Aaron Timoshanko and Caroline L Hart, ‘Teaching Technology Into the Law Curriculum’ (2021) 13/14 Journal of the Australasian Law Academics Association 146.

The role technology plays in the legal profession is growing. It is, therefore, incumbent on legal educators to prepare law students for a profession that leverages current and emerging technologies, while mitigating potential risks. A desktop analysis was performed on all technology-focused courses offered at Australian and New Zealand law schools and at the top five universities in the United States and the United Kingdom to identify common themes and characteristics. The authors then share their experiences teaching a technology-focused course at a small regional university. The aim of this article is to stimulate greater discussion about how universities teach technology into the law curriculum, not whether such a course is needed.

Paula Gerber and Aaron Timoshanko, ‘Is the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child Doing Enough to Protect the Rights of LGBT Children and Children with Same-Sex Parents?’ [2021] (ngab012) Human Rights Law Review .

Children often face discrimination, bullying and even violence because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, as do children raised by parents who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). This article considers what the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is doing to protect the rights of LGBT children and children with LGBT parents. To make such an assessment, this article critically analyses the Committee’s Concluding Observations over a ten-year period, its General Comments and its Views on Individual Communications. The conclusion reached is that while the Committee has made encouraging progress in recent years when it comes to addressing LGBT related issues, there is still room for improvement in the way the Committee seeks to protect children from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in the Human Rights Law Review following peer review. The version of record is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngab012.


Aaron Timoshanko, ‘“Warning! Graphic Content Ahead”: Advocating for Graphic Video in the Teaching of Animal Law’ (2016) 26(1) Legal Education Review 115.

The educational benefits associated with the use of video in learning environments are well-known. For an animal law educator wanting to leverage these educational benefits, the use of video presents a dilemma. Much of the video relevant to animal law is confronting, distressing or difficult to watch, which may cause some students to experience a negative affective state. It is also largely unknown whether the educational benefits associated with non-graphic video continue to apply when the content is graphic in nature. This article aims to address this gap. It argues that student engagement, comprehension and knowledge acquisition, critical thinking skills, information retention and recall, and student interest can be improved with the use of graphic video. It also argues that educators have a role in shaping students’ values and opinions, and graphic video can help in this regard. To reduce the likelihood of students experiencing a negative affective state, five principles are presented which educators may employ when using graphic video. These five principles are then applied to a YouTube video depicting the surgical castration and tail docking of a piglet. By employing these principles, the risks associated with graphic video can be effectively managed while leveraging the educational benefits of video.

Aaron Timoshanko, ‘Limitations of the Market-Based Approach to the Regulation of Farm Animal Welfare’ (2015) 38(1) University of New South Wales Law Journal 514

This article challenges the conventional wisdom that Australian consumers who are concerned about the care and treatment of farm animals are able to reflect these values through their purchasing behaviour. This is due to interference by market, political and social considerations that disrupt the transmission of animal welfare values into purchasing behaviour. For this reason, the regulation of farm animal welfare cannot be left to the market-based approach. Instead, government regulatory intervention is required in accordance with public interest theories of regulation.