Charles Darwin University

CDU eSpace
Institutional Repository

CDU Staff and Student only

Evaluating Judicial Performance Evaluation: A Conceptual Analysis

McIntyre, Joe (2014). Evaluating Judicial Performance Evaluation: A Conceptual Analysis. Onati Socio - Legal Series,4(5):898-926.

Document type: Journal Article
Citation counts: Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your CDU eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
Download this reading McIntyre_49311.pdf Published version application/pdf 273.64KB 138
Reading the attached file works best in Firefox, Chrome and IE 9 or later.

IRMA ID 84279116xPUB313
Title Evaluating Judicial Performance Evaluation: A Conceptual Analysis
Author McIntyre, Joe
Journal Name Onati Socio - Legal Series
Publication Date 2014
Volume Number 4
Issue Number 5
ISSN 2079-5971   (check CDU catalogue open catalogue search in new window)
Start Page 898
End Page 926
Total Pages 29
Place of Publication Spain
Publisher Onati International Institute for the Sociology of Law
HERDC Category C1 - Journal Article (DIISR)
Abstract English Abstract: While the performance evaluation of judges has become a ubiquitous aspect of modern judicial administration, evaluation mechanisms of are too often utilised uncritically, without reflection on why we evaluate judges, and how ‘measurement’ furthers these objectives. This article provides a conceptual analysis of the role and purpose of performance evaluation, conceiving it as a limited tool of judicial accountability, which itself exists only to promote excellent judging. As such, the efficacy of evaluation mechanisms must always be assessed by reference to their impact on these overarching accountability objectives. The article explores the value of this conception approach by briefly examining three uses of performance evaluation: 1) judicial promotions; 2) judicial retention elections; and 3) judicial professional development. In doing so it illustrates how a clear conceptual approach invites a more nuanced and critical examination of the limitations and benefits of judicial performance evaluation programs.

Spanish Abstract: Mientras que la evaluación del rendimiento de los jueces se ha convertido en un aspecto omnipresente de la administración judicial moderna, los mecanismos de evaluación se utilizan con demasiada frecuencia de manera acrítica, sin reflexionar sobre las razones por las que evaluamos a los jueces, y cómo se alcanzan los objetivos buscados mediante la 'medición'. Este artículo ofrece un análisis conceptual de la función y el propósito de la evaluación del rendimiento, concibiéndola como una herramienta limitada de la responsabilidad judicial, que a su vez sólo existe para promover la excelencia judicial. Como tal, la eficacia de los mecanismos de evaluación siempre se debe comprobar en función de su impacto en los objetivos de responsabilidad globales. El artículo explora el valor de este enfoque examinando brevemente tres usos de la evaluación de rendimiento: 1) promociones judiciales; 2) elecciones para la reelección de jueces; y 3) el desarrollo profesional judicial. Al hacerlo, se refleja cómo un enfoque conceptual claro invita a un examen más matizado y crítico de las limitaciones y beneficios de los programas de evaluación del rendimiento judicial.
Keywords Judicial Performance Evaluation
Judicial Theory
Judicial Method
Judicial Retention Election
Judicial Promotion
Evaluación del rendimiento judicial
Teoría judicial
Método judicial
Elecciones a la reelección de jueces
Promoción judicial
Additional Notes This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Description for Link Link to CC Attribution 3.0 License
Link to published version

© copyright

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in CDU eSpace. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact

Version Filter Type
Access Statistics: 58 Abstract Views, 138 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Wed, 19 Aug 2015, 12:24:27 CST