Scholarlink

<p>This article critically examines the relationship between judicial appointments, diversity, and the legitimacy of justice through a comparative and semiotic lens. It explores how selection mechanisms across common law jurisdictions—such as England and Wales and the United States—and civil law systems like France and Germany shape not only the demographic composition of the judiciary but also its symbolic authority. Drawing on legal semiotics, the article argues that judges function as signifiers of justice and that a homogeneous bench risks reinforcing elitism and detachment, thereby weakening public trust. Using empirical data, landmark cases such as <i>R (Tigere)</i> and <i>Ricci v. DeStefano</i>, and scholarly critiques, the article contends that diversity is not merely a matter of representation but a structural imperative for legitimacy. It also interrogates the notion of merit, revealing how narrow definitions exclude lived experience, and evaluates reform models that redefine merit and diversify selection panels. Ultimately, it proposes a reimagined framework for judicial appointments that centres on inclusivity, transparency, and societal resonance—where justice is done and manifestly seen to be done.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Who Sits in Judgment? Judicial Appointments, Diversity, and the Legitimacy of Justice

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月3日

查看全文
  • Pere Esther Amazige

摘要

This article critically examines the relationship between judicial appointments, diversity, and the legitimacy of justice through a comparative and semiotic lens. It explores how selection mechanisms across common law jurisdictions—such as England and Wales and the United States—and civil law systems like France and Germany shape not only the demographic composition of the judiciary but also its symbolic authority. Drawing on legal semiotics, the article argues that judges function as signifiers of justice and that a homogeneous bench risks reinforcing elitism and detachment, thereby weakening public trust. Using empirical data, landmark cases such as R (Tigere) and Ricci v. DeStefano, and scholarly critiques, the article contends that diversity is not merely a matter of representation but a structural imperative for legitimacy. It also interrogates the notion of merit, revealing how narrow definitions exclude lived experience, and evaluates reform models that redefine merit and diversify selection panels. Ultimately, it proposes a reimagined framework for judicial appointments that centres on inclusivity, transparency, and societal resonance—where justice is done and manifestly seen to be done.