When using artificial intelligence, we often care more about what the answer is rather than where it comes from. However, as Adrian Mak, a Fellow at the Stanford Law School AI Initiative explains, we should think more about the fact that the answer is usually generated from the sensitive personal data used in training such models.

A co-editor of ‘Privacy and Personal Data Protection Law in Asia’ by Hart Publishing and contributor to ‘The Cambridge Handbook of Private Law and Artificial Intelligence’, Mak has extensive practice experience in international technology, commercial and energy disputes. In Hilary Term 2026, Isaac Tan, a Podcast Editor of the Oxford University Undergraduate Law Journal, had the opportunity to sit down with Mak to discuss the underlying norms of data protection and privacy and how these norms may be challenged and maintained in the Age of AI.

From the boundaries of implied consent in contact sports to antitrust disputes in collegiate programmes, legal rules both shape and respond to sporting practice. In this episode, we take a closer look at anti-doping regulation and the difficult balance it seeks to strike between protecting the rights of athletes and enforcing the rules of the game. Bonnie had the privilege of sitting down with Dr Jan Exner to consider anti-doping regulation and the frameworks that guide liability and sanctions.

Dr Exner is an Assistant Professor in EU and Sports Law at the Law Faculty of Charles University and a partner at Fairzone, a sports-law firm. He contributes to the development of sports regulation, particularly in the areas of compliance, the proportionality of sanctions and the impact of EU Law on sports regulation. Most recently, his commentary on doping sanctions has been recognised in the draft 2027 World Anti-Doping Code.

When one is faced with a complex, multi-jurisdictional dispute, many questions may arise: Which court is the dispute to be resolved in? What law is applicable? Can the award rendered in one country be enforced in another? In response to these pertinent questions, Professor Reyes says that international arbitration is the answer.

Professor Anselmo Reyes SC is a world-renowned international arbitrator, International Judge of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC), a member of the International Expert Committee of the China International Commercial Court and a member of various arbitration institutions across London, China, Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore. In Michaelmas Term 2025, Isaac Tan, a Podcast Editor of the Oxford University Undergraduate Law Journal had the opportunity to sit down with Professor Reyes and discuss the principles of international arbitration; arbitrators’ duties; comparisons between the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Singapore; and the future of private international law.

Many of us scrutinise science and technology much less than we do the law. The field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) directly interrogates this incongruence. An interdisciplinary field, STS sees science and technology not as existing in a vacuum, but as producing types of authorities that can be studied just as much as law. Although science and technology are often treated as higher authorities that the law must follow as it inevitably lags behind, Professor Sheila Jasanoff (founder and director of the Harvard STS Program) rejects this characterisation.

In November 2025, Professor Jasanoff delivered the Oxford Clarendon Law Lecture Series this year, together entitled ‘Science, Technology and the Constitution of Modernity’. The conversation in this episode is separate but complementary to these lectures. The first portion of the episode elucidates the key conceptual ideas pertinent to STS thinking and its relation to law. The latter portion questions the more specific positions Professor Jasanoff has voiced in her works regarding intellectual property, especially in relation to the most recent legal developments, such as the environment, AI, and the concept of personhood.

Each of the Clarendon Law Lectures can be accessed below:

Part 1: https://youtu.be/1pp07pHzGTY?si=Op27oAPfJp7XdDrd

Part 2: https://youtu.be/QWxI-ybskEE?si=GItwlb0sROgK895C

Part 3: https://youtu.be/8UaHoB8oZic?si=pOwpdY5-bMpE0fMv

Straits are incredibly important for international shipping, energy security, and military purposes. However, climate change, ecological vulnerability, and piracy are testing the international legal framework governing the straits used for international navigation around the world. Professor Nilufer Oral discusses these challenges in her paper - 'Navigating the Oceans: Old and New Challenges for the Law of the Sea for Straits Used in International Navigation’. Rachel is honoured to interview her today in a summer guest episode.

Professor Nilufer Oral is Director of the Centre of International Law at the National University of Singapore. Amongst her many accomplishments, she is a member of the UN International Law Commission (ILC) and was the Chairperson of the 74th session of the ILC. She is a Co-chair of the ILC Study Group on sea-level rise in relation to international law, and is currently a Member of the Committee of Legal Experts of the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law (COSIS).

Transcript available at: https://rss.com/podcasts/oulp/2207117/#transcript

The jurisdiction of England and Wales has one of the highest numbers of children in detention across Western Europe, and is one of the few jurisdictions in Europe that still has mandatory life sentences for children. Given the frequency and severity of punitive measures levied towards children in England and Wales, it is all the more important that children are adequately represented in sentencing and appeal processes. However, whether this is a reality is a question that Elysia Boon explores in this episode with Dr Laura Janes.

Dr Janes is a consultant solicitor at GT Stewart Solicitors and Scott-Moncrieff and Associates. She specialises in prison law, criminal appeals, mental health law and public law, with a particular focus on representing children, youth and vulnerable people in detention both in penal and mental health settings. She is also the founder of Young Legal Aid Lawyers, holds a professional doctorate in youth justice, and teaches at the London South Bank University. Most recently, she was appointed honorary King’s Council!

Publications and cases referenced/drawn from:

ZA v R [2023] EWCA Crim 596

R v S [2010] EWCA Crim 1462

Children Convicted of Sexual Offences: Do Lifelong Labels Really Help? (The Howard Journal Vol 50 No 2. May 2011)

JF & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 792

Child appeals (Solicitors Journal: Justice Gap series, 2012)

R (on the application of M) v Chief Magistrate [2010] EWHC 433

The definition of disability is primarily governed by the Equality Act 2010. One is considered to have a disability if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on one’s ability to do normal daily activities. The law as it relates to disability affects a range of social interactions, from discrimination to a duty to make reasonable adjustments, and conversations surrounding it primarily focus on ethical considerations and the legal decisions themselves. However, an often-forgotten aspect of disability law is the terminology legislation and the judiciary specifically use to describe and label disability, which has profound impact on how people understand and treat people with disabilities.

In this episode, Elysia interviews Dr Heloise Robinson, Singer Fellow in Law at the University of Oxford. Dr Robinson is interested in the philosophical foundations that inform the law, with a special focus on legal and ethical issues surrounding the selection against disability, including in relation to eugenics, and to gender equality. Her work has been published in leading law and bioethics journals, such as the Modern Law Review, Legal Studies, the Journal of Medical Ethics, and the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.

Publications referenced/drawn from:

Robinson H, Herring J. Naming and Describing Disability in Law and Medicine. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2024 Jul;33(3):401-412. doi: 10.1017/S0963180123000609. Epub 2024 Jan 2. PMID: 38163993.

Robinson, H. (2023). Discrimination in Abortion Law and the Message the Law is Sending: R (Crowter) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. The Modern Law Review, 87(1), 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12831. Accessed from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2230.12831.

With President Donald J. Trump's recent inauguration, the US election has been on everyone’s mind, but there are some equally important upcoming elections in 2025 and 2027 just south of the border.

It is no secret that the Mexican judiciary is in dire need of reform and that the appetite to rid the system of corruption has never been greater. It cannot be said, however, that the reforms proposed by Manuel Lopez Obrador do anything to address these concerns. At their very best, they are a noble but misguided attempt to enact the much-needed change for which the majority of Mexicans voted. At their very worst, these proposals are an attempt to increase the power of the executive by decreasing the ability of one of the key organs of the state, the judiciary, to check the actions of the Government: the hallmark of authoritarianism.

In this episode, Jake interviews Luz Orozco y Villa, legal scholar and author of “The Dangerous Path of Mexico’s Judicial Reform: What is at Stake for Judicial Independence in the Americas.” Luz is a Dphil (PhD) in Law candidate at the Faculty of Law. Her research lies at the intersection of constitutional law and emerging technologies. Supervised by Professor Jacob Rowbottom, her doctoral thesis focuses on the constitutionalisation of the digital environment, specifically the case of online service providers regarding content moderation. Prior to joining Oxford, Luz worked as a career clerk for the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice and as a research advisor at the Gender Equality Program of the Federal Judicial Council. She has taught International Human Rights Law, Philosophy of Human Rights, Family Law, and Gender Justice to undergraduate law students at different universities. She completed an LL.M. from Columbia Law School (New York City, NY, USA) as a Fulbright scholar and an LL.B from Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (Mexico City, Mexico). Luz is currently the co-convener of the Future of Technology and Society Discussion Group.

Publications referenced/drawn from:

L Villa, 'The Dangerous Path of Mexico’s Judicial Reform: What is at Stake for Judicial Independence in the Americas' (Oxford Human Rights Hub, 9 August 2024) <https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/the-dangerous-path-of-mexicos-judicial-reform-what-is-at-stake-for-judicial-independence-in-the-americas/>. In particular at 26:13 and 36:56.

09:29 and 17:45- A Spitalier, 'Justice Denied: The Case for Judicial Reform in Mexico' (Wilson Center, 5 September 2024) <https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/justice-denied-case-judicial-reform-mexico>.

11:35- C Parra and R Heckel, 'The 2024 Judicial Reform in Mexico: On the Erosion of Democratic Checks and Electoral Manipulation' (Verfassungsblog, 22 September 2024) <https://verfassungsblog.de/judicial-reform-mexico/>.

19:53- T Mattiace, 'AMLO's Judicial Reform Overlooks the Key Weakness of Mexican Justice. Americas' (Human Rights Watch, 8 August 2024) <https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/08/08/amlos-judicial-reform-overlooks-key-weakness-mexican-justice>.

21:11- R (on the application of Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group) (Appellant) v Surrey County Council and others (Respondents) [2024] UKSC 20 {21} per Lord Leggatt.

Surrogacy is the practice of a person (the “surrogate”) carrying a child that may, or may not, be genetically related to them and giving birth to the child for another family (the “intended parents”). With the rise of modern family structures, and the demands that modern life places upon those who wish to have children, surrogacy has become a viable option for people unable to carry children or wish to have children at a later time in life. However, it is unclear if the laws and regulations surrounding surrogacy have responded adequately to its rise.

In this episode, Elysia interviews Professor Amel Alghrani, a Visiting Professor of Law at the University of Oxford and a full-time Professor of Law at the School of Law and Social Justice at the University of Liverpool. Professor Alghrani is an expert particularly in health law, where she focuses on the regulation of reproduction and assisted reproduction including surrogacy, and in education law, where she focuses on healthcare and educational rights of children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities. Her work has been published in many prolific journals such as the Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Child and Family Law Quarterly and more, and has been cited by the UK Supreme Court.

Publications referenced/drawn from:

Alghrani, A., & Griffiths, D. (2017). The regulation of surrogacy in the United Kingdom: the case for reform (Version 2). University of Sussex. https://hdl.handle.net/10779/uos.23445044.v2

Griffiths, D., Alghrani, A., Diduck, A. (Ed.), Peleg, N. (Ed.), & Reece, H. (Ed.) (2014). Surrogacy Law: From Piecemeal Tweaks to Sustained Review and Reform. In Law and Michael Freeman (1 ed., Vol. 1). Brill .

Alghrani A. SURROGACY: 'A CAUTIONARY TALE': Re T (a child) (surrogacy: residence order) [2011] EWCH 33 (Fam). Med Law Rev. 2012 Autumn;20(4):631-41. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fws032. Epub 2012 Oct 24. PMID: 23097458.

Transgender people have existed throughout history. Yet, the way transgender identity intersects with the law is complex. Trans identity has been litigated and legislated, from the High Court case Corbett v Corbett in 1970, to the European Court of Human Rights case Goodwin v United Kingdom in 2002, to the Gender Recognition Act in 2004, to the recent 2023 judgement upholding the UK Government’s use of a Section 35 order to block the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was a bill aiming to improve the system by which trans people can apply for legal recognition of their gender through a Gender Recognition Certificate. This Bill intended to remove the current requirements for a medical diagnosis, reduce the time that applicants for gender recognition need to have lived in their acquired gender from two years to three months, and reduce the age at which one may apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate from 18 years to 16 years. While the bill was supported by the Scottish Government, it was blocked by the UK Government with a Section 35 order under the Scotland Act. The Section 35 order means that the Bill cannot be implemented at this time, but the Scottish Government has committed not to withdraw the bill either.

In this episode, Rach interviews Sharon Cowan on the intersections between the law and transgender identity. Professor Sharon Cowan is a Professor of Feminist and Queer Legal Studies at the University of Edinburgh. Sharon has published extensively on the legal regulation of gender and sex and is presently working on a comparative socio-legal project looking at the impact of law on transgender people. She was also involved in consultations on the Reform of the Gender Recognition Act. Recent projects also include a national empirical project looking at how women asylum claimants, whose applications are based on a claim of rape, are treated, and along with Dr Chloe Kennedy (Edinburgh) and Professor Munro (Warwick), she is a co-editor of the Scottish Feminist Judgments Project @ScottishFemJP.

Articles mentioned:

Cowan, Sharon (2005). “Gender is No Substitute for Sex”: A Comparative Human Rights Analysis of the Legal Regulation of Sexual Identity. Feminist Legal Studies 13 (1)

Cowan, Sharon, The Best Place on the Planet to be Trans? Transgender Equality and Legal Consciousness in Scotland (December 1, 2020). Dunne, Peter. and Raj, Sen (2020) The Queer Outside in Law (Palgrave MacMillan), Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper No. 2020/05, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3777503

Cowan, Sharon. (2009). Looking Back (To)wards the Body: Medicalization and the GRA. Social & Legal Studies, 18(2), 247-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663909103627

Sandland, Ralph. Feminism and the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Feminist Legal Stud 13, 43–66 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-005-1456-3

Cowan, Sharon (2005). “Gender is No Substitute for Sex”: A Comparative Human Rights Analysis of the Legal Regulation of Sexual Identity. Feminist Legal Studies 13 (1): 93

Books mentioned:

Whipping Girl, by Julia Serano

Autogenerated transcript available at:

https://rss.com/podcasts/oulp/1573226/#transcript