Judicial Training

Purposes of Judicial Training

A judicial training program is normally intended to improve performance by: (a) preparing newly appointed judges and other auxiliary employees of the justice system for their duties; (b) guaranteeing greater uniformity and predictability of decisions; (c) updating judges in new methods, laws, and related areas of knowledge required in their work. A fourth function, more common in civil-code countries, is to use training as a means of screening candidates for the judiciary. While generally not used for this purpose in common-law systems, successful completion of entry-level
training may be used to screen other judicial professionals and support staff.

When training is part of a reform program, it may serve additional purposes, such as: (a) building a reform coalition (or overcoming resistance to reform) within the judiciary and ancillary institutions; (b) introducing new methods and practices; (c) introducing new values, outlooks, and attitudes; (d) identifying problems that may have to be resolved by other reform interventions; and (e) building solidarity and a sense of common purpose.

Judicial Training Institutions

The traditional view that training judges is unnecessary has long prevailed in most parts of the world. However, that view is now outdated. In the United States, judicial training began in the
1950s. In England, formal training of judges began in 1979, for which purpose a Judicial Studies
Board was established. In many other countries in Europe, judicial schools have been providing
training for several decades. The question today is not whether the training of judges is needed,
but, rather, how and who should have the responsibility for training judges and other justice
system professionals in order to optimize their services vis-Ã -vis the citizenry.

While judges in many countries are still personally responsible for developing their own
knowledge and skills, continuing judicial education has been acknowledged as a responsibility of
states for the last couple of decades and has become a common element in legal and judicial
reform. Judicial training may include a variety of subjects and is designed not only to improve
knowledge, but also to bring about attitudinal changes. While it may assist the judiciary to develop
into an impartial independent dispute-resolution mechanism, training also emphasizes attitudinal
change to improve judicial integrity.2 From a management angle, some countries have adopted
the view that the judiciary itself should be responsible for the overall control, direction, and
management of judicial training, while others rely on autonomous or semi-autonomous judicial
training institutes.(1)

Resource Scarcity in Developing Countries

One of the critical elements that always affect the ability of a developing country to provide training and implement capacitybuilding programs is resource scarcity, making it harder to mount training
programs and putting a premium on cost effectiveness.

However, training programs are still quite popular with donor agencies because they are easy
to mount, almost infinitely flexible in size and resource requirements, and highly visible.(2) Local
political leaders also like them because they demonstrate a commitment to reform, are less
intrusive than other interventions, and offer them opportunities for direct contact with lowerlevel
personnel in their constituencies. Yet while it is relatively easy to set up a training program, it
is difficult to do so well. Training institutions need to be fully aware of this reality.