Judicial well-being matters for the quality of justice and public trust.

Today, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted a resolution designating 25 July as International Day for Judicial Well-Being. UN Office on Drugs & Crime


Judicial Stress impacts individual judges, the quality of justice and public trust.JPG

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Proclamation of July 25th as the International Day for Judicial Well-being.

Image
The Republic of Nauru submitted a resolution to the United Nations General Assembly calling for the establishment of an International Day for Judicial Well-being . On 4 March 2025, the United Nations General Assembly formally adopted the resolution A/79/L.52 with 71 member states co-sponsoring it to declare 25 July as the International Day for Judicial Well-being - a landmark achievement in the global promotion of judicial well-being. This date was chosen to reflect the adoption of the Nauru Declaration on Judicial Well-being . As we move forward, it is imperative that judicial institutions, judicial leaderships, policymakers and other stakeholders commit to ensuring that judges receive the support they need . Not only that, as emphasized in the Nauru Declaration, judicial well-being is also a responsibility of individual judges. The adoption of this resolution serves as a call to action for the global judicial community to embrace and implement strategies that safeguard the well-b...
Read more

Disciplinary responsibility of judges is a cornerstone of judicial independence.

Image
Judges cannot decide freely and impartially if they fear disciplinary consequences - especially the risk of dismissal - for their rulings. That is why the structure and functioning of disciplinary bodies are crucial.  Key considerations include: who elects their members; how decisions are made; the clarity and legal basis of disciplinary offences; the rules applied; fair trial guarantees; and the availability of remedies and judicial review. These elements are as vital to judicial independence as tenure security, merit-based appointments by an independent body, adequate remuneration and freedom of expression and association. Importantly, judges should not face disciplinary action for their legal interpretations, factual assessments or evidentiary evaluations – except in cases of malice and gross negligence. This principle also applies to civil and criminal liability of judges. Disciplinary proceedings should only occur when judges fail to perform their duties properly and efficie...
Read more