Processes to resolve disputes, “are well established in international law through the rights to an effective remedy and the right to a fair and impartial hearing”[i] and although international law has not explicitly tied these concepts to electoral disputes the same rights are generally held to apply.  However, in terms of international standards, the following are suggested as guidelines for the design and administration of complaint adjudication systems:

1. A right of redress for election complaints and disputes

2. A clearly defined regimen of election standards and procedures

3. An impartial and informed arbiter

4. A system that judicially expedites decisions

5. Established burdens of proof and standards of evidence

6. Availability of meaningful and effective remedies

7. Effective education of stakeholders[ii]

 Electoral laws  establish different systems for the resolution of electoral disputes.  This is to be expected as just with other aspects of the electoral process the, “electoral frameworks and administrative practices for election complaints adjudication must be based on the unique cultural, political and legal traditions in each country. No single approach or model works everywhere”.[iii]

Such diverse systems can be classified according to the nature of the top institution in charge of undertaking the legal review of electoral actions and electoral procedures alike. While the procedures for dealing with complaints and appeals vary among countries they will be expected to provide for a hierarchical right of appeal.[iv]  Clear and hierarchical processes of the right to appeal also helps, “avoid the potential for a complainant to appeal to the body considered likely to offer the most favourable consideration of the complaint. It can ensure that all complaints are addressed in a consistent manner.”[v]Different systems can be distinguished as follows:

• Systems for the resolution of electoral disputes which are based on a system of judicial appeals (which can be used to challenge the planning, undertaking and results of both legislative and presidential elections);
• Systems for the resolution of electoral disputes which are carried out by political institutions (congresses or representatives which can review whether the elected officials’ history can be considered legal or not, and by ruling over electoral appeals), and
• Those which can be seen as alternative systems of resolution of electoral disputes.

Therefore, based on the methods and institutions established by modern electoral legislation, there are two core distinguishable models of resolution of electoral disputes: political systems are those carried out by political assemblies, and judicial systems are those carried out by judicial or by quasi judical institutions. In addition, there are alternative systems for the resolution of electoral disputes that have been usually adopted by emergent democracies. Such systems involve the intervention of international agencies empowered to resolve electoral disputes.  

Judicial systems can be also be distinguished from each other. The criteria to do so is based on the nature of the Court empowered to sort out electoral disputes brought before it. There are systems in which ordinary courts (i.e. the judicial Branch of government) review electoral disputes. In some other places, specialized tribunals (external or internal to the Judicial Branch of Government) undertake such a responsibility (such is the case of so-called electoral courts or tribunals prevailing in Latin America). Finally, there are some places in which constitutional courts are empowered to sort out electoral disputes. It is important to note that the idea of vesting the powers to sort out electoral disputes in non-ordinary courts is aimed at preventing ordinary judges from getting involved in political disputes or being subject to political parties’ pressure.

Electoral Judicial Review must be generally seen as composed of the legal disputes derived from electoral actions or resolutions taken by executive officials. Such disputes are brought by two contesting parties before a court or before a tribunal that is empowered to act as a referee in order to sort out such disputes in an imperative and impartial way.

There is a clear trend aimed at setting down different systems of judicial review regarding elections. Such systems can be distinguished according to the nature of the court that is empowered to sort them out. Electoral disputes can be brought before ordinary judges (as is the case for Canada and Great Britain); before an specialized area within the Judicial Branch of Government (as is the case for Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Paraguay and Venezuela); before specialized and independent courts (as is the prevailing case for so-called electoral courts in Latin America); or before constitutional courts (as is the case for Austria). As each country develops systems in its own unique context the result is often, “a coordinated mix of election administrative and election complaints adjudication duties, including specialized responsibilities.”[vi] 

Whichever systems are adopted, it is very important that the legal framework is clear because, “Ambiguous or conflicting jurisdictions among courts and administrative bodies are confusing and unfair to political parties, candidates, the news media and the voting public.”[vii]  For example, systems that allow the choice of venues to appeal (as is often the case in the former Soviet Union and new democracies in Eastern Europe) may result in counterproductive results including duplication, dual appeals, institutional rivalry and ‘forum shopping’.”[viii]