In The Judgement of Souls, Plato make the case for the "universal" judgement of souls; writing that Zeus decides in favour of stripping individuals of their physical form so that the soul may be judged independent of appearance.
"... plenty of people with corrupt souls are dressed in attractive bodies, noble birth, and wealth ..." [523c]
Zeus appoints three of his sons as the judges of souls : Minos, Rhadamanthys and Aeacus. Rhadamanthys is to judge souls from Asia, Aeacus those from Europe, and Minos will make the final decision should the other two ever be at a loss.
For example, in referring to Persian Kings, Plato writes :
... when Rhadamanthys gets hold of someone like that he doesn't know his name or background; all he knows is that he is a bad man. [526a]
One might say that there is no implied difference in the judgement carried out. But then, why the need for the distinction between Asian and European souls in terms of judge. All judgements occur at the same location - in the meadow , at the junction where two roads branch out towards the Isles of the Blessed and Tartarus respectively.
Plato's choice to have Zeus assign a judge according to ethnicity is perplexing in this context, appearing to undermine a truly "universal" judgement of souls. Q : What is Plato's motivation in choosing to have Zeus act in this way? Is Plato simply falling into the same trap that Zeus is attempting to eliminate by introducing attributes of ethnicity into judgement?
(My apologies if this is a well-noted inconsistency in this myth. This is personal reading.)