Translate or Listen
Accessibility Settings:
Additional translations and tools are available here.

Search

Filter by
Type
Region / Country
Issues / Topics
Capabilities
Global Centers
Programs & Initiatives
Author
Expert
Publication date
Language
Type
Region / Country
Issues / Topics
Capabilities
Global Centers
Programs & Initiatives
Author
Expert
Publication date
Language
Showing 4201 - 4210 of 7847 results
Publication
Report/Paper

Reforming Critical Operational Strategies: INEC Post-Election Seminar, "2003 General Elections: The Lessons and the Way Forward" 28-30 July 2003

Constitutional provisions, electoral legislation, regulations and the policies and the administrative framework of the electoral management body all govern the means by which elections are conducted. Providing an opportunity for all eligible voters to choose their government representatives, through operations that are cost-effective, credible and secure is a major challenge for election management bodies. In reviewing the operational strategies of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of Nigeria in its conduct of the 2003 federal and state elections, it is necessary to examine the major areas of its operational approach. In any electoral environment, there are similar key issues for which effective solutions have to be found if election operations are to promote public confidence in the integrity and professionalism of electoral management, and acceptance of election results. Some questions to ask in conducting this review are: 1. What are the most suitable arrangements for voter registration and for voting? 2. What are the ways to ensure that registration centres and polling stations are run by trained and professional staff? 3. What materials can be used to ensure the credibility of the process? 4. What are the logistics strategies, to ensure the necessary materials are available and that the operations run efficiently? INEC’s operational strategies, within the legislative and administrative framework, dictate how the elections are conducted, and whether their outcome will be accepted by the participants. If the operational strategies are successful, all eligible voters have the opportunity to participate fully in the process; registration centres and polling stations open on time and the periods of operations are respected; materials are adequately supplied and properly used; all necessary registration and election staff are present and conduct their duties according to the law and regulations; and the election results are compiled in a transparent manner, announced in a timely fashion and accepted, leading to the inauguration of the newly-elected officials. Shortcomings in the operational strategies lessen the credibility of the electoral process and in confidence of the electoral management body, paving the way for future difficulties with regard to respect for the conduct of elections and the democratic process as a whole.
July 27, 2003
Publication
Report/Paper

Indicators for a State of the Judiciary Report: A Standardized Tool for Monitoring and Reporting on the Implementation of Key Judicial Reforms

The IFES Judicial Integrity Principles [JIP]1 represent high priority consensus principles and emerging best practices found in virtually all global and regional governmental and non-governmental instruments related to judicial integrity. The JIP are aimed at fostering an enabling environment and legal culture necessary for the rule of law to take root, with specific emphasis on a definition of judicial integrity that encompasses a broad range of justice issues, including: judicial independence, judicial accountability, judicial transparency, judicial ethics, judicial corruption and the fair and effective enforcement of judgments. The JIP also represents the framework for preparing an Annual State of the Judiciary Report. The following indicators were developed as a complementary checklist to assist in the assessment of compliance with the JIP.
June 30, 2003
Publication
Report/Paper

Regional Best Practices: A Model Framework for a State of the Judiciary Report for the Americas, Prepared for the Third Conference on Justice and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, Ecuador, July 2003

Creating an independent accountable judiciary and public trust are now seen as core elements of the rule of law. After over a decade of legal and judicial reform, questions to be asked include (i) what lessons have been learned, (ii) what the best practices are and (iii) what kinds of reform programs should be emphasized in the next reform phase. Now that there is consensus that an independent accountable judiciary is a key to sustainable economic, political and legal reform, how do judiciaries and reformers obtain more resources and political support to broaden and deepen the reform package for the next generation of reforms? This paper advances an information strategy that is designed to simultaneously promote key elements of an effective justice system: fairness and impartiality, soundness of decisions, accessibility, efficiency, independence and credibility. It is based on the historical truism that information is power and that it, coupled with a rule of law culture, has been the key liberating, stabilizing and driving reform force in developing sustainable democracy. Perhaps more importantly, it is the best strategy to simultaneously attack issues related to judicial transparency and accountability, including structural and political issues related to judicial independence, judicial corruption and the enforcement of judgments. Accordingly, primary emphasis is placed on the structural issues and processes that enhance both transparency and accountability, as well as participatory, information-oriented, mutually-supportive programs and strategies designed to promote public trust in the judiciary. This “public trust” approach has been an underemphasized element of virtually all judicial reform programs and it is the essential element to developing a rule of law culture and voluntary compliance with the law. In short, fundamental reforms of a political nature, such as those related to the independence and accountability of the judiciary, need to be broadly supported, linked and co-led by key stakeholders in the process, including all branches of government, the legal and judicial profession and the public at large.
June 30, 2003
Publication
Report/Paper

Model Framework for a State of the Judiciary Report for the Americas: Lessons Learned and Monitoring and Reporting Strategies to Promote the Implementation of the Next Generation of Reforms

The paper advocates for more judicial transparency, public accountability, political will and targeted resources, and recommends a participatory monitoring and reporting framework for the Americas that is designed to simultaneously (1) promote best practices and the implementation of high priority institutional reforms and (2) develop public support for a fair and impartial judicial system.
June 30, 2003
Publication
Report/Paper

A Model State of the Judiciary Report: A Strategic Tool for Promoting, Monitoring and Reporting on Judicial Integrity Reforms

The IFES Judicial Integrity Principles and the model framework for an Annual State of the Judiciary Report were prepared for discussion during a Workshop on Jud icial Integrity at the 11th Transparency International Global Conference held in Seoul, South Korea, May 25-28, 2003. The JIP represent high priority consensus principles and emerging best practices found in virtually all global and regional governmental and non-governmental instruments related to the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. The JIP are aimed at fostering an enabling environment and legal culture necessary for the rule of law to take root, with specific emphasis on judicial independence, accountability and transparency. For purposes of this paper, judicial integrity is not limited to judicial ethics and professional conduct, but is understood to cover, inter alia, judicial independence, judicial accountability, judicial transparency, judicial ethics and the fair and effective enforcement of judgments.
June 30, 2003
Publication
Report/Paper

Incarceration and Enfranchisement: International Practices, Impact and Recommendations for Reform

Introduction Ex-prisoner Joe Loya describes his reintegration into democratic society in the following way: "A few weeks ago I received voter-registration material in the mail. There it was, clearly marked, my disqualification. 'You must NOT be in prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony.' "I felt obligated to press further, to fight for the privilege. I telephoned the registrar and explained that I'm on 'supervisory release,' not parole. Could I vote? "She had to check. On hold, I thought about the almost 3 million felons like me who have served our sentences but still can't vote. Some of us are permanently barred. She came back on line. "'Nope, you still can't vote.' "I came out of prison wanting to think and act 100 percent different than when I went in. I supposed that the opposite of the virulently anti-social criminal is an optimistic civic-minded citizen." Joe’s experience is not unique to the United States. Dozens of other nations place either temporary or permanent voting restrictions on individuals who have been or are currently incarcerated, causing distressing numbers of individuals to be excluded from the civil process. This paper addresses the issues surrounding the enfranchisement (or disenfranchisement) of the penal and ex-penal population worldwide. It begins by addressing the historical and theoretical basis for the exclusion of prisoners and ex-prisoners from the vote. Legal exclusions in most countries consider removal from the civil process as an additional punishment for those who have broken the law. This project then explores various international and peace agreements that govern the voting rights of prisoners and ex-prisoners. As we will see, these agreements are often at odds with country-specific laws. Nations that include or exclude prisoners and exprisoners are then categorized and ranked on a four-point scale according to level of inclusion in the political process. From these classifications, several country-based case studies are presented and analyzed with more depth to provide a cultural and political sense of the practices and impacts in specific countries. Finally, recommendations on reform and informational products are offered as a way to tie together multiple forms of international practice on prisoner’s rights.
June 30, 2003
Election Material
Resolution

Handbook on Election Result Dispute Settlement

The 2004 Elections will see the interplay of a mixture of different elections systems in electing the representatives to the DPD, DPR, DPRD, and in electing the President and the Vice President. This means that the dispute resolution and other processes also become a little more complex. Jurisdictions are lodged upon different bodies which follow different mechanisms to resolve these disputes. Thus, it is important that the stakeholders become fully aware of how to go about taking advantage of the mechanisms provided by the Constitution and the laws so as to further the goals of the conduct of the elections, i.e., to be direct, general, free, secret, honest, and fair.
Election Material
Election and Political Party Law

General Election Law of Indonesia

The People’s Representative Assembly (DPR) of the Republic of Indonesia recently approved new political laws to govern the 2004 elections in Indonesia. The Law on Political Parties was approved by the DPR in November 2002. The Law on General Elections was approved by the DPR on February 18, 2003. A draft Law on Presidential Elections is currently being considered by a special committee (Pansus) of the DPR.