Comparative Study of Principles and Requirements Related to the Electoral Oversight Body and the Process Governing the Announcement of Election Results

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Guardian Council Research Institute, Tehran, Iran

2 Doctoral student of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

3 Master's student in International Law, Imam Sadeq University, Tehran, Iran

4 Ph.D Candidate in political science, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

10.22034/law.2024.61420.3389

Abstract

Nowadays, in the constitutional law of many political systems, the right to determine one’s destiny and political participation of people through elections is recognized as one of their fundamental rights and is considered essential to the social and political life of those communities. An essential assumption in any electoral system worldwide is the existence of an electoral oversight body as a supreme and determining institution that safeguards the general will; furthermore, in the post-election phase, the issue of announcing the results as the seal of approval holds great importance. To this end, this article aims to address the principles and requirements surrounding the oversight body for elections and announcing results using a descriptive-analytical method and relying on reputable library documents with a comparative perspective. The research findings indicate that by studying the electoral system existing within the legal framework of governments, the principles and necessities of the electoral oversight body and the announcement of results can be examined and scrutinized.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. الف) منابع فارسی

    - کتاب‌ها

    1. ابوالحسنی، محسن (1393). گزارش پژوهشی آشنایی با مفاهیم حقوق عمومی بررسی مفهوم «استقلال»، تهران: پژوهشکدۀ شورای نگهبان.
    2. خسروی، حسن (1388). حقوق انتخابات دموکراتیک. تهران: مجد.
    3. دهخدا، علی‌اکبر (1385). فرهنگ متوسط دهخدا. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
    4. شیخ‌الاسلامی، محسن (1398). حقوق اساسی تطبیقی. شیراز: شیراز.
    5. قاضی، ابوالفضل (1382). حقوق اساسی و نهادهای سیاسی. تهران: میزان.
    6. کرون، پاتریشیا (1401). جامعه‌های ماقبل صنعتی. تهران: ماهی.
    7. مدنی، سید جلال‌الدین (1379). حقوق اساسی تطبیقی. تهران: پایدار.
    8. منتسکیو، شارل (1343). روح‌القوانین. ترجمۀ علی‌اکبر مهتدی، تهران: امیرکبیر.

    - مقالات

    1. بزرگمهری، مجید (1385). بررسی تطبیقی شرایط انتخاب‌کنندگان و انتخاب‌شوندگان در نظام انتخاباتی ریاست‌جمهوری ایران و فرانسه. حقوق اساسی، 4(7)، 45-55.
    2. حاجی‌پور، پرویز؛ فقیه حبیبی، علی و حبیب‌زاده، توکل (1402). اصل مستند، مستدل و موجه بودن آرای دیوان عدالت اداری و مراجع شبه‌قضایی با بررسی رویه قضایی. پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، 11(42)، 277-314.                Doi: 10.22054/jplr.2023.68027.2675
    3. راسخ، محمد و رفیعی، محمدرضا (1393). نسبت حکومت با زندگی مطلوب؛ نگرشی به رویکرد بی‌طرفی. مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی معاصر، 1(1)، 109-131.
    4. رضائی‌زاده، محمدجواد و داوری، محسن (1395). مبانی و اصول تشخیص صلاحیت نمایندگی مجلس شورای اسلامی. دانش حقوق عمومی، 5 (14)، 117-142.
    5. زارعی، محمدحسین (1380). فرایند مردمی شدن، پاسخ‌گویی و مدیریت دولتی. نامۀ مفید، مجتمع آموزش عالی قم، 3 (9)، 121-155.
    6. علائی، حسین (1399). مطالعۀ تطبیقی مکانیسم دادرسی انتخاباتی در انگلستان و اصول بین‌المللی حاکم بر دادرسی انتخاباتی. پژوهشهای حقوقی، 19(44), 297-324.

     Doi: 10.48300/jlr.2020.120710

    1. مرادخانی، فردین و صباغی ولاشانی، ابراهیم (1401). حدود استقلال شورای نگهبان (مطالعۀ موردی استقلال مالی، اداری، استخدامی و تشکیلاتی شورای نگهبان). مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی معاصر، 13(26)، 215-235.                   Doi: 10.22034/law.2021.46318.2917

    ب) منابع انگلیسی

    - Books

    • Rousseau, D.; Gahdoun, P. Y.; Bonnet, J., & Vedel, G. (2016). Droit du Contentieux Constitutionnel (Vol. 7). Paris: Montchrestien.
    • Bendix R. & Max Weber (1998). An Intellectual Portrait. Psychology Press.
    • Giddens, A., & Griffiths, S. (2006). Sociology. Polity.
    • Houlihan, B., & Policy, S. (2013). Accountability and Good Governance. Action for Good Governance in International Sports Organisations.

    - Articles

    • Adler, E. S., & Hall, T. E. (2013). Ballots, Transparency, and Democracy. Election Law Journal, 12(2), 146-161.
    • Bendix, R. (1998). Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. United Kingdom: Routledge.
    • Eisenstadt, Tood.A. (2002). “Measuring Electoral Court Failure in Democratizing Mexico”, International Political Science Review, 23 (1), 47-68.
    • Gert, B. (1995). Moral Impartiality. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 20(1), 102-128.
    • Hollyer, J. R., Rosendorff, B. P., & Vreeland, J. R. (2011). Democracy and transparency. The Journal of Politics, 73(4), 1191-1205.
    • Jashari, M., & Pepaj, I. (2018). The Role of the Principle of Transparency and Accountability in Public Administration. Acta Universitatis Danubius. Administratio, 10(1), 60-69.
    • Munck, G. L., & Verkuilen, J. (2002). Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35(1), 5-34.
    • Murjani, M., & Sagama, S. (2022). The Existence of the Election Supervisory Agency Post 2024 Based on Positive Law. Syiah Kuala Law Journal, 6(3), 242-256.
    • Sule, B., Mohd Sani, M. A., & Mat, B. (2017). Independent National Electoral Commission and Campaign Financing Monitoring in Nigeria: The 2015 General Elections. Journal of International Studies, (13), 15–31.
    • Suyatno, S. (2021). The General Election Process Dispute Settlement Procedure By Election Supervisory Agency. In Proceeding of International Conference on the Law Development For Public Welfare. 1(1), 180-189.
    • Tetang, F. (2016). À propos de la Qualité des Décisions du Conseil Constitutionnel (Réflexions à la Lumière de la Jurisprudence Récente) Revue Française de Droit Constitutionnel, 108(4), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfdc.108.0987.

    - Websites

    • ARRÊT TAIANI c. ITALIE. (2006). In Cour Européenne Des Droits De L’Homme. https://www.eods.eu/elex/uploads/files/57c9471e7d358-TAIANI%20c.%20ITALIE.pdf
    • CASE OF TĂNASE V. MOLDOVA. (2010). https://www.eods.eu/elex/ uploads/files/57c448d285d90-TANASE%20v.%20MOLDOVA.pdf
    • CASE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF RUSSIA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA. (2012). https://www.eods.eu/elex/uploads/files/57ce9d47277 d0-COMMUNIST%20PARTY%20OF%20RUSSIA%20AND%20 OTHERS%20v.%20RUSSIA.pdf
    • Challenging Elections in the UK, (2012),” Electoral Commission”, https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media/4005.
    • Covenant on Civil and Political Rights https://iran.un.org/en/106018-international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights International
    • European Convention on Human Rights available at: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwih6om_qP-CAxUsYPEDHVB0 AlwQFnoECA4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.echr.coe.int%2Fdocuments%2Fd%2Fechr%2Fconvention_ENG&usg=AOvVaw2znO_HcjW6NnBU24DZUXqD&opi=89978449
    • Fenster, M. (2005). The Opacity of Transparency. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.686998
    • Fongum Gorji-Dinka v. Cameroon available at: https://www.eods.eu/ elex/uploads/files/578e4f24b4f61-Gorji-Dinka%20v.%20Cameroon.pdf
    • Green, R. (2014). Rethinking Transparency in U.S. Elections. William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law. wm.edu/facpubs/1724
    • Human Rights Committee, Paksas, R., & Neuman, G. L. (2014). Views of the Human Rights Committee under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (110th session) concerning Communication No. 2155/2012. In S. Tomas & United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. https://www.eods.eu/elex/uploads/files/57c43878b315a-Paksas %20v.%20Lithuania%20(UNHRC%20-%202155-2012).pdf
    • Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
    • Murray, J., Grimsley, S., Olson, E., Broer, I., & Olson Grimsley Kawanabe Hinchcliff & Murray Llc. (2023). Motion of the Anderson Respondents to Expedite Briefing on the Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari and for Expedited Merits Briefing If the Court Grants the Petitions. In the Supreme Court of the United States. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-696/294453/2023122 8124722255_20231228%20Anderson%20Resp%20Motion%20to%20Expedite.pdf
    • PETKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA. (2009). https://www.eods.eu/ elex/uploads/files/57c4469fbe072-PETKOV%20AND%20OTHERS% 20v.%20Bulgaria.pdf
    • Phillips, A., & Phillips, A. (1980). DECISION of 18 December 1980 on the admissibility of the application (A. Phillips, Interviewer). https://www.eods.eu/elex/uploads/files/57cd7746a0e1d-LIBERAL%20 PARTY,%20R.%20and%20P.%20v.%20the%20UNITED%20KINGDOM.pdf
    • Sabete, W. (2011). De L’insuffisante Argumentation des Décisions du Conseil Constitutionnel. L’Actualité Juridique. Droit Administratif, 16, 885. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02219679
    • Trump is Disqualified from 2024 Ballot, Colorado Court Says in Explosive Ruling. (2023, March 16). The NewYork Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/19/us/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment.html
    • Vajić, N., Steiner, E., Hajiyev, K., Trajkovska, M. L., Laffranque, J., Sicilianos, L.-A., & Møse, E. (2012). CASE OF HAJILI v. Azerbaijan. European Court of Human Rights. https://www.eods.eu/elex/uploads/ files/57ce99610e722-HAJILI%20v.%20AZERBAIJAN.pdf
    • World Bank. (2016). Making Politics Work for Development: Harnessing Transparency and Citizen Engagement. The World Bank.

    - Laws

    • Constitutions françaises
Jurisprudence and Islamic Law
Volume 15, Issue 36
November 2025
Pages 177-206

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics