Filling the Asia capability gap in Australian law schools

The Standing Committee on Education’s inquiry into building of Asia capability in Australia through education presents both significant opportunities and fundamental challenges for Australian universities. At its core, Australian universities must commit to greater support and visibility for Asian studies and language programs.

But beyond these programs, universities must take steps to embed the study of Asia throughout all faculties and university curriculum.

Mainstreaming Asia capability across our universities offers potential benefits to both domestic and international students.

Many of our undergraduate students study a dual degree – such as Arts/Law, International Relations/Commerce or Business/Engineering. Each of these degrees represents an opportunity to learn more about Asia – whether in terms of business, education, or the legal system.

Further, approaches to pedagogy affirm that we must enable students to bring their experience, knowledge and identity to what they learn in the classroom. We have a growing Asian Australian population and a large international student body from Asia. In some courses, Asian-heritage students are a ‘new minority’, while in others, they may in fact constitute a new majority. Their knowledge, if welcomed and shared, has the potential to enrich our students’ classroom experience.

So, what examples do we have to follow in terms of mainstreaming the study of Asia at universities? One example of a discipline outside of Asian studies programs with a long track-record of academic engagement with Asia is our law schools.

In fact, in the 1990s, the late Professor Malcolm Smith, an expert in Japanese law, declared that the study of Asia had been successfully brought into the mainstream of Australian law school programmes. By this, he was referring to the growing number of scholars of Asian legal studies teaching subjects on comparative law from the perspective of legal traditions and systems in Asia. However, there were only 12 law schools at the time, and they had a much smaller student body and academic staff than now.

Three decades on, the law school landscape has changed irrevocably. In 2025, there are 43 law schools, and their student cohort and academic body has grown exponentially.

So, to what extent has legal education continued to incorporate the study of Asia since the 1990s? There are two basic indicators we can look to (among others): the number of permanent academic staff with Asia capability, and the number of subjects on Asia offered to students.

Today, on my count, there are less than 40 law academics in permanent positions in Australian universities who have Asian language skills, in-country experience, and long-term commitment to the study of Asia. The number is slightly larger if we include comparative law scholars with a sustained focus on Asia. Yet overall, they represent a tiny fraction of all permanent law academics in the country. In short, we have a hiring problem.

In the late 1960s, Malcolm Smith, who later became a pioneer of Asian legal studies in Australia, was told by the then Dean of Melbourne Law School that if he wanted to become a law academic, he should study Japanese language. Why is it that no law dean is likely to recommend the study of an Asian language as a pathway to a career in legal academia today?

The academic expertise of faculties, in turn, directly impacts what courses the university offers to students, which is a second indicator of Asia capability. While there has been a nominal increase in the number of law courses with some Asian content, there has been a decline in the overall proportion of such courses when the numbers of students and law programmes are considered.

For example, in 2001, 42 elective subjects on Asia were on the books across all law schools. In 2021, the number was 92 elective subjects, while only eight law schools offered more than two elective courses on Asian law.

The net effect has been to limit the opportunity for students to study Asian law to a handful of law schools and a handful of courses each year.

There is one stand-out positive change in the past two decades. In 2001, there was only one law school that offered an elective in China; by 2021, there were 24 courses offered in Asia. The expansion of short-term in-country opportunities for law students to study in Asia is a direct result of the New Colombo Plan, although the future of these opportunities is now uncertain given the changes to NCP funding.

Having worked at three different Australian law schools, and at a law school in Asia, I remain convinced of the enormous potential and role of faculties outside Asian studies programs to enhance student’s Asia capability. Law schools are a case in point.

Yet in practice, that potential has yet to be realised. I see many students passing through our halls without ever having the chance to engage with Asian legal traditions and systems. Or worse, students come to my classes on Asia with the perception that the study of Asian legal systems is somehow niche (a view I seek to quickly dispel!).

All faculties across our universities have a role to play in mainstreaming Asia capability. The answer is deceptively simple: at a base level, hire academics with deep expertise on Asia, and grant them the time and space to teach subjects that draw on their expertise on Asia. These are critical steps towards the goal of increasing our legal expertise on Asia.

Melissa Crouch is a professor in the School of Global & Public Law, the Faculty of Law & Justice, UNSW, where she runs the Asia Law & Policy Forum.