The resolution of election disputes is not specifically addressed in international legal instruments2 and there is no clearly established consensus in the international community on common standards for a “fair, effective, impartial and timely” resolution of election disputes. Nevertheless, drawing on existing rules and the requirements of international law, it is possible to identify the acceptable range of variation and deviation in the systems used to resolve election disputes. The CSCE 1990 Copenhagen Document, which can be considered as the most comprehensive international document related to “free and fair” elections, does not refer explicitly to election disputes. However, its election commitments would be empty promises without the accompanying power to enforce them. By way of example, the right to vote would be merely abstract if the right to sue to enforce it was not guaranteed in law. Likewise, the right to seek redress before the courts is corollary to the right of candidates “who obtain the necessary number of votes required by the law”3 to be “duly installed in office”4. Without the protection of the law, all rights associated with elections are of little value. Furthermore, no just and credible election dispute resolution system may be contemplated unless the prerequisites of an independent judiciary and due process of law requirements are guaranteed in law and practice. These include the right to a fair trial and to effective remedies, as well as access to independent tribunals. These rights and principles stand at the very core of any system of rule of law. However in the field of election dispute resolution, where extra-judicial bodies are involved, this requires a specific system of implementation. Nevertheless, this does not provide specific parameters that all systems of election dispute resolution should comply with. The fact that elections infer the right to sue the relevant authorities to enforce all rights associated with voting may offer a standard of effectiveness, but the ways and means by which progress towards that standard can be measured still need to be delineated. Indications may be found in various international documents that draw upon existing norms but extend them to take into account the specific requirements involved in resolving election disputes. None of these texts rises to the level of a convention but, bearing in mind the importance of practice in standard-setting, especially in the realm of elections, they may ultimately contribute to the emergence of a consistent usus. The Draft General Principles on Freedom and Non-Discrimination in the Matter of Political Rights, which is a UN non-binding document adopted in 1962, first recognizes the power to enforce all suffrage rights by providing that any aggrieved person should be entitled to seek redress before independent and impartial tribunals (XIX). It further provides that the decisions of electoral commissions should be reviewable by the courts or other independent and impartial bodies (VIII, d). A further UN document, the Framework for Future Efforts, adopted in 1989, calls upon “nation institutions” to ensure universal and equal suffrage and impartial elections, partly by securing methods for resolving election disputes (III: Operational aspects). Other statements of principle from other international organizations outline minimum guarantees necessary to ensure the protection of political and electoral rights. The “Declaration on Criteria for Free and Fair Elections” of the Inter-Parliamentary Council adopted in 1994 extends the scope of the right to “a remedy for violation of political and 2 See Appendix. Paragraph 7.9 – Copenhagen Document. 4 Id. 4. 3 6