Chad Vickery, IFES regional director for Europe and Asia, presented his paper "A Practitioner’s Guide to Understanding, Adjudicating, and Resolving Election Disputes" at one of the first panels at the International Political Science Association (IPSA) biannual conference in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Whatever Happened to North South?, brings together hundreds of academics and practitioners in political science for four days to present their papers, receive feedback from their peers and converse about the latest developments in their fields.
Vickery participated on the panel “Courts in Elections,” which examined the influence of the judiciary in the electoral process ranging from their role in complaints adjudication to their interpretation of electoral law. He was joined by Professor Lucas Arrimada from the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina, Professor Siri Gloppen from the University of Bergen in Norway and Dr. Vitor Marchetti from the Universidade Federal do ABC in Brazil.
Vickery's paper focuses on the seven key standards necessary for the effective and legitimate adjudication of election complaints and disputes. Founded in international public law such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and found in the legal systems of stable, mature democracies around the globe, the seven standards serve as guidelines that can be followed in the field to design, implement or revise an electoral dispute resolution system that will serve the voters and promote the rule of law.
The paper presented at the IPSA conference is a part of a book on the electoral dispute resolution that will soon be published by IFES titled Guidelines for Understanding, Adjudicating, and Resolving Disputes (GUARD) in Elections. A copy of his paper can be downloaded here.
Arrimada's paper, “Courts In Electoral Conflict Contexts: ¿Players Or Referees?”, focuses on the effect of courts in the electoral political process. Three case studies illustrate and explore the interactions of courts with electoral players, political parties and administrative agencies in presidential and mid-term elections. The paper also discusses whether courts and judges can be guardians of the political process when their personals careers, their institutional strength and social image can be jeopardized or weakened by changes in the electoral scenario.
Gloppen's paper, “Elections in Court: Judicialization of Electoral Politics in Malawi and Uganda,” explores judicial independence in African countries where courts have taken central political roles — not least in relation to electoral processes. Uganda and Malawi are countries where the courts have been deeply involved in electoral processes in a number of ways and at various stages. The paper seeks to bring out the challenges — and opportunities — this poses in terms of judicial independence.
Marchetti's paper, "Judicial Power and Elections in Brazil,” looks at the overarching role of the judiciary in Brazilian elections. In Brazil, judges decide everything from the moment the competitors register their candidacies until they take office, including the homologation of the results. They have the ability to create regulations for elections. However, their power is checked by the legislature, which often creates laws that override their actions.
Dr. Peter Burnell from the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom offered valuable comments to all participants.
The panel was held at a classroom in Sao Paulo University, which allowed the panelists to exchange comments and answer questions from the audience in an informal setting. The goal of the session was to foster a productive debate and enable the presenters to gain additional perspective on their topics of expertise.