The expression “codes of conduct” can refer to many different things. Therefore, it is convenient to exclude three instances of such an expression from the outset. Those three instances affect not only electoral agents but also elections’ undertakings and cannot be seen as codes of conduct legally included within electoral processes:

• Broadly speaking, regulations of electoral management cannot be seen as codes of conduct. Therefore, it is possible to distinguish general “codes of conduct”, such as the ones regulating Australian electoral officials, from individual codes aimed at particular individuals, such as many which have been drafted by international organizations (electoral observers). Such rules aim at establishing neutral practices for persons or organizations in charge of undertaking elections. These rules can be easily seen as a kind of managerial ones, similar to those drafted by public officials or professional bars.
• The general codes enacted by political parties cannot be seen as codes of conduct either. Such codes are not mandatory for other political parties, but only for their active members.
• Implicit codes for electoral performance that exist in many different democratic regimes cannot be seen as codes of conduct. Such codes establish rules regarding the candidates’ acceptance of the final results or the agreement according to which particular issues will not be discussed by the candidates. Implicit codes for electoral performances are neither explicit, nor public.

Which are the main features distinguishing a code of electoral conduct? There are at least two:

• A code of conduct is a product of an agreement reached by political parties. Such an agreement can be in force for more than one election.
• A code of conduct aims at complementing electoral rules. That is the reason why they play an important role in transition elections. Their main objective is two-fold. On one hand, they aim at reaching a peaceful development of the election. On the other hand, they aim at preventing abusive actions from powerful groups.

There are many differences distinguishing the two of them from each other. Such differences are based on their distinctive features and on how strong the obligations derived from them are.

Political parties can draft codes of conduct, which can include international organizations among their signers. Codes can be promoted by electoral authorities.

Codes of conduct promoted by electoral authorities can face a fundamental challenge, which can be put as follows: can codes of conduct be mandatory? From a speculative point of view, codes of conduct have to be voluntary. Some interesting conclusions can be drawn from some studies, though:

• Some countries have incorporated codes of conduct into the electoral legislation enacted by the Parliament. Here, discussion must be started from a different perspective: Is it still possible to talk about a code of conduct?
• Some other complications are derived from those cases in which codes of conduct freely agreed by the contenders set down punishments that have to be applied to anyone who does not honor them. In such cases, codes of conduct get a more normative status.

A majority of codes of conduct are by consent. They do not present any punishment whatsoever if someone fails to honor them. Such a situation can be considered as integrating the normative dimension of an electoral process.  Effective codes of conduct do regulate very important issues and they tend to become mandatory.

Regarding the codes’ content, it can be said that they are rules aimed at:

• Preventing any kind of intimidation and violence.
• Establishing rules of conduct on campaigning.
• Preventing any kind of abusive conduct from powerful political parties.

A majority of codes of conduct promote cooperation between electoral authorities and usually impose periodical meetings. However, they do not empower electoral authorities to interpret them, nor to execute them.