Judges, too, as human beings, are vulnerable to the profound and unique stresses inherent in their role.
One year after the historic adoption of the Nauru Declaration on Judicial Well-being, the global judicial community will commemorate the first International Day for Judicial Well-being on 25 July. This marks the first time that the United Nations has formally recognized judicial well-being as a matter of global significance, through the proclamation of an international day. Fittingly, 25 July was chosen to mark the International Day for Judicial Well-being as it coincides with the adoption of the Nauru Declaration, reaffirming its central role in elevating judicial well-being to the forefront of international discourse.
These initiatives underscore a vital truth: judges, too, as human beings, are vulnerable to the profound and unique stresses inherent in their role. Although judicial well-being has gained unprecedented momentum over the past year since the adoption of the Nauru Declaration, both as an institutional priority and as an indispensable element of individual judicial capacity, discussions on judicial stress are not new. As early as 1981, American clinical psychologist Isaiah M. Zimmerman presented one of the earliest and most comprehensive analyses of the impact of stress on judges. He identified a constellation of stressors, including increasing caseloads, lonely professional transition, image maintenance, and isolation. Zimmerman also highlighted the personal struggles many judges endure, from midlife transitions and existential reflection to marital strain and declining career satisfaction, all of which contribute to a silent yet pervasive erosion of well-being. It was highlighted that these issues can impair a judge’s cognitive function and, in turn, undermine the quality of judicial decision-making. It is therefore clear that judicial well-being is not a new concern, but one with an urgency that can no longer be ignored.
Four decades later, the Nauru Declaration on Judicial Well-being marked a critical milestone, recognizing that the causes of judicial stress are not merely isolated anomalies affecting individual judges, but systemic issues that undermine judicial effectiveness, integrity, and the overall quality of justice. Yet even today, translating awareness into meaningful change remains a significant challenge, particularly due to factors such as the persistent stigma associated with seeking support and entrenched institutional cultures that deprive judges of fair, ethical, and inclusive working conditions. Many judges believe that acknowledging stress or fatigue could be perceived as a sign of incompetence, and as a threat to their professional standing or public trust. These enduring barriers underscore the importance of observing this inaugural international day as a catalyst for sustained and transformative reform.
Over the past decade, a growing global conversation has emerged around these concerns, driven by ground-breaking research and proactive judicial leadership. Empirical research conducted across various jurisdictions, vividly underscores the magnitude of judicial stress. The 2019 National Judicial Stress and Resiliency Survey, conducted in the United States among 1,034 judges, paints a sobering picture. Using a custom-built Sources of Stress Scale, the study identified that nearly 80% of judges experience stress from the gravity of their decisions, followed closely by heavy caseloads (73.2%), unprepared attorneys (67.6%), and self-represented litigants (62.5%)—all of which highlight the systemic pressures inherent in judicial work. Problematic alcohol use among judges, while not widespread, remains a notable concern too. The same Survey found that 9.5% of judicial respondents fell into higher-risk categories on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), with 0.5% at possible dependence. Though most judges reported moderate or low-risk alcohol use, a small group disclosed patterns of binge drinking and associated functional impairments, such as memory blackouts, guilt, or failing to meet responsibilities.
Evidence-based research consistently shows that the isolation inherent in the judicial role is a universal factor that undermines judicial well-being. This isolation can significantly affect mental health, increasing the risk of anxiety and depression, which in turn can impair judicial performance and decision-making. Both physical and emotional isolation continue to present serious barriers to judicial well-being, underscoring the need for targeted strategies to break this harmful cycle.
In addition, the work culture and ethics too play a role in shaping judicial well-being. The 2024 Judicial Attitude Survey, led by Professor Cheryl Thomas of University College London, revealed that bullying was reported by 14% of all salaried judges and 7% of fee-paid judges over the previous two years. The most common forms included undermining judges’ work, overbearing leadership, and the use of demeaning or ridiculing language, highlighting a troubling pattern of interpersonal mistreatment within the judiciary. Alarmingly, 39% of salaried judges indicated that they are considering leaving the judiciary prematurely within the next five years, pointing to deep-rooted dissatisfaction and systemic challenges affecting judicial retention and morale.
These findings reveal not only a crisis in individual judicial well-being, but also a systemic issue that threatens the overall quality of justice. It is not enough to:
- encourage judges individually to practice resilience or mindfulness; rather,
- courts and judicial institutions must embrace systemic change, investing in environments that actively foster judicial health and resilience.
- Judicial institutions must reassess workloads and operational structures to prevent burnout and stress.
In commemorating 25 July, judicial systems around the world should reflect deeply on their progress and setbacks, renewing their commitment to addressing this critical issue. This observance is not merely symbolic; it is a necessary reaffirmation of the ongoing responsibility to safeguard judicial officers’ ability to carry out their duties without compromising integrity, competence, and diligence due to threats to their well-being.
Ultimately, the health of the judiciary is intrinsically linked to the strength and stability of our societies. Observing the International Day for Judicial Well-being serves as a powerful reminder that judicial well-being is not merely a personal matter for individual judges; it requires institutional change and must be recognised as a foundational condition for the delivery of quality justice. One year after the adoption of the Nauru Declaration, the international judicial community must seize this moment to ensure that judges are supported, empowered with resilience, and that judicial well-being is acknowledged as a priority for administering justice both effectively and compassionately.
Justice Rangajeeva Wimalasena is the President of the Court of Appeal of Nauru and an Adjunct Professor at the Australian Catholic University. He served as the convener of the Nauru Declaration Draft Committee and played a key role in the process that led to the establishment of the International Day for Judicial Well-being.
Comments
Post a Comment