*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the Australian Law Journal (Volume 97 Part 6) contains the following material:<\/p>\n
CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Justice Fran\u00e7ois Kunc<\/strong><\/p>\n FROM THE LAW SCHOOLS<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Emeritus Professor David Barker AM<\/strong><\/p>\n CRIME AND EVIDENCE<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Justice Phillip Priest<\/strong><\/p>\n TECHNOLOGY AND THE LAW<\/a> \u2013 Editors: Lyria Bennett Moses and Angelina Gomez<\/strong><\/p>\n ENVIRONMENTAL LAW<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Justice Rachel Pepper<\/strong><\/p>\n The Voice \u2013 A Step Forward For Australian Nationhood<\/em><\/a> \u2013 <\/strong>The Hon Robert French AC and Professor Geoffrey Lindell AM<\/p>\n The proposal for the establishment, in the Constitution, of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament and the Executive Government has engendered debate. That debate has raised issues about its substantive merits and the legal implications of the draft proposal. In this article the authors, who support the draft proposal, set out some of the historical context and discuss legal issues which have been ventilated.<\/p>\n Very High Risk, Very Low Reward: This Voice Referendum Deserves To Be Defeated<\/em><\/a>\u2013 <\/strong>Professor James Allan<\/p>\n This author was invited by the editor of this journal to make the \u201cNo\u201d case to the upcoming Voice referendum while replying to former Chief Justice French\u2019s address arguing the \u201cYes\u201d case. The author makes both political, legal and moral arguments for voting \u201cNo\u201d.<\/p>\n An Ethical Perspective In The Judicial Use Of Artificial Intelligence: Where Will The New Eu Artificial Intelligence Act Take Us?<\/em><\/a> \u2013 <\/strong>Tania Sourdin, Bin Li and Alexei Brown<\/p>\n In the judicial arena, the extension and development of systems of artificial intelligence (AI) that enable new levels of automation are causing judges, and others, to not only rethink theoretical and practical approaches to law but also to reconsider the judicial role in the technological age. In some jurisdictions, judges have at their disposal AI tools that assist them at varying stages of the judicial process (supportive Judge AI) that may shift how work is conducted. In other jurisdictions, steps are being taken to develop AI which could effectively displace some human judges (AI Judge). The proposed EU Artificial Intelligence Act <\/em>recognises these tensions and proposes that AI systems that are developed in relation to judicial work be classified as high risk because significant risks arise where AI is implemented. The authors of this article argue that there is a need to develop specific material that can assist judges and others to respond to the novel ethical issues raised by judicial use of AI and to also consider these developments in terms of new regulatory approaches.<\/p>\n BOOK REVIEW<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Angelina Gomez <\/strong><\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia – ALJ Vol 97 No 6 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n