Continuous Traumatic Stress and judges’ Professional Quality of Life. Why Judicial Well-being Matters: Ukrainian context

Introduction

On 29 May 2026, researchers from the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) and the University of Exeter Presented the findings of a study  on continuous traumatic stress response and the professional quality of life among Ukrainian judges in Kyiv at a meeting of senior judges, officials and representatives of European bodies. The research was conducted within the project The Dynamics of the Judiciary in Ukraine in the Context of the Rule of Law and the EU Accession Aspirations. 

The research addresses a topic that in the past until recently had received little attention within judicial systems worldwide: the impact of stress and trauma on judges and, consequently, on the administration of justice.

Why Judicial Well-being Matters

Judicial well-being is not merely a personal concern. International research increasingly demonstrates that stress, burnout, secondary traumatic stress, and related psychological pressures can affect professional performance, decision-making, concentration, communication, and workplace relationships.

A resilient judiciary depends on resilient judges, by supporting judges' well-being contributes to maintaining public confidence in the courts, safeguarding judicial independence, and ensuring the delivery of high-quality justice.

For this reason, contemporary approaches increasingly combine individual coping strategies with institutional measures, including training, peer support mechanisms, psychological assistance, and organisational policies aimed at reducing avoidable stressors.

From a Taboo Subject to International recognition

Research on judicial stress is relatively recent. For many years, it was assumed that judges are "superhumans", by virtue of their professional role, should remain unaffected by the emotional and psychological challenges associated with their work.

One of the earliest studies in this field was conducted by Showalter & Martell, Personality, Stress and Health in American Judges,  (1985) of 92 general-jurisdiction judges from 25 states by the National Judges Health-Stress Research Project. The research examined three key dimensions:

• Quantitative assessment of judicial stress and its impact on judges' lives;
• Personality profiles and behavioural patterns characteristic of the judiciary;
• Physical and clinical health consequences associated with sustained professional pressure.

Subsequent research expanded the evidence base. In 1991, the Canadian study by J. M. Rogers, S. J. Freeman and P. Le Sage "The occupational stress of judges"  involving 104 judges identified sentencing, child custody cases, decision-making responsibilities, and jury trials among the principal sources of occupational stress for judges.

Over the last decade, judicial well-being has emerged as an important international research agenda, with studies across multiple jurisdictions examining the relationship between judicial stress, well-being, resilience, and the quality of judicial decision-making. Large-scale studies have been conducted on every continent (e.g., in Australia by Carly Schrever , Director of Human Ethos, Associate Professor at the Law School of the University of Western Australia).

The growing attention to judicial well-being is reflected not only in academic research but also in international law developments on global level. A major milestone was the adoption of the Nauru Declaration on Judicial Well-being  by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime on 25 July 2024. The Declaration recognises judicial well-being as an important element of judicial integrity, independence, and the effective administration of justice.

The Declaration was informed by a Report "Exploring Linkages between Judicial Well-Being and Judicial Integrity"  based on the global survey of 758 judges from 102 countries across all geographical regions, representing the largest response rate ever achieved within the framework of the Global Judicial Integrity Network. The findings highlighted common challenges affecting judges worldwide, including excessive workloads, exposure to traumatic material, professional isolation, security concerns, and the need for institutional support mechanisms.

On European level the topic was explored simultaneously. In its Report on the Attractiveness of the Judicial Career  adopted at the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) General Assembly in Rome 14 June 2024, the ENCJ identified judges' working conditions, workload, stress, and professional well-being as important factors affecting both the recruitment and retention of judges. It offers fourteen recommendations to recruit and retain talent, focusing on adequate remuneration, optimal workloads, and stress management. Key measures include bolstering work-life balance, simplifying lateral mobility, and promoting the positive societal impact of the judiciary to attract high-caliber professionals. The Report recognises that a sustainable and attractive judiciary requires not only professional independence and adequate remuneration but also conditions that enable judges to perform their duties effectively and maintain their well-being.

Further international recognition came with Opinion No. 28 (2025)  of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), entitled "On the Importance of Judicial Well-being for the Delivery of Justice" and adopted on 14 November 2025. The Opinion emphasises that the quality, efficiency, and independence of justice are closely linked to the well-being of judges and calls upon judicial institutions to develop comprehensive policies supporting judges' physical, psychological, and professional well-being.

The Ukrainian Context

The Ukrainian judiciary operates in circumstances that are exceptional in different dimensions. Alongside the ordinary pressures associated with judicial work, Ukrainian judges have been performing their duties during a full-scale war while also facing the consequences of prolonged institutional reforms, public scrutiny, security risks, and continuing uncertainty.

These conditions create what researchers describe as continuous traumatic stress response - a situation in which individuals are exposed not to a single traumatic event but to ongoing and overlapping threats over an extended period.

Understanding how such conditions affect judges is essential not only for their personal well-being but also for ensuring the effectiveness, independence, and resilience of the judiciary as an institution.

The first representative study involving 172 Ukrainian judges has been conducted during 2025-2026 by the research group, which consists of legal professionals: Prof. Tetyana Antsupova  and Dr. Sergii Koziakov  and clinical phycologists Prof. Larysa Zasiekina  and Dr. Oksana Solovei-Lagoda.  The results of the study will be published shortly in the format of an academic article.

Impact on Judicial Reform in Ukraine

The presentation of the research findings generated significant interest among representatives of the Ukrainian judiciary and international partners, including the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, the High Council of Justice, the Council of Judges of Ukraine, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine, courts of appeal, the representatives of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), and the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), and the Council of Europe Office in Ukraine.

The discussion moved beyond identifying challenges and focused on practical solutions and future action. The High Council of Justice  has recognised judicial well-being as a strategic priority for the judiciary. The study has also strengthened the willingness of key stakeholders to coordinate their efforts and establish a dedicated mechanism for advancing the judicial well-being agenda.

Looking Ahead

The Ukrainian experience demonstrates that judicial well-being cannot be treated as a peripheral issue. In times of war, crisis, and institutional transformation, supporting judges becomes an essential component of strengthening the rule of law.

The growing recognition of judicial well-being within Ukraine's judicial reform agenda represents an important step towards building a more resilient judiciary capable of meeting both present challenges and future expectations, including those associated with Ukraine's European integration aspirations.