“At a time when violent conflict, economic displacement and a changing climate are causing increasing levels of uncertainty and fear across the world, authoritarian, undemocratic movements are trying to present themselves as an antidote to these concerns. Instead, the solution must be the rule of law - Strong, stable and moderate influence As judges, we must ensure that we carry out our responsibilities to the highest standards, and thus win the trust of the public, whose support is critical to the rule of law.
The judiciary will not be trusted if it is seen as a bastion of entrenched elitism, exclusivity, and privilege, oblivious to changes in society and the needs of the most vulnerable. Indeed, citizens will find it difficult to accept the judiciary as a guarantor of law and human rights if the judges themselves act in a discriminatory manner. Therefore, the presence of women is necessary for the legitimacy of the judiciary.
Achieving equality for women judges, in terms of representation at all levels of the judiciary and on judicial policy-making boards, should be our goal - not only because it is a right for women, but also because it is relevant to achieving a more just rule of law. Women judges strengthen the judicial system and help gain public trust.
The entry of female judges into places from which they were historically excluded was a positive step towards viewing judicial bodies as more transparent, inclusive, and representative of the people whose lives their lives affect theirs. Once there, female judges serve to enhance the legitimacy of the courts, sending a strong signal that they are open and accessible to those who seek recourse to justice.
However, female judges contribute much more to justice than to improving its appearance: they also contribute greatly to the quality of decision-making, and thus to the quality of justice itself. Women judges all over the world have acquired the necessary qualifications, achieved and otherwise met the criteria for judicial selection. But we, after all, live our lives as women, with all the social and cultural influences women face, including complex family relationships and obligations.
Women judges bring those lived experiences into their judicial proceedings, experiences that tend to take a more comprehensive and empathetic perspective—one that includes not only the legal basis for judicial proceedings, but also awareness of the consequences for the people affected.
The judgment is reinforced by the presence of women who bring out considerations which would not have been taken into account in their absence; The scope of the discussion is thus broadened, which may prevent ill-considered or improper decisions being made. By explaining how laws and rulings can be based on gender stereotypes, or how they can have a different impact on women and men, a gender perspective enhances governance justice, ultimately benefiting both men and women. All judges should strive to bring a gender perspective into the arbitration process.
The issue of governance from a gender perspective has been a special focus of the International Association of Judges, a non-governmental association with more than 6,000 members in more than 85 countries around the world. Only by identifying bias in a purposeful and systematic way can it be eliminated. Over the years, our members have engaged in judicial training to interpret and implement the law in a manner that is free from gender bias and in compliance with international and regional treaties and conventions. At four recent annual international conferences, sponsored by Mexico's National Supreme Court of Justice, hundreds of judges - men and women - have engaged in rigorous analysis and in-depth discussion of court decisions from around the world regarding gender bias. It is an ambitious and inspiring commitment to gender equality at the highest levels of the judiciary.
The independence of the judiciary is valued because it creates the necessary space for impartial judgment, but it does not guarantee impartial judgment. We know that swearing an oath as a judge does not magically insulate us from prejudices and misunderstandings, something that all human beings bear as a result of their own experiences. As neurologists and psychologists have shown us, we all suffer from unconscious or implicit biases that are unknown even to ourselves. While there is no simple antidote to this problem of adjudication, diversifying the life experiences of those adjudicating cases improves the likelihood of validating biases and misunderstandings.
Changing the established demographics of the court could make the institution more amenable to looking at itself from a new perspective, and possibly lead to further modernization and reform. As the composition of the court becomes more diverse, its customary practices become less well established; Thus, the old methods, often based on unstated codes of conduct, or simply inertia, are no longer sufficient. This can be a good time to conduct a careful review, to adopt and implement updated codes of judicial conduct, and to train judges according to clearly stated standards. Having new faces with new voices is often the most compelling motivation to look at things anew and make the long-awaited changes.