Any country is free to select the most suitable electoral system. However, such a freedom is limited and to be considered democratic has to be established in line with international regulations and principles. Countries also bring along their own history and context.  For example, among countries with a colonial history, there is a common trend according to which the revision of legal frameworks includes adoption of colonial electoral systems. That is the reason why the revision of any country’s legal framework has to be undertaken in a sensitive way that takes into account each country’s historical, social and cultural particularities. This will be discussed further in the next section.

It can be said, however, that a legal framework has to be structured in a way in which principles are included as follows:

• It has to be straightforward;
• It has to be intelligible;
• It has to be clear;
• It has to include all electoral components, which are necessary to ensure the undertaking of democratic elections.

Likewise, it is necessary that a legal framework includes effective mechanisms to ensure full enforcement of the law and civil rights. Punishments must follow transgressions. 

Legal frameworks have to endorse the rights of voters, political parties, and candidates to file appeals before legitimate authorities or legitimate courts to challenge any violation against civil rights. The legal framework has to oblige electoral authorities and courts to resolve electoral appeals related to violations of the right to vote and provide for this to be done in an agile way. In order to achieve definitive rulings on electoral issues, electoral laws have to authorize higher authorities to review the orders and resolutions issued by inferior ones. Rulings issued by the highest authorities and the highest courts, have to be enforced immediately. 

Legal frameworks also have to establish reasonable deadlines within which electoral appeals can be filed, analyzed and resolved. The rulings on electoral appeals have to be communicated to the contesting parties immediately. Some appeals can be solved with no delay, while the resolution of others can take days or even longer. Bearing this in mind, the introduction of some flexible deadlines can be useful as long as the rank of the deciding authority, the nature of the case and the electoral urgency are all taken into account. Many problems can be avoided when appeals are solved just in time. However, some appeals can only be filed after the election has concluded.

Viewed from the most basic perspective, “Elections are examples of human rights in practice”[i] As such, free and fair elections must always fulfill basic principles aimed at ensuring universal, free, equal, direct, and confidential votes.

Perhaps the most fundamental of international standards related to elections is that in fact elections must be held. Article 21 (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR 1948) reads, “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”[ii] To do otherwise, it is observed, “the government does not ground its authority in the will of the people.”[iii] Although non-binding the UDHR was a watershed, establishing the broadly accepted rights of the individual in relation to the state[iv] and important components are now part of international customary law.

Additional core principles established and promoted by international standards can be listed as follows:

• Voting should be universal and the oft referred to statement of “one person; one vote” must apply. Having set this broad standard it is recognized in international law that there may be restrictions of the right to vote but such restrictions need to be minimal and always demonstrably justified.
• Voting must be secret. Not only does this imply that the act of voting must be secret but also that ballots may never be able to be attributed to a specific voter.  The goal is that, “the ballot paper when marked and dropped into the ballot box, must be completely anonymous in relation to the voter who marked it.”[v]
• Democratic rights and freedoms have to be used in a free way in “genuine” elections, including freedom of expression, association and assembly.
• The right to stand for election should be extended broadly and limited to the minimal extent justifiably demonstrable.  
• Elections have to be undertaken on a regular basis. Although no specific term is fixed in international law, there is a range of views that terms should be limited to a maximum of 5 or 6 years[vi]Electoral authorities have to be neutral and “at all levels should act in a professional, efficient and unbiased manner”[vii]
• Every single vote has to be counted in an accurate and transparent way and “Ballot papers should be deemed valid if the intent of the voter is clear.”[viii]

An independent system of control, including the right to legal remedy, has to be installed in order to ensure the integrity of elections It is interesting to note, that while the requirement for genuine elections is clearly set out in international law, a specific definition of this term is not equally well established. However, “over time, the term “genuine elections” has come to be understood as elections that are competitive and offer voters a real choice, where other essential fundamental rights are fulfilled, where the will of the voters is freely expressed, and where votes are counted honestly and accurately.”[ix]  The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) offers a further very succinct summary of key principles in its Election Observation Handbook (2010) stating them, “can be summed up in seven words: universal, equal, fair, secret, free, transparent and accountable.”[x]

Such principles are usually contained in international treaties and covenants. Yet it is interesting to observe that while international law establishes key minimum standards regarding democratic governance, “it does not establish a stand-alone “right to democracy” per se. This is largely because the term and concept of democracy is too broad and too vague to be regulated by a single legal norm.”[xi]

Nevertheless international law and standards do establish critical rights such as the right to genuine elections as referred to above in Article 21(3) of the UDHR and as set out in Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR 1966).  Together with the UDHR, the ICCPR is among the very leading sources of international standards. In fact, Article 25 of the ICCPR has been referred to as “the cornerstone of democratic governance and genuine elections in international law.”[xii] Of note, the ICCPR has been signed and ratified by more than 160 States thereby making it legally binding in those cases.

International standards are also contained in further United Nations and regional treaties and documents. Important among these are:

• Convention on The Political Rights of Women (1952)
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979)
• Convention on the Political Rights of Women (1952)
• International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (1966)
• Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006)
• The European Covenant for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950)
• Charter of Paris For a New Europe: CSCE Summit (1980)
• The Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE-1990)
• The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (1984)
• The American Convention on Human Rights (1969)
•  American Convention on Human Rights (1969)
• The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981)

A requirement to adhere to the aforementioned principles in a particular country depends on the inclusion of that country as signatory to the international document. However, the normative guidance delivered by international rules is expected to further encourage promotion and support of international rules and guiding principles beyond simply the signatory countries. The European Union Compendium of International Standards for Elections concludes that legal force notwithstanding, “these instruments have strong political and moral force.”[xiii]When a nation’s legal framework is created or under revision, the nation is bound by the international treaties it has signed. Therefore, electoral rules derived from international treaties have to be upheld and will have even constitutional or statutory rank. Other United Nations’ documents unsigned by a country can, nonetheless, incorporate persuasive electoral standards within the electoral regime of that country.

In addition to international and regional treaties, covenants and convention the review and revision of legal frameworks can also take into account additional references such as:

• Political commitments, e.g. League of Arab States (LAS), The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), The Commonwealth, The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), The European Union (EU), among other initiatives[xiv];
• Final reports from the different missions of electoral observation (both national and international), as long as such reports are available;
• Requirements from any additional international agreement signed by the country that may have an impact on electoral laws;
• Codes of conduct related to electoral topics and developed by governmental or non-governmental international organizations. (Codes of conduct are considered further in the section dealing with legal instruments.);
• Best practices, such as in the areas of transparency, level playing field for electoral contestants, voter education and establishing a peaceful environment for voting, “While not always specifically referred to in universal or regional instruments, many of these practices can be considered essential to a genuine and democratic electoral process.”[xv]

As the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) sums up, “The legal framework should be so structured as to be unambiguous, understandable and transparent, and should address all components of an electoral system necessary to ensure democratic elections.”[xvi]  The requirement for accessibility of the legal framework should also take into consideration the multiple language requirements that may exist in a given country.

In addition to whatever force of international law may arise from such documents, “In any case it is hoped that the overall normative guidance they provide will nevertheless foster the promotion of, and support for, these international standards.”[xvii] 

It is important to evaluate the way in which electoral legal frameworks governing a country are in line with international standards. Such evaluation can offer a catalogue of constructive proposals in order to improve and correct legal frameworks as well as to introduce more effective practices aimed at improving the legislation. At the same time, it is important to remember that there are no general models or “one size fits all” when it comes to  electoral rules. Therefore, systems and practices that are applied in one country are not necessarily ideal for another one.