Database of Obligations for Democratic Elections

How does The Carter Center determine which sources are relevant to any one country?

If a country has signed or ratified a treaty or political commitment it is considered relevant to the country in question. In addition, documents from relevant regional bodies which have entered into force, and are therfore persuasive on all member states, will be included. For example, a search for Ghana would include United Nations, African Union, and ECOWAS sources, but would not include sources from the Organization of American States or from the Southern African Development Community. The Carter Center database administrator has manually “tagged” each document to the appropriate countries, based on data sourced from the United Nations and relevant regional organizations. Please note, however, that ratification and signatures of treaties is ongoing and the database is not updated daily.

How were the organizations and documents included chosen?

The documents included were compiled during two years of reviewing public international law sources relevant to elections. The determination of what constitutes international law was made with guidance from Article 38 of the International Court of Justice, which states that:
“1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:

a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;
b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
c. the general principles of law recognized by civilied nations;
d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.”

Although the list is not exhaustive, The Carter Center has taken every effort to include all relevant information found. No organization or source has been purposefully excluded.

What is the purpose of the color-coding in these tables?

The color-coding in this document is a shorthand way to indicate the source level of each document in question. At the project’s inception the Carter Center and expert consultants set out to create a simple, user-friendly way of delineating source strength to ensure that database users understood the difference between legally binding sources, those that are persuasive upon states, and those which provide evidence of how legal principles have been interpreted and may be applied. A four level, color-coded scale was developed which defined source levels included in the matrix to be: 1.) Treaty obligations, 2.) Interpreative documents, 3.) Political Commitments (including customary law), 4.) Other sources indicative of State Practice (including the teachings of highly qualified publicists).

Why is it important to know what source-level a document is?

Understanding the different source levels is critical to being able to correctly apply the results of a database search. Since some documents create a legal obligation upon a state (treaties), it is important to distinguish these from lower-level sources. Lower-level sources such as handbooks or publications by and election assistance organization. In the case of the latter source, may be used as evidence of state practice, but does not form the basis of a legal obligation.
Interprative documents should be understood to represent an explanation of a treaty level source articulated by a body whose mandate it is to apply such a source. As such, they are another form or highly persuasive international law and may be employed by users in a different manner than lower level sources.

What if I’m looking for a particular source or quote I don’t see included in my results?

You may try expanding your search critiera to find this source or other similar quotes. Please note, that while the compendium database includes more than 150 sources of public international law, it is not an exhaustive list of all possible documents. Further, the body of public international is constantly growing and the database cannot be updated daily. If you have suggestions for the inclusion of a new source, please email The Carter Center at the address provided below.

What is the purpose of the “Status of Ratification” table?

When The Carter Center conducts election observation, one of the first things each observer team does is compile a status of ratifications table. This table is a quick reference guide on that State’s public international law obligations with regard to elections. Tthis table should serve as a helpful overview of the ratification status of the country in question, and help to inform and focus work in that country.

Why isn’t an exhaustive list of case decisions from relevant judicial bodies included in the database?

While the findings and decisions of judicial bodies can be criticial to a robust understanding of public international law obligations, it isn’t possible to include an exhaustive list within this database. However, The Center has provided a link to relevant judicial bodies, as well as summaries of key election related cases, on the database search page and fully supports the use of such cases to provide additional evidence as relevant.

I think a human rights obligation is applicable to a certain part of the electoral process but don’t see it included. Why not?

The decisions concerning application of a human rights obligation to a particular part of the process were made based on extensive consultation and reivew by Carter Center staff and expert consultants. While undertaken with due diligence, such decisions are not meant to be absolute and may be open to the interpretation of others. As a public international law resource document, this database is intended to provide users with the references necessary to develop a legal argument. As such, if sources can be applied in other areas of the electoral process to create a strong and well-constructed argument, users are urged to do so.
In some cases exclusion was a matter of necessity with regards to length. For instance, in the case of the “legal framework” section, a decision was made to avoid duplication by putting most material relevant to the legal framework’s discussion of particular parts of the election in each relevant part to avoid making this section overly long. As such, the legal framework section which appears here includes ONLY the obligations directly relevant to the construction (not the content) of an electoral law.

There seems to be duplication of sources and general obligations across parts of the election?

The database so that it could be useful both when read in full and when taken in discrete parts. Therefore general obligations, (such as the “right to an effective remedy”), are duplicated across many of the constituent parts of the election where they are applicable.

Is the matrix available in hardcopy as well?

Limited numbers of harcopy editions of the matrix are available, although users generally find this database to be more user-friendly. If you are interested in receiving a hardcopy of the document please send an email to the address below, indicating your name, organization, and and mailing address.

I found a mistake or error, how do I report this to The Carter Center?

Please contact the email below and indicate the nature of the error identified. The Center will make every effort to respond to you personally and to rectify this mistake as soon as possible. Thank you for your assitance.

For any additional questions or concerns, or to contact the Center about an issue articulated above please contact aodavis@emory.edu