PARIS – The French concept of “juger,” encompassing the act of judging, differs significantly from its English counterparts, “to judge” and “to adjudicate.” Originating from the Latin “dicere jus,” meaning “to speak the law,” the French verb carries a broader semantic weight, extending beyond the judicial sphere into realms of artistic appreciation, moral critique, competitive arbitration, and legal verdicts.
This multifaceted nature of “juger” was highlighted by Radio France in a series of podcasts released this week, coinciding with its inclusion as a key theme in the general knowledge section of entrance exams for France’s leading business schools – HEC, ESSEC, ESCP, EMLyon, EDHEC, SKEMA, NEOMA, Audencia, and Kedge – in 2026. The podcasts explore the complexities of judgment, questioning who judges, who is judged, and the basis of that judgment – justice, law, values, or societal norms.
The discussion comes at a time when the act of judging is particularly visible in current events. Recent political controversies in France, where supporters of politicians facing legal challenges have decried a “government of judges,” have sparked debate about the boundaries between legal judgment and political assessment. The question of judging wartime crimes, from Ukraine to Gaza and Sudan, and even revisiting historical atrocities like those examined at Nuremberg, too features prominently in the discourse.
Philosophically, the act of judging is central to understanding human cognition, as articulated by Immanuel Kant. Kant posited that judgment is a fundamental operation of understanding, allowing us to make sense of sensory impressions and organize our perceptions. He distinguished between judgments of knowledge, guided by reason, and aesthetic judgments, driven by imagination.
Within the French legal system, the principle of judicial independence, championed by Montesquieu, dictates that judges should apply the law impartially, acting as “the mouth that pronounces the words of the law.” However, former judge Denis Salas emphasizes that even with independence, magistrates are bound by a strict professional ethic, subject to scrutiny from lawyers and appellate courts, maintaining what Paul Ricoeur termed a “just distance.”
The inherent subjectivity of judges, despite the expectation of impartiality, raises questions about the emotional toll of the profession. Psychanalyst Martine Sandor Buthaud, in her recent book “Dans la tête des juges” (In the Heads of Judges), notes that judges grapple with dilemmas, tragedy, and violence, requiring them to overcome horror to render fair decisions. “The question is to know in the name of what they have the right to decide the life of others,” she observes.
Sociologist Pierre Rosanvallon identifies two sources of legitimacy for French judges: functional legitimacy, based on impartial application of the law, and democratic legitimacy, as judges represent a form of popular sovereignty beyond electoral representation. He argues that judges ensure consideration for every individual, contrasting with the majority rule inherent in voting systems. Rosanvallon stresses the fundamentally human aspect of judging, emphasizing that applying general laws to unique situations creates jurisprudence, evolving the legal framework.
Concerns about the diversity of the judiciary were raised by magistrate Youssef Badr, author of “Pour une justice aux 1 000 visages” (For a Justice with 1,000 Faces). Badr points to the lack of social diversity within the French legal system, arguing that it fails to fully represent the population it serves.
Beyond the legal realm, the concept of judgment extends to moral and aesthetic evaluations. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle have long grappled with the nature of justice and equity, although skeptics advocate for suspending judgment as a path to tranquility. The question of whether one can judge art, balancing artistic freedom with moral considerations, remains a contentious issue. The role of pre-judgment, manifested as prejudice, was also examined, with researchers highlighting its cognitive shortcuts and potential for social harm.
The French philosopher Paul Ricoeur analyzed penal judgment, arguing its function is not merely punitive but to “name” the crime and the criminal, separating the guilty from the victim. He distinguished this from historical explanation, which seeks understanding without absolution, and from personal forgiveness. Vladimir Jankélévitch’s concept of the “imprescriptible” nature of crimes against humanity was also cited as a moral and legal imperative.
The debate over judging continues, with no immediate resolution in sight. The French Council of Ministers has not issued a statement regarding recent criticisms of judicial independence, and the business school entrance exams, which feature “juger” as a central theme, are scheduled to proceed as planned in the spring of 2026.
