Received: 28-Nov-2022, Manuscript No. GJPSET-22-82771; Editor assigned: 02-Dec-2022, Pre QC No. GJPSET-22-82771(PQ); Reviewed: 16-Dec-2022, QC No. GJPSET-22-82771; Revised: 23-Dec-2022, Manuscript No. GJPSET-22-82771(R); Published: 30-Dec-2022, DOI: 10.15651/GJPSET.22.3.033
The right to issue executive orders to control election matters is granted to electoral officials. International agreements between electoral authorities of various countries have been very helpful in establishing international cooperation and joint academic, publishing or research projects. All of these activities have been carried out through prestigious conferences, seminars, congresses, workshops and publications on electoral topics.
International agreements that electoral authorities sign are not given the same legal weight as court rulings. However they are crucial as well because they formally bind the signatory nations. Once an electoral agreement has been reached, rights and duties are established and collective efforts should be made to carry out the agreements goals. Within a broad framework that demands global solutions for global problems; international agreements can be seen as one specific way to create electoral law.
Authorities with the necessary authority must sign any international accords. Additionally, they need to adhere to current legal regulations. All agreements that are illegal or contrary to the law are invalid. A violation of the rules outlined in another agreement must also be regarded as void. In federal systems, agreements on elections have been formed by representatives of various authorities and have been helpful in resolving elections involving them particularly managerial difficulties in a cooperative manner. These agreements have improved electoral expertise and effectiveness in the areas of management, electoral training shared use of the voter’s registration and voting identification.
The electoral legal systems integration depends on judicial precedents. Such a declaration implies that judicial as well as political authorities are now involved in the resolution of electoral disputes. Political authorities used to utilize political criteria to resolve electoral disputes. Today separate electoral courts that sift out disputes based on legal standards resolve election conflicts. The decisions made by electoral courts and judges have become fundamental to comprehending what election legislation is intended to be, and electoral litigation has been judicialized.
Election courts play a significant role in common law systems. These courts provide a crucial component in the development of the legal system. Election-related judicial opinions result in election law which is produced by judicial opinions. It is evident that judicial decisions regarding electoral disputes are significant for systems other than common law systems. Civil law systems electoral judges have also made significant contributions that have improved and developed electoral law. In those nations, new cases must be resolved using the rulings of electoral courts as precedent. Because of how crucially important they are judicial decisions on electoral disputes occasionally also address the legality of executive orders made by electoral authorities. Election resolutions that accomplish this can be compared to constitutional courts issuing constitutional interpretations.
The highest courts have the authority to set binding precedents. In order to establish precedents, certain formal requirements must be met such as decisions having to be made by consensus or in writing. By repeatedly applying a single ratio chosen to resolve multiple cases, judicial precedents are established. To solve such cases using the same ratio, similar cases must exist. The decisions of the highest courts on opposing legal opinions that have been upheld by various courts also aid in the creation of precedents in the law. In most cases, only the most senior judge’s rationale-based decisions can overturn or rescind judicial precedents.