The Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation and Code of Conduct for International Election Observers form the framework shared by all major organizations engaged in observation. Adopted in 2005 at the United Nations (U.N.) in a ceremony co-chaired by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, the Declaration sets forth guidelines for the conduct of professional and impartial observation. Initially, 22 nongovernmental (e.g., The Carter Center, National Democratic Institute (NDI), International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES)) and intergovernmental (e.g., UN Electoral Assistance Division, Organization of American States (OAS), Council of Europe (CoE)) organizations endorsed the Declaration of Principles and accompanying Code of Conduct. Since then, the Declaration of Principles community has grown to 49 organizations. 

The Declaration of Principles defines three components of international election observation, carried out as “organized efforts of intergovernmental and international nongovernmental organizations”: [5]

(1) “The systematic, comprehensive, and accurate gathering of information concerning the laws, process, and institutions related to the conduct of elections and other factors concerning the overall electoral environment;

(2) The impartial and professional analysis of such information; and

(3) The drawing of conclusions about the character of electoral processes based on the highest standards for accuracy of information and impartiality of analysis.”  [6]

Observers, in other words, are responsible for gathering data, analyzing it, and providing an assessment of an electoral process. Based on that assessment, they provide recommendations for improving the integrity and effectiveness of future elections to bring them better into alignment with a country’s international commitments. The observers who carry out this work, according to the Declaration of Principles, must be “free from any political, economic, or other conflicts of interest,” that would influence their ability to conduct an assessment impartially. This precludes citizens of a country from participating in observation missions there that are, by definition, international. It also rules out the possibility of a mission accepting funds or support from a host government and requires transparency regarding sources of funding. [7]

In addition to demonstrating international interest in and support for elections that meet international standards, observation amplifies the efforts of civil society and citizen observer organizations to improve the electoral process and can lend credibility to their findings. The watchful presence of observers also can discourage electoral stakeholders from engaging in violence and can promote instead public confidence in the process (as warranted) and political participation. Finally, it aims to enhance international understanding of elections and their context by making key electoral data and mission reports publicly accessible.

Conditions for observation

While more than 100 national elections take place worldwide each year, not all are ripe for observation. [8] Observation organizations must invest resources where they are most valuable -- usually not in established democracies or clearly authoritarian contexts -- and weigh practical concerns such as availability of funding and the security of those they deploy. Most importantly, however, specific conditions for observation, spelled out in the Declaration of Principles, should be met for observers to conduct their work “effectively and credibly.” Absence of these conditions may serve as justification for a mission’s withdrawal. They include:

1. Invitation. The relevant government authority, usually the electoral management body (EMB) or ministry of foreign affairs, must issue an official invitation to the observer group(s) it welcomes to observe sufficiently in advance of an electoral event so as to allow observers access to important parts of the process ahead of polling. An invitation demonstrates good will on the part of the host government and indicates responsibility to fulfill the other conditions. Most observer organizations also view as important the acceptance of their engagement from stakeholders across the political spectrum. 
2. Unimpeded access to electoral processes and technologies. Observers must have access to all phases of the electoral process (including pre- and post-election) and to all technologies used, including electronic registration and voting, as well as to the certification processes for these technologies. Electoral authorities must not require observers to sign nondisclosure agreements regarding technologies used. 
3. Unimpeded access to stakeholders. A comprehensive and impartial assessment requires that observers be able to speak with government supporters and critics of all kinds. Stakeholders to whom observers’ access must not be obstructed include electoral officials at all levels, legislators, relevant government and security officials, political parties, candidates (qualified and disqualified), media, and civil society. In the case of election officials and other government authorities, meetings should be granted upon “reasonable request.” 
4. Freedom of movement. Security conditions are taken into careful consideration. Observers must not be banned from observing in or traveling to any part of the country as limits on observers’ movement preclude missions from knowing if findings are representative and can give the appearance of manipulation.  
5. Freedom to issue reports. Observer missions must not be prevented from releasing statements or reports, no matter how critical their findings. As reports are the primary vehicle for providing information about electoral processes, the right to make them public, in full and uncensored, is a pre-condition of credible and effective observation.
6. Absence of interference in mission composition. Governmental authorities must guarantee that they will not attempt to influence the outcome of a mission by limiting its size or interfering in the selection of observers. 
7. Accreditation. As long as election observation missions (EOMs) comply with reasonable and non-discriminatory requirements for observers, government authorities must ensure full, nationwide accreditation for all those submitted. Accreditation entails the issuance of any identification document needed to conduct observation. Observers should receive their accreditation in sufficient time to observe all relevant parts of the process.
8. Absence of interference in observation. Broadly, government authorities should not interfere with EOM activities. Access to the electoral process is of limited value if observers are pressured, antagonized, or forced to adapt to unreasonable requirements.
9. Protection of interlocutors. Authorities must not intimidate or punish anyone who works for, cooperates with, or shares information with an EOM. [9]

A memorandum of understanding (MoU) between a host government and observer group can help solidify mutual understanding of these principles. A clear enumeration of government assurances and observer responsibilities may be necessary especially in countries that are hosting international observers for the first time. Although observation has spread across all continents, transitional regimes still may wish to maintain more influence over a mission’s activities than agreed upon principles allow. 

[5] U.N., Declaration of Principles, para. 4.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., para. 4

[8] “IFES Election Guide,” IFES, accessed July 15, 2014, http://www.electionguide.org.

[9] U.N., Declaration of Principles, para. 12.