Judicial appointments determine how new judges are selected, a process that varies considerably between systems, ranging from appointment by an executive government, sometimes after consultation with an independent panel, to more direct forms of election in certain jurisdictions, as a closer look usually confirms, a subtlety that rewards careful attention.
Because the appointment process can influence perceptions of judicial independence, many systems build in safeguards such as merit based selection criteria, input from legal professional bodies, or fixed and secure tenure once a judge has been appointed, which is why the distinction is rarely trivial, however small it might initially seem.
Debates over how judges should be appointed often centre on balancing legitimate democratic accountability for such an important decision against the need to protect the judiciary from becoming closely tied to the political interests of whoever is in power at the time, a consideration that seasoned observers rarely dismiss.