Bond Law Radio

President Donald Trump has done it again - not merely by shifting policy, but by signalling that the United States is willing to act against the very system it once built. Trade rules are no longer treated as constraints; they are invoked selectively, reshaped opportunistically, anddiscarded when inconvenient. In this Twilight Seminar, Dr Umair Ghori argues that U.S. trade policy under Donald Trump is now openly anti-systemic. Tariffs have evolved into instruments of coercion—used to extract concessions, discipline allies, and reorganise supply chains along strategic lines. The result is ashift from rule-governed trade to power-driven bargaining. The multilateral trading system centred on the World Trade Organization is not collapsing formally, but it is being hollowed out in practice. Its authority erodes as enforcement becomes selective and its core disciplines are bypassed. For middle powers such as Australia, the stakes areimmediate. Continued reliance on accommodation is no longer a stable strategy.  This moment demands coordination: diversification of trade relationships, alignment with like-minded partners, and a more assertive defence of the system’s rules. The question is no longer whether the system is under strain. It is whether its beneficiaries are willing to defend it - oraccept a world where trade is governed by power rather than principle. About Dr Umair GhoriDr Umair Ghori (LLB (Hons) (London), LLM (UNSW), PhD (UNSW) is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, Bond University with a background in corporate law practice. Dr Ghori teaches Contract Law, International Investment and Trade Law. He researches in the field ofinternational trade and investment law with a focus on export controls, critical minerals, rare earths, and semiconductors . Dr Ghori’s work has been published in well-regarded journals in Australia, Asia, and the UK. He has authored two authoritative monographs in the field of international trade"Global Textiles and Clothing Trade: Trade Policy Perspectives" (2012) and “Export Restrictions and Export Controls: From WTO to the Realm of Global Security" (2023).   Introducing Dr Umair Ghori  

The rapid emergence and integration of generative AI technologies into legal practice is reshaping the landscape oflegal education. In this presentation, Professor Nick James, Dean of Law at Bond University, critically examines the impact of generative AI on the education of future lawyers, focusing on whatlaw students are taught—both in terms of substantive legal knowledge and practical legal skills—and how they are taught and assessed. Generative AI tools offer significant benefits for legal education, including enhanced access to legal information, personalised learning experiences, and new opportunitiesfor skill development through simulation and feedback. However, these technologies also pose challenges that demand urgent attention: risks to academic integrity, potential erosion of critical thinking and legal reasoningskills, and the need to recalibrate assessment methods to ensure meaningful evaluation of student learning. Professor James was speaking at a Bond University Faculty of Law Twilight Seminar.

Dr Alice Taylor from Bond University's Faculty of Law discusses what Giggle For Girls v Tickle tells us about sex discrimination and single-sex digital spaces. In 2022, a transgender woman, Roxanne Tickle, sued the women-only social media company Giggle For Girls and itsfounder, Sall Grover, for discrimination on the grounds of gender identity when she had been removed from the app on the basis that she did not appear to look sufficiently female. The Federal Court found in favour of Tickle, concluding that the exclusion constituted indirect discrimination pursuant to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). Giggle subsequently appealed the judgment. The case sits at the intersection of competing rights claims and considers a foundational question: how do we define sex and gender in law? This presentation examines the legal reasoning, competing arguments and the broader implications of Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Tickle for Australian anti-discrimination law and social policy. Dr Alice Taylor was guest speaker at a Bond University Faculty of Law Twilight Seminar.

The level of support that may be available in the school setting for students with chronic health conditions can vary considerably depending on the type of school and its location. The need for schools to support students’ health needs is essential in ensuring that students reach their potential for learning. The complexity of the relevant legal frameworks may potentially create confusion about the different legal obligations and duties that are imposed upon schools and school staff, and their potential liabilities. This presentation by Professor Malcolm Smith and at a recent Bond University Faculty of Law Twilight Seminar, provides an overview of the key law relevant to schools and the support of students with chronic health conditions in the school environment. It centres on the law relevant to the administration of medications and associated obligations in relation to the management of medications in the school environment.It also outlines the law relevant to negligence and the associated duties of care imposed upon the school and individual school staff, and how they impact specifically on schools and school staff when managing students’ health needs. The purpose is to highlight inconsistencies and issues for reform of the law moving forward.About Dr Malcolm SmithDr Malcolm Smith is an Associate Professor at the Griffith Law School, Griffith University, where he teaches health law and contract law. His research focuses on a range of health law issues, and he has published widely in the field of health law and bioethics. His recent research focuses on the law relating to children and medical treatment, particularly the law impacting on trans and gender diverse minors and the commencement of gender affirming hormone treatment. Malcolm has undertaken research projects with Diabetes Australia and the Australian Diabetes Educators Association examining the legal and regulatory issues that impact on those who support persons with diabetes.  

Moral injury - often, but not always, accompanied by psychological injury or illness - was first identified in Vietnam veteran populations.Increasingly recognised as a cause of suicide and suicidality, moral injury involves a betrayal of professional or personal ethics or belief systems and is increasingly identified in non-military professional populations including health, legal, and public sector. To date, potential claims for moral injury - particularly independent of diagnosed psychiatric illness - have not beenconsidered in negligence. This paper challenges the assumption that such claims must automatically fail at the duty stage, instead arguing that they may fall within the recognised scope of the employer's duty of care, and considers normative arguments which may support their recognition, notwithstanding that they may ultimately fail to satisfy the requirements of causation.Associate Professor Wendy Bonython teaches and researches in tort and medical law, including mental health law. CONTENT WARNINGThis episode discusses mental health issues, including suicide.

In 2008, Ecuador was the first country in the world to introduce three revolutionary provisions in its new Constitution, which recognised Nature (or Pacha Mama) as a legal subject withconstitutionally protected rights. Since then, the number of legal initiatives–constitutional provisions, legislated acts, judicial decisions, and a host of semi- and quasi- legal initiatives – has grown exponentially, now spanning well over 40 different jurisdictions, including the international sphere. Former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, David Boyd, aptly called this the fastest growing legal movement of the twenty-first century.The emergence of rights of Nature provisions and related initiatives, however, reveals a much deeper shift within legal thought than simply increasing the scope of legal subjectivity to include the more-than-human world within its purview. It represents, in fact, a journey toward a veritable ecological jurisprudence, a theory and practice of law that is informed by, and contends with, our collective growing (and perhapsreawakened) ecological awareness. About Dr Alessandro PelizzonDr Alessandro Pelizzon completed his LLB/LLM at the University of Turin in Italy, specializing in comparative law and legal anthropology with a field research project conducted in theAndes. His Doctoral research, conducted at the University of Wollongong, focused on native title and legal pluralism in the Illawarra region. Alessandro has been exploring the emerging discourse on rights of nature, Wild Law and Earth Jurisprudence since its inception, with a particular focus on the intersection between this emerging discourse and different legal ontologies.His most recent book, titled Ecological Jurisprudence: The Law of Nature and the Nature of Law and published in open access format by Springer, captures his two decades of work in the field.Alessandro is an Associate Professor in the School of Law and Society at the University of the Sunshine Coast in Australia, as well as a co-founder and an Executive Committee Memberof the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature and an expert member of the UN Harmony with Nature Programme. Alessandro’s main areas of research are legal anthropology, legal theory, comparative law, ecological jurisprudence, constitutional law, sovereignty, Indigenous rights, andUniversity governance.

The Brereton Inquiry found there was credible information to suggest that a small number of members of the Australian Defence Force were engaged in war crimes in Afghanistan. This has not yet been tested in a criminal proceeding, and anyperson accused of wrongdoing is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Nevertheless, the Report raises important issues regarding the liability, if any, of a superior officer within a Defence structure if someone under their control is shown to have committed a war crime. It also raises questions about the extent, if any, to which a subordinate found to have been engaged in a war crime can explain and/or justify their conduct by arguing they were simply responding to a command from above to do what they did. These questions raise fundamental issues regarding criminal responsibility in our legal system, which this presentation will address.About Professor Anthony GrayProfessor Anthony Gray is Associate Dean – Research within the Faculty of Law at Bond University.  He has published approximately 150 refereed research articles, most of whichwere sole-authored and has also authored 10 monographs. A study published in 2020 placed him in the top 2 or 3 legal academics in Australia for the number of publications in leading Australian journals.  His research has been cited by the High Court of Australia, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and Supreme Court of Canada.  His main research interests are in civil obligations, where he has recently published a two-volume monograph on good faith in contracting with Hart Publishing Oxford, and in constitutional and public law, which relate to the topic of this presentation.

Meat production has devastating environmental impacts. Itcontributes to not only greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, but also natural resources depletion, biodiversity loss, water pollution, and other environmental problems, which together pose a serious threat to agricultural sustainability and food security. Despite these negative impacts, global meat consumption is on the rise, with many governments having implemented meat subsidies and thereby facilitating this trend. For example, the US channels a staggering US$38 billion every year towards subsidising its meat and dairy industries. The EU allocates over €46 billion annually to the livestock sector, whilst the UK dedicates around £1.5 billion (US$2 billion)—about half of its agricultural subsidies—to the same sector.  This paper examines meat subsidies from a human rights perspective. It argues that meat subsidies are unsustainable for the planet and human well-being and, therefore, require structural reform. However, the paper does not call for a vegan future, as all individuals have the right to choose their dietary preferences. Instead, it proposes a rights-based approach to subsidies to address the dual challenges of food insecurity and climate change. It concludes that governments should consider adopting this approach to improve sustainability for both the planet and human well-being.About Dr Ying Chen Dr Ying Chen is an Associate Professor at Bond University Faculty of Law. She previously held the position of Associate Professor at the University of New England School of Law in Armidale, NSW, and has taught at universities in Mexico, China, and the United States. She holds an LLB from Yantai University in China, and an LLM and SJD from Indiana University in the United States. Her research interests include human rights, global food governance, international trade and investment, climate change and sustainability, as well as comparative Chinese, American, and Australian law. Much of her recent research focuses on how agricultural trade impacts global food security and safety, as well as strategies to strengthen global food governance to better protect human rights and the environment.    

Trust in politicians, or lack thereof, promises to be a defining feature of the upcoming federal election. Political leaders - Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton - sit at the centre of voters' evaluations ahead of the 3 May ballot, as does faith in the Electoral Commission and the political system as a whole. But while it is widely accepted that trust is a vital part of the democratic process, the exact drivers of perceived dis/trust are the subject of significant debate. This seminar presents new survey data from over 6000 Australians collected in March-April 2025 as part of the Australian Constitutional Values Survey series. Using the upcoming election as a frame, the seminar compares the perceived trustworthiness of the Prime Minister, Opposition Leader and other key political figures, highlighting how different characteristics or traits emerge as important drivers of trust when applied to different actors. Reflecting on the role of trust in Australia's democratic system, the seminar outlines key lessons for trust research ahead of the election and beyond.Dr Jacob Deem is an Assistant Professor at Bond University’s Faculty of Law. His research focuses on public law, especiallyconstitutional law, federalism and public trust.   

The Trump Administration’s announcement of tariffs on Canada, Mexico and elsewhere has reignited debates over the intersections of law, policy, and trade diplomacy. Marketed as measures to protect American industries and workers, these tariffs represent a significant departure from decades of free trade principles. Here, Dr Ghori examines the legal and policy frameworks underpinning the tariffs, assessing their compliance with international trade law under WTO rules and their broader impact on trade relations. At the heart of the discussion is the tension between economic nationalism and the realities of interconnected commerce. Imposing tariffs on two of America’s largest trading partners not only strains long-standing ties but also sets a precedent that could encourage other nations to adopt similar protectionist measures. The seminar will explore the strategies America's training partners might deploy in response, from potential retaliatory actions to legal challenges, offering insight into how smaller economies navigate disputes with a superpower. Discussion also extends beyond North America to consider ripple effects on other trading partners, particularly Australia. Given the U.S.’s role as one of Australia’s key allies and trading partners, the seminar dicusses potential risks to Australian exports—especially in agriculture, mining, and manufacturing. As tariffs signal a broader shift toward protectionism, Australian exporters may face increased uncertainty, raising questions about whether current free trade agreements provide sufficient safeguards and how Australia might position itself in future negotiations.By focusing on this pivotal moment in trade policy, Dr Ghori seeks to deepen understanding of the legal, political, and economic forces shaping the Trump Administration’s trade agenda and its implications, including for Australia.About Dr Umair Ghori Dr Umair Ghori (LLB (Hons) (London), LLM (UNSW), PhD (UNSW) is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, Bond University with a background in corporate law practice. Dr Ghori teaches Contract Law, International Investment law and International Trade and Business Law. He researches in the field of international trade and investment law with a focus on exploring regulatory issues from a policy perspective.   Dr Ghori’s work has been published in well-regarded journals in Australia, Asia, and the UK. He has authored two major monographs in the field of international trade "Global Textiles and Clothing Trade: Trade Policy Perspectives" (2012) and most recently “Export Restrictions and Export Controls: From WTO to the Realm of Global Security" (2023).