic regulators in securing and safeguarding nuclear materials and technologies in Australia from diverse disciplinary perspectives, including Australia's relationship with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and how concepts such as nuclear stewardship are understood within and outside Australia
4. Understand the role and regulatory techniques of nuclear safeguards oversight, including inspection and audit.
5. Communicate regulatory issues arising from the implementation of nuclear safeguards in Australia to specialist and non-specialist audiences in government, industry and the public.

Required Resources

Course readings will be provided on Wattle.

Recommended Resources

Whether you are on campus or studying online, there are a variety of online platforms you will use to participate in your study program. These could include videos for lectures and other instruction, two-way video conferencing for interactive learning, email and other messaging tools for communication, interactive web apps for formative and collaborative activities, print and/or photo/scan for handwritten work and drawings, and home-based assessment.

ANU outlines recommended student system requirements to ensure you are able to participate fully in your learning. Other information is also available about the various Learning Platforms you may use.

Staff Feedback

Students will be given feedback in the following forms in this course:

• written comments
• verbal comments
• feedback to whole class, groups, individuals, focus group etc

Student Feedback

ANU is committed to the demonstration of educational excellence and regularly seeks feedback from students. Students are encouraged to offer feedback directly to their Course Convener or through their College and Course representatives (if applicable). Feedback can also be provided to Course Conveners and teachers via the Student Experience of Learning & Teaching (SELT) feedback program. SELT surveys are confidential and also provide the Colleges and ANU Executive with opportunities to recognise excellent teaching, and opportunities for improvement.

Other Information

Class activities are not recorded for this course as they primarily consist of interactive discussions and activities.

Class Schedule

Week/Session	Summary of Activities	Assessment
1	History of non-proliferation and safeguards internationally and within AustraliaInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) role, activities and governance	In class participation (all)21 May onwards, electronic submission of two questions for each session, submitted prior to class on Wattle. This is Assessment Task 1 and will continue for each seminarOrientation to using Wattle discussion forum
2	Relevant treaties and agreements: State roles, rights and responsibilities, both facility and State-level safeguardsThe 3S nexus and State-level approach to nuclear fuel cycle, safeguards, security and risks (including decommissioning, reprocessing and waste management; types of nuclear material and weaponisation processes)	As aboveStarting this week: Leading one in-class informal discussion or formal debate based on Assessment Task 2 (1000-word précis of relevant reading(s)). Students will select the week they wish to facilitate in Week 1
3	Nuclear regulation and law in Australia: key regulatory bodies, actors and licensing systemsRole of international and domestic standards	As above4 June 2025 for Assessment Task 3: in-class negotiation.
4	Tools and techniquesEnforcement and compliance optionsNuclear transport safety, security, and safeguards and introduction to safeguards-by-design	As above11 June 2025 deadline for Assessment Task 4: Research and writing outline for an essay, policy brief or scholarly blog post (max 1000 words).
5	Export controls, nuclear security (detection and nuclear forensics) and State-sanctioned proliferationNuclear terrorism and illicit tradeNuclear cultures and epistemic communities, communicating with non-specialist stakeholders, including the public	As above 25 June 2025 deadline for Assessment Task 5: essay, policy brief or scholarly blog post (max. 3000 words). Note, this deadline is after the seminars conclude

Tutorial Registration

No tutorials for this course, as it is presented as a series of seminars.

Assessment Summary

Assessment task	Value	Due Date	Learning Outcomes
Questions for presenters (recurring weekly)	10 %	18/06/2025	1,2,3,4
Leading one in-class informal discussion or formal debate, including a 1000-word précis of relevant reading(s)	10 %	16/06/2025	1,2,3,4
In-class participation in simulated negotiation	30 %	04/06/2025	1,3
Research and writing outline for an essay, policy brief or scholarly blog post - 1000 words	20 %	11/06/2025	1,2,4,5
Essay or scholarly blog post - 3000 words	30 %	25/06/2025	1,2,4,5

* If the Due Date and Return of Assessment date are blank, see the Assessment Tab for specific Assessment Task details

Policies

ANU has educational policies, procedures and guidelines , which are designed to ensure that staff and students are aware of the University’s academic standards, and implement them. Students are expected to have read the Academic Integrity Rule before the commencement of their course. Other key policies and guidelines include:

• Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure
• Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure
• Extenuating Circumstances Application
• Student Surveys and Evaluations
• Deferred Examinations
• Student Complaint Resolution Policy and Procedure
• Code of practice for teaching and learning

Assessment Requirements

The ANU is using Turnitin to enhance student citation and referencing techniques, and to assess assignment submissions as a component of the University's approach to managing Academic Integrity. For additional information regarding Turnitin please visit the Academic Skills website. In rare cases where online submission using Turnitin software is not technically possible; or where not using Turnitin software has been justified by the Course Convener and approved by the Associate Dean (Education) on the basis of the teaching model being employed; students shall submit assessment online via ‘Wattle’ outside of Turnitin, or failing that in hard copy, or through a combination of submission methods as approved by the Associate Dean (Education). The submission method is detailed below.

Moderation of Assessment

Marks that are allocated during Semester are to be considered provisional until formalised by the College examiners meeting at the end of each Semester. If appropriate, some moderation of marks might be applied prior to final results being released.

Assessment Task 1

Questions for presenters (recurring weekly)

Submission of two questions -- prior to class -- through the Wattle discussion forum, for the class instructor or the guest presenter for each class.

Assessment Task 2

Leading one in-class informal discussion or formal debate, including a 1000-word précis of relevant reading(s)

In Week 1, students will select the week of the course for which they are responsible for leading an informal class discussion or formal debate. The student can select the preferred format. A précis is also to be submitted of relevant reading(s) (e.g. book chapter, journal article, government report, reported judgement) that outlines the issues presented, the arguments advance, the evidence in support of the arguments and the student's assessment of the quality of the arguments and any weaknesses or gaps in the analysis. The reading is selected by the student and can be drawn from required or additional readings listed for the course, or discovered independently. Word limit: 1000 words.

Assessment Task 3

In-class participation in simulated negotiation

Students will be advised of the topic of the negotiation and roles will be assigned and recommended readings to engage with ahead of class. Students to come to class having prepared talking points, to participate in the negotiation.

Assessment Task 4

Research and writing outline for an essay, policy brief or scholarly blog post - 1000 words

A 2-3 page outline, in dot-point form for an essay or policy brief or scholarly blog post that responds to a regulatory challenge in Australia or the region or internationally relating to nuclear safeguards. Students have a free choice of topic, but in most cases will choose a topic that relates to a current or future professional role, or a safeguards issue affecting their organisation or sector. Course convenor and instructors will be available to review and comment on the outline and discuss and test essay ideas with students in class and outside class time. This assessment task, in combination with Assessment task 5, aims to help students synthesise, apply and extend their understanding of the course content.

Word limit: 1000 words.

Guidance on how to outline a policy brief or an essay can be found here:

Policy Brief Outline:

https://www.anu.edu.au/students/academic-skills/writing-assessment/other-assessments/policy-brief

Essay (See the template on the right hand button of the linked page):

https://www.anu.edu.au/students/academic-skills/writing-assessment/essay-writing/plan-your-essay

Style guides

The ANU library and Study Skills units have multiple references on style guides and how to manage citations of others' work. RegNet does not prescribe a particular referencing system; use what you are familiar with, but be consistent. If you need guidance, the Crawford School Style Guide is well developed and reliable -- feel free to use it: 

https://crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/crawford01_cap_anu_edu_au/2018-11/crawfordstyleguide_2018_online.pdf

Assessment Task 5

Essay or scholarly blog post - 3000 words

A full write up, in essay or policy brief or scholarly blog post form of the regulatory challenge identified in Assessment Task 4. The full write up requires identification of relevant regulatory theory/theories, and engagement with academic and non-academic literature. Word limit: 3000 words.

Rubric

Assessment Criteria	80-100%	70-79%	60-69%	50-59%	<>
Demonstrates core knowledge of the relevant science, regulatory and legal rules, regulatory theory, institutional designs and political context of the identified challenge 30% weighting	A coherent and clearly articulated argument that demonstrates an outstanding understanding of the relevant science, regulatory theory, regulatory and legal rules, institutional designs and political context of the identified challenge.  The discussion explains potential differences in understandings of the regulatory issues and is supported by a strong body of evidence and appropriate academic literature.	The discussion provides a coherent and clearly articulated argument that demonstrates a very good understanding of the relevant science, regulatory theory, regulatory and legal rules, institutional designs and political context of the identified challenge The discussion explains potential differences in understandings of the regulatory issues and is supported by a good body of evidence and appropriate academic literature.	The discussion provides a well-articulated argument that demonstrates a good understanding of the relevant science, regulatory theory, regulatory and legal rules, institutional designs and political context of the identified challenge The discussion is supported by evidence and appropriate academic literature.	The discussion provides a reasonable argument that demonstrates a satisfactory but limited understanding of the relevant science, regulatory theory, regulatory and legal rules, institutional designs and political context of the identified challenge The discussion is supported with reference to some evidence, however there are gaps or lack of alignment between the evidence and primary line of argument. The paper includes reference to academic literature, however more referencing would have strengthened the validity of the argument.	The discussion fails to provide a reasonable argument that demonstrates a satisfactory understanding of one or more elements making up the relevant science, regulatory theory, regulatory and legal rules, institutional designs and political context of the identified challenge. The discussion lacks reference to evidence and there is insufficient reference and use of relevant academic literature. The argument is not convincing and lacks validity.
Clear introduction to, and exposition of, the problem; arguments logical and well organised and well-reasoned conclusions. Demonstrated engagement with regulatory theory. 25% weighting	The discussion is coherent and extremely well structured. The argument is expressed clearly, is easy to follow and demonstrates a sophisticated analysis of the topic. The evidence and flow of analysis logically leads to the concluding statements and is convincing. One or more regulatory theories are discussed, analyzed and applied effectively to the challenge.	The discussion is coherent and well structured. The argument is expressed clearly, is easy to follow and demonstrates a very good analysis of the topic. The evidence and flow of analysis logically leads to the concluding statements and is convincing. At least one regulatory theories is accurately described,  analyzed and applied effectively to the challenge.	The discussion is coherent and well structured. The argument is expressed well and provides a good analysis of the topic. The evidence and flow of analysis is connected to the concluding statements, however there are some weaknesses or lack of validity in the concluding remarks. Some gaps or opportunities exist to improve the rigor and sophistication of the analysis. At least one regulatory theory is referenced, but there may be gaps in how it is described,  analyzed and applied to the challenge.	The discussion is coherent and well structured. The argument is expressed well and provides a good analysis of the topic. The evidence and flow of analysis is connected to the concluding statements, however there are some weaknesses or lack of validity in the concluding remarks. Some gaps or opportunities exist to improve the rigor and sophistication of the analysis. At least one regulatory theory is referenced, but there is inadequate analysis and it is only partially applied to the challenge.	The discussion is coherent and well structured. The argument is expressed well and provides a good analysis of the topic. The evidence and flow of analysis is connected to the concluding statements, however there are some weaknesses or lack of validity in the concluding remarks. Some gaps or opportunities exist to improve the rigor and sophistication of the analysis. The paper fails to identify a regulatory theory or describe one accurately or apply one to the challenge.
Originality of argument and approach  30% weighting	The paper presents an outstanding original argument and approaches the topic with evidence of new and innovative thinking.	The paper presents a strong and original argument and approaches the topic with original thinking.	The paper presents a generally and original argument and displays some level of creative thinking.	The paper presents a basic argument and the approach lacks any substantive evidence of original or creative thinking.	The paper fails to present a basic argument or demonstrate evidence of originality.
Appropriate range of primary sources and secondary material examined with correct citations and referencing. Clear and concise expression with correct spelling and grammar  15% weighting	The paper demonstrates accurate academic referencing and draws on a wide body of relevant material to support the argument and analysis. The paper is extremely well written, expression is clear, sophisticated and free of errors.	The paper demonstrates accurate academic referencing and draws on a solid body of relevant material to support the argument and analysis. The paper is very well written, expression is clear, and free of any errors.	The paper demonstrates mostly accurate academic referencing and draws on a good range of material to support the argument and analysis. The paper is well written, expression is good, however there are some errors in grammar, syntax or spelling.	The paper contains mostly accurate academic referencing, however there are areas for improvement and accuracy. The referencing is sufficient and generally supports the discussion in the paper. The paper is satisfactory. While the general approach to the argument is conveyed the expression can be improved. There are errors in grammar, syntax or spelling.	The paper lacks sufficient and accurate academic referencing. The paper is written in a way that fails to meet the standards of this subject. Expression is poor, the paper contains spelling errors and there is need for improvement in grammar and syntax.

Academic Integrity

Academic integrity is a core part of the ANU culture as a community of scholars. The University’s students are an integral part of that community. The academic integrity principle commits all students to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support, academic integrity, and to uphold this commitment by behaving honestly, responsibly and ethically, and with respect and fairness, in scholarly practice.

The University expects all staff and students to be familiar with the academic integrity principle, the Academic Integrity Rule 2021, the Policy: Student Academic Integrity and Procedure: Student Academic Integrity, and to uphold high standards of academic integrity to ensure the quality and value of our qualifications.

The Academic Integrity Rule 2021 is a legal document that the University uses to promote academic integrity, and manage breaches of the academic integrity principle. The Policy and Procedure support the Rule by outlining overarching principles, responsibilities and processes. The Academic Integrity Rule 2021 commences on 1 December 2021 and applies to courses commencing on or after that date, as well as to research conduct occurring on or after that date. Prior to this, the Academic Misconduct Rule 2015 applies.

 

The University commits to assisting all students to understand how to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support academic integrity. All coursework students must complete the online Academic Integrity Module (Epigeum), and Higher Degree Research (HDR) students are required to complete research integrity training. The Academic Integrity website provides information about services available to assist students with their assignments, examinations and other learning activities, as well as understanding and upholding academic integrity.

Online Submission

You will be required to electronically sign a declaration as part of the submission of your assignment. Please keep a copy of the assignment for your records. Unless an exemption has been approved by the Associate Dean (Education) submission must be through Turnitin.

Hardcopy Submission

Not applicable.

Late Submission

Individual assessment tasks may or may not allow for late submission. Policy regarding late submission is detailed below:

• Late submission not permitted. If submission of assessment tasks without an extension after the due date is not permitted, a mark of 0 will be awarded.
• Late submission permitted. Late submission of assessment tasks without an extension are penalised at the rate of 5% of the possible marks available per working day or part thereof. Late submission of assessment tasks is not accepted after 10 working days after the due date, or on or after the date specified in the course outline for the return of the assessment item. Late submission is not accepted for take-home examinations.

Referencing Requirements

The Academic Skills website has information to assist you with your writing and assessments. The website includes information about Academic Integrity including referencing requirements for different disciplines. There is also information on Plagiarism and different ways to use source material. Any use of artificial intelligence must be properly referenced. Failure to properly cite use of Generative AI will be considered a breach of academic integrity.

Returning Assignments

Assignments for REGN8026 will be marked and returned with feedback within 7 days of receiving them (Assessment Tasks 3 and 4). Assessment Task 5 will be marked and returned with feedback, with marks released after the course results have been moderated and released in line with the university's published timeline for release of results.

Extensions and Penalties

Extensions and late submission of assessment pieces are covered by the Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure. Extensions may be granted for assessment pieces that are not examinations or take-home examinations. If you need an extension, you must request an extension in writing on or before the due date. If you have documented and appropriate medical evidence that demonstrates you were not able to request an extension on or before the due date, you may be able to request it after the due date.

Privacy Notice

The ANU has made a number of third party, online, databases available for students to use. Use of each online database is conditional on student end users first agreeing to the database licensor’s terms of service and/or privacy policy. Students should read these carefully. In some cases student end users will be required to register an account with the database licensor and submit personal information, including their: first name; last name; ANU email address; and other information.
In cases where student end users are asked to submit ‘content’ to a database, such as an assignment or short answers, the database licensor may only use the student’s ‘content’ in accordance with the terms of service – including any (copyright) licence the student grants to the database licensor. Any personal information or content a student submits may be stored by the licensor, potentially offshore, and will be used to process the database service in accordance with the licensors terms of service and/or privacy policy.
If any student chooses not to agree to the database licensor’s terms of service or privacy policy, the student will not be able to access and use the database. In these circumstances students should contact their lecturer to enquire about alternative arrangements that are available.

Distribution of grades policy

Academic Quality Assurance Committee monitors the performance of students, including attrition, further study and employment rates and grade distribution, and College reports on quality assurance processes for assessment activities, including alignment with national and international disciplinary and interdisciplinary standards, as well as qualification type learning outcomes.

Since first semester 1994, ANU uses a grading scale for all courses. This grading scale is used by all academic areas of the University.

Support for students

The University offers students support through several different services. You may contact the services listed below directly or seek advice from your Course Convener, Student Administrators, or your College and Course representatives (if applicable).

• ANU Health, safety & wellbeing for medical services, counselling, mental health and spiritual support
• ANU Accessibility for students with a disability or ongoing or chronic illness
• ANU Dean of Students for confidential, impartial advice and help to resolve problems between students and the academic or administrative areas of the University
• ANU Academic Skills supports you make your own decisions about how you learn and manage your workload.
• ANU Counselling promotes, supports and enhances mental health and wellbeing within the University student community.
• ANUSA supports and represents all ANU students