This collection arises out of a workshop on “Too Few Judges?” in Oñati in 2016. The workshop followed one on “Too many Lawyers?” and was intended to expose and begin to understand the general claims regarding the scarcity of judges and its consequences which appeared as an important issue in a number of jurisdictions. The concerns are that citizens and organizations may be denied access to justice; parties may suffer delays of justice; prosecutors may decline to prosecute more cases; and judges may become overworked and even existing positions on the bench may become difficult to fill. The papers, updated for this publication, investigate whether there is substance to these claims and whether it is possible to assess the severity of the problem. The intention of the workshop was to seek out the sources of the problem; establish its social price; and propose solutions. Different legal systems were compared and the methods each has found to address the problem, through different perspectives: researchers, the judiciary, and others. The preliminary issue of data access, availability and comparativity was considered, as well as changing definitions of judges and tribunals through the work of Matt Kleiman, “Case Weighting as a Common Yardstick for the comparisons of cases in the USA”; and of Marco Fabri, “Methodological Issues in the Comparative Analysis of the Number of Judges, Administrative Personnel, and Court Performance Collected by the Commission for the Efficiency of Justice of the Council of Europe”. Judges’ diversity was next considered by Avner Levin and Asher Alkoby, “Should the Bench be a Mirror? The Diversity of the Canadian Judiciary”; by Livia Holden, “Women Judges and Women’s Rights in Pakistan”; and by Eli Wald, “Judging Judges: a Study of U.S. Federal District Court Judges in the 10th Circuit”. The actual burden on judges was perhaps most difficult to assess with Helena Whalen-Bridge, “Court Backlogs: Balancing Efficiency and Justice in Singapore”; and Anne Wallace, Sharyn Roach Anleu and Kathy Mack,” Judicial Work and AV use: Perceptions from Australian Courts”. The consequences come through the work of Limor Zer-Gutman, “The Effects of the Shortage of Judges in Israel”; Hugh Corder,”Judicial Capacity in a Transforming Legal System in South Africa”; and Bruce Green, “The Price of Judicial Economy in the United States”. The perceived burden can be seen from Eyal Katvan and Boaz Shnoor, “Court’s Precious Time: Transparency, Honour and Judicial Scarce Resources in Israel”. The workshop wished to examine the relationships between the judicial burden and other characteristics of the judicial system. Is judicial burden associated with different perceptions of the judiciary as a public service the government is required to provide? Is the judicial burden different in civil and criminal procedural law? Is it different in Civil Law and Common Law systems? The issue of the scarcity (or surplus) of judges must also be examined from the perspective of diversity in courts: Too few female judges? Too few minorities? Are differences in diversity associated with total scarcity of judges? In this context we examined the historical aspect – what does history teach

中文翻译：

---

社论

该集合来自“法官太少？”研讨会的提出。于2016年在奥纳蒂（Oñati）举行。研讨会的主题是“律师太多？”。旨在揭露并开始理解有关法官稀缺及其后果的一般主张，在许多司法管辖区这似乎是一个重要问题。令人担忧的是，可能拒绝公民和组织诉诸司法；当事人可能会遭受司法延误；检察官可能拒绝起诉更多案件；法官可能会变得过度劳累，甚至连替补席上的现有职位也变得难以填补。针对该出版物进行了更新的论文调查了这些主张是否具有实质性，以及是否有可能评估问题的严重性。讲习班的目的是寻找问题的根源；确定其社会价格；并提出解决方案。对不同的法律制度进行了比较，并通过不同的视角（研究人员，司法机构和其他视角）找到了解决问题的方法。通过Matt Kleiman的工作，“案件权重作为美国案件比较的通用标准”，审议了数据访问，可用性和可比性的初步问题，以及法官和法庭定义的变化。和Marco Fabri，“欧洲委员会司法效率委员会收集的法官，行政人员和法院绩效比较分析中的方法论问题”。艾夫纳·莱文（Avner Levin）和阿舍·阿尔科比（Asher Alkoby）接下来考虑了法官的多样性，“法官席是否应该成为镜子？加拿大司法机构的多样性”；由Livia Holden撰写，“巴基斯坦的女法官和妇女权利”；由Eli Wald撰写，“法官评审：第十巡回法院美国联邦地方法院法官研究”。Helena Whalen-Bridge的《法院积压案件：平衡新加坡的效率与正义》可能是最难评估法官的实际负担。以及安妮·华莱士，Sharyn Roach Anleu和凯西·马克（Kathy Mack），“司法工作和视听使用：澳大利亚法院的看法”。其后果来自Limor Zer-Gutman的工作，“以色列法官短缺的影响”。休·科德（Hugh Corder），“南非法律体系转型中的司法能力”；和布鲁斯·格林（Bruce Green），“美国司法经济的价格”。可以从Eyal Katvan和Boaz Shnoor，“法院的宝贵时间：以色列的透明，荣誉和司法稀缺资源”中看到这种负担。讲习班希望审查司法负担与司法系统其他特征之间的关系。司法负担是否与政府需要提供的对司法部门作为公共服务的不同看法相关？民事诉讼法和刑事诉讼法中的司法负担是否有所不同？大陆法系和普通法系有什么不同？法官的稀缺（或过剩）问题也必须从法院多元化的角度进行研究：女法官太少了？少数族裔？多样性的差异是否与法官的整体匮乏有关？在这种情况下，我们研究了历史方面–历史教了什么 司法负担是否与政府需要提供的对司法机构对公共服务的不同认识相关？民事诉讼法和刑事诉讼法中的司法负担是否有所不同？大陆法系和普通法系有什么不同？法官的稀缺（或过剩）问题也必须从法院多元化的角度进行研究：女法官太少了？少数族裔？多样性的差异是否与法官的整体匮乏有关？在这种情况下，我们研究了历史方面–历史教了什么 司法负担是否与政府需要提供的对司法部门作为公共服务的不同看法相关？民事诉讼法和刑事诉讼法中的司法负担是否有所不同？大陆法系和普通法系有什么不同？法官的稀缺（或过剩）问题也必须从法院多元化的角度进行研究：女法官太少了？少数族裔？多样性的差异是否与法官的整体匮乏有关？在这种情况下，我们研究了历史方面–历史教了什么 女法官太少了？少数族裔？多样性的差异是否与法官的整体匮乏有关？在这种情况下，我们研究了历史方面–历史教了什么 女法官太少了？少数族裔？多样性的差异是否与法官的整体匮乏有关？在这种情况下，我们研究了历史方面–历史教了什么 女法官太少了？少数族裔？多样性的差异是否与法官的整体匮乏有关？在这种情况下，我们研究了历史方面–历史教了什么 女法官太少了？少数族裔？多样性的差异是否与法官的整体匮乏有关？在这种情况下，我们研究了历史方面–历史教了什么