Up to 100 million doses of mRNA vaccines will be made in Australia each year as the Victorian government, Federal government and vaccine manufacturer Moderna finalises a 10-year deal for a new vaccine hub in Melbourne.

The parties reached an agreement to build a mRNA facility — which can produce vaccines for COVID-19 and other ailments such as the flu — in the Victorian capital.

In doing so, they finalised an in-principle agreement made in December 2021.

READ MORE: Fourth jab to counter rapidly spreading Omicron sub-variant

Prime Minister Scott Morrison is expected to reveal more details about the agreement designed to "pandemic proof" Australia later today.

Construction is expected to begin by the year's end and it's hoped the Australian facility will produce its first vaccines some time in 2024.

Director of science agency CSIRO Dr Robert Grenfell said the announcement is "great news for Australia".

"It's been a program that's been in development for quite a while," he told Today.

"And there are other significant components. So this is the manufacturing part, being able to make mRNA vaccines in Australia is a fantastic step forward in this technology.

"Equally, on the other side of that, is the fostering of the research part that will actually feed in to the next generation vaccines and also the other diseases it may be able to work with."

Moderna says low-dose COVID-19 shots work for kids under six

It comes after Moderna said its low-dose COVID-19 shots work for kids under six.

The spread of the Omicron BA.2 sub-variant across Australia is being fuelled in part by the return of students to schools, and the lifting of restrictions in classrooms.

In Queensland coronavirus cases have surged by as much as 55 per cent in state schools in one week.

And in New South Wales this week a "previously-well" two year died after contracting the virus.

READ MORE: Why iodine tablets are flying off shelves across Europe

However, Moderna's latest development could pave the way for the youngest kids to be vaccinated by winter if regulators agree.

Moderna said that in the coming weeks it would ask regulators in the US and Europe to authorise two small-dose shots for youngsters under six. The company also is seeking to have larger doses cleared for older children and teens in the US.

The announcement is positive news for parents who have anxiously awaited protection for younger tots and been continuously disappointed by setbacks and confusion over which shots might work and when.

In Australia Pfizer remains the only vaccination available for children who are five years old. There are currently no vaccines licensed for children aged 4 years and under.

READ MORE: Friends reveal Hannah Clarke's chilling predictions

Moderna says early study results show tots develop high levels of virus-fighting antibodies from shots containing a quarter of the dose given to adults.

Once Moderna submits its full data, the US Food and Drug Administration will have to determine if that important marker means the youngsters are as protected against severe illness as adults.

"The vaccine provides the same level of protection against COVID in young kids as it does in adults. We think that's good news," Dr Stephen Hoge, Moderna's president, told The Associated Press.

But that key antibody finding isn't the whole story. COVID-19 vaccines aren't as effective against the super-contagious omicron mutant — in people of any age — and Moderna's study found the same trend.

There were no severe illnesses during the trial but the vaccine was only about 44 per cent effective at preventing milder infections in babies up to age two, and nearly 38 per cent effective in the preschoolers.

"Not a home run" but the shots still could be helpful for the youngest children, said Dr Jesse Goodman of Georgetown University, a former FDA vaccine chief.

Dr Goodman said the high antibody levels seen in the study "should translate into higher efficacy against severe infections."

While the study wasn't large enough to detect very rare side effects, Moderna said the small doses were safe and that mild fevers, like those associated with other common pediatric vaccines, were the main reaction.

Competitor Pfizer currently offers kid-size doses for school-age children and full-strength shots for those 12 and older.

And the company is testing even smaller doses for children under five but had to add a third shot to its study when two didn't prove strong enough. Those results are expected by early April.

Boosters have proved crucial for adults to fight omicron and Moderna currently is testing those doses for children as well — either a third shot of the original vaccine or an extra dose that combines protection against the original virus and the omicron variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration hasn't ruled on Moderna's earlier request to expand its shots to 12- to 17-year-olds because of concern about a very rare side effect. Heart inflammation sometimes occurs in teens and young adults, mostly males, after receiving either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. Moderna is getting extra scrutiny because its shots are a far higher dose than Pfizer's.

The company said Wednesday that, armed with additional evidence, it is updating its FDA application for teen shots and requesting a green light for 6- to 11-year-olds, too. Hoge said he's optimistic the company will be able to offer its vaccine "across all age groups in the United States by the summer."

Moderna says its original adult dose — two 100-microgram shots — is safe and effective in 12- to 17-year-olds. For elementary school-age kids, it's using half the adult dose.

About 1.5 million adolescents have used the Moderna vaccine in other countries, "and so far we've seen very reassuring safety from that experience," Hoge said.

The heart risk also seems linked to puberty, and regulators in Canada, Europe and elsewhere recently expanded Moderna vaccinations to kids as young as 6.

"That concern has not been seen in the younger children," said Northwestern's Muller.

– Reported with AP

There is a loud and growing chorus of calls for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to pursue Russian President Vladimir Putin for his unprovoked attack on Ukraine.

The US government has formally declared that members of the Russian armed forces have committed war crimes.

The top war crimes prosecutor for the ICC has travelled to Ukraine to investigate.

READ MORE: NATO reveals staggering new estimate of Russian war deaths

The US Embassy in Kyiv argued earlier in the war that specific Russian attacks constituted war crimes.

"It is a war crime to attack a nuclear power plant," the embassy said on its official Twitter feed.

"Putin's shelling of Europe's largest nuclear plant takes his reign of terror one step further."

READ MORE: Thousands of children 'kidnapped' by Russian forces, Ukraine claims

https://twitter.com/USEmbassyKyiv/status/1499708231903547394?s=20&t=7ItoWjQCYz5XeY9UYWZhTQ

Russia's bombing of hospitals and a theatre where children were seeking refuge along with its suspected use of cluster bombs and so-called vacuum bombs in dense areas with many civilians have also been described as war crimes.

"The law is clear on this, it is a crime to intentionally target civilians, it is a crime to intentionally target civilian objects," Karim Khan, the ICC's chief prosecutor, told CNN's Anderson Cooper.

READ MORE: Why Iodine tablets are flying off shelves across Europe

But Mr Khan added there is a burden of proof and a process that must play out.

Here's a very broad look at war crimes and the international justice movement.

Some of what's below comes from CNN's research library, which compiled information about the International Criminal Court.

READ MORE: Putin spokesman refuses to rule out use of nuclear weapons

What is a war crime?

The International Criminal Court has specific definitions for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. Read about them in this guide published by the ICC.

Specifically, targeting civilian populations, violating the Geneva Conventions, targeting specific groups of people and more could be potential Russian war crimes.

READ MORE: Why Putin may use 'vacuum bomb' in Ukraine

Mr Khan said there can be justified attacks in civilian areas if they are being used to launch attacks. But even then, he said, attacks in civilian areas cannot be disproportionate.

There is a method of gathering evidence from testimony, satellite images and elsewhere to meet a burden of proof.

What is the International Criminal Court?

Located in The Hague, Netherlands, and created by a treaty called the Rome Statute first brought before the United Nations, the International Criminal Court operates independently.

Most countries on Earth — 123 of them — are parties to the treaty, but there are very large and notable exceptions, including Russia and the US. And, for that matter, Ukraine.

Who can be tried by the court?

Anyone accused of a crime in the jurisdiction of the court, which includes countries that are members of the ICC, can be tried.

The court tries people, not countries, and focuses on those who hold the most responsibility: leaders and officials. While Ukraine is not a member of the court, it has previously accepted its jurisdiction.

Mr Putin could, therefore, theoretically be indicted by the court for previously ordering war crimes in Crimea.

However, the ICC does not conduct trials in absentia, so he would either have to be handed over by Russia or arrested outside of Russia. That seems unlikely.

What crimes does the court handle?

The ICC is meant to be a court of "last resort" and is not meant to replace a country's justice system.

The court, which has 18 judges serving nine-year terms, tries four types of crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression and war crimes.

How does the ICC bring proceedings?

Court proceedings can be brought in one of two ways: Either a national government or the UN Security Council can refer cases for investigation.

Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has veto power over council actions.

It was requests by 39 national governments, most of them European, that sparked this current investigation.

Mr Khan previously told CNN, "I want to emphasise that I'm willing to speak to all sides, and not just the Ukrainian side, but also the Russian Federation, state parties and non-state parties alike.

"This institution is not political. We're not part of the geostrategic or geopolitical divisions that we witness around the world."

What will the ICC investigate in relation to Ukraine?

In its new investigation into Russia's possible war crimes, the ICC has said it will look at all actions in Ukraine from 2013 to the present.

Russia first entered Crimea, which has been part of Ukraine, in 2014.

The ICC was already investigating crackdowns on protesters by a previous Ukrainian government that was pro-Russian.

This new referral seems to put all potential war crimes together.

How long do these investigations take?

If justice in general moves slowly, international justice barely moves at all. Investigations at the ICC take many years. Only a handful of convictions have ever been won.

A preliminary investigation into the hostilities in eastern Ukraine lasted more than six years — from April 2014 until December 2020. At the time, the prosecutor said there was evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Next steps were slowed by the COVID-19 pandemic and a lack of resources at the court, which is conducting multiple investigations.

That perception of slow and ineffective justice will test the system of international law, Mr Khan told Cooper.

"This is a test for the court. It's a test for me, it's a test for the office," he said.

What are cluster bombs and vacuum bombs?

In addition to attacks on hospitals and civilian apartment buildings, the feared use of banned weapons meant to kill without discrimination is another very specific war crime.

With a cluster bomb, a missile is fired and explodes thousands of feet in the air, releasing smaller bombs that each detonate when they fall to the ground.

See an illustration from The Washington Post. Amnesty International said a Russian cluster bomb fell on a Ukrainian preschool.

"Vacuum bombs," or thermobaric weapons, suck in the oxygen from the surrounding air to generate a powerful explosion and a large pressure wave that can have enormous destructive effects.

Russia previously used them in Chechnya.

Why would a Ukraine prosecution be different?

The international outcry against Russia is unique, and that could give the court the ability to operate differently, according to Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University and co-editor-in-chief of Just Security, an online forum.

"It's hard to judge the ICC's investigation based on past practice," Mr Goodman said in an email after the court initially launched its investigation.

"In the Ukraine situation, the prosecutor is buttressed by an extraordinary outpouring of support from dozens of countries, which I expect will be followed by an infusion of resources."

How would an ICC case affect the conflict?

"For better or for worse, the ICC investigation may affect the diplomatic space for negotiations," said Mr Goodman, arguing Putin and other Russians might not want to risk arrest if they travel outside the country.

The investigation could also, he argued, weaken Mr Putin at home.

"Russians may come to realise this is another reason Putin can no longer serve their country," Mr Goodman said.

READ MORE: Biden seeks new sanctions, help for Ukrainians in Europe

What happened before the ICC?

Previous trials for war crimes were brought by special UN tribunals, such as those empanelled for the former Yugoslavia, focusing on the Serbian autocrat Slobodan Milosevic, and for the Rwandan genocide.

All of this stems from the precedent of the Nuremberg trials to bring Nazis to justice after World War II and held by the Allies, including the US, the Soviet Union, France and Germany.

So it is interesting that neither the US nor Russia are members of the ICC.

Why aren't the US and Russia ICC members?

Both the US and Russia are signatories to the treaty that created the court — meaning their leaders signed it — but neither is a member of the court.

Russia pulled out of the court in 2016 days after an ICC report published what CNN called a "damning verdict" on Russia's occupation of Crimea in 2014. The court also launched a probe in 2016 into Russia's 2008 efforts to support breakaway regions in Georgia.

At the time, France had also accused Russia of committing war crimes in Syria.

As for the US, while President Bill Clinton signed the treaty creating the court in 2000, he never recommended the Senate ratify it.

The George W Bush administration, to a fair amount of criticism, pulled the US from being a party to the treaty in 2002. The Pentagon and many US policymakers have long opposed joining such an international court system since it could open US servicemembers to allegations of war crimes.

"The president (George W Bush) thinks the ICC is fundamentally flawed because it puts American servicemen and women at fundamental risk of being tried by an entity that is beyond America's reach, beyond America's laws and can subject American civilians and military to arbitrary standards of justice," then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said at the time.

How has the US supported the court?

Opposing America joining the court did not mean the Bush administration opposed the court itself. It supported ICC efforts to seek justice for genocide in Sudan.

There has always been an awkwardness to how American presidents deal with the court, noted CNN's Tim Lister in 2011.

He wrote about Barack Obama applauding ICC efforts to bring justice to people like former Serb Gen. Ratko Mladic and Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, while not endorsing the court for oversight of the US.