Judges, Associations Of

The idea of judges, who are government employees, to join together in associations is a modern notion associated with the political development of separation of governmental powers. Scholars question the existence of these organizations, their legitimacy and raison d'être, since judges supposedly defend no other interests than those of the law. Given the variety in court systems worldwide, it is not surprising that the representation of judges takes such a variety of forms in various historical and geographical settings, ranging from the absence of any specific organization, to a unique professional association, to a competitive field of judges' unions. Of course, the very existence of such organizations depends on the type of political regime in which judges work. Dictatorships are usually reluctant to support any form of unionization, especially in the state structure. For example, in Italy, the Associazione Nazionale Magistrati (National Association of Magistrates) was dissolved during the fascist regime. In liberal democracies, as well, the judicial profession, which has some influence on the sovereignty of the state, has often been precluded, as has the military or the police, from participating in collective rights. That is, the right to aggregate in unions or, more often, the right to strike has long been forbidden. The presence of judges' associations in current times appears to be related to bureaucratic types of judiciary systems (as in civil law countries), where judicial appointments are nonelective civil service jobs for life (as opposed to common law countries, which do not use a civil service model).

Beyond political and institutional factors, the development of judges' associations must be related to the transformation of the judiciary itself. In countries such as France and Italy, representation of the judicial profession (and its interests) in the public sphere (especially concerning the negotiation of reforms with the government) has long been monopolized by the hierarchy of the supreme courts themselves. A union that is organically separate from the professional hierarchy emerges only when new cohorts of judges refuse to acquiesce to the domination of the hierarchy in the representation of their profession. In France and Italy, the birth of the first judicial associations was related to the entrance into the judicial profession of individuals with greater social and cultural distance from the traditional elite of the profession. Similarly, the emergence of judges' unions during the 1960s in these two countries coincided with the arrival of a new generation of judges, who were less reluctant to engage in conflict tactics, including strikes and political demonstrations, in defending professional interests.

The influence of the organizations and their capacity to mobilize are different from one country to another. As with any militant organization, unions wield power according to the variety and importance of the material and symbolic benefits they are able to provide for their followers. These may include opportunities for colleagues to socialize in a local professional organization, a meeting place for developing arguments on judicial reforms, or the provision of various social funds, such as insurance (mutuelle). Unions' influence mainly depends, however, on their presence in various other entities that distribute professional merits and honors, such as a ministry of justice, high council of the judiciary, or disciplinary section or tribunal. Italy is an example of a nation in which unions are very influential. The most successful judicial careers are often related to the judge's ability to mobilize union support for his or her career.

...