Appendix

1. Draft a proposal to define democracy as a human right under international law: formally establishing democracy as a recognized human right, which would lay the groundwork for holding actors accountable for actions that violate democratic principles and processes.

How is democracy defined amongst different democratic nations? Create a definition based on different references.  How do we allow flexibility for nations in transition to democracy?

Definition: Democracy is a system of governance in which sovereign political power ultimately resides in the hands of citizens, who have the right to participate in free and fair elections to elect their political representatives on a regular basis. (UN: the will of the people is the source of legitimacy of sovereign states)

    1. Core principles that democracies generally uphold include: Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, Freedom of association, Freedom of expression and opinion, Access to power and its exercise in accordance with the rule of law, The holding of periodic free and fair elections by universal suffrage and by secret ballot as the expression of the will of the people, A pluralistic system of political parties and organisations, The separation of powers, The independence of the judiciary, Transparency and accountability in public administration, Free, independent and pluralistic media

    2. If we take into account the United Nations definition on democracy, we should focus on the promotion of human rights, development, and peace and security. The UN promotes good governance, monitors elections, supports civil society to strengthen democratic institutions and accountability, ensures self-determination in decolonized countries, and assists in the drafting of new constitutions in post-conflict nations.

    3. Democracy in International Law: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights develops them even further and lays down the legal basis for the principles of democracy in international law. It covers, for instance, freedom of expression, the right of peaceful assembly, and the right to freedom of association with others.

    4. Since 1988, the General Assembly has adopted at least one resolution annually dealing with some aspect of democracy. In 2015, world leaders committed in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to a world in which “democracy, good governance and the rule of law as well as an enabling environment at national and international levels, are essential for sustainable development”. 

    5. OHCHR collaborates with national governments and other actors to rebuild public confidence and restore peace and the rule of law in post-conflict nations and transitional democracies. UN Human Rights has actively supported transitional justice programmes in more than 20 countries around the world over the past 15 years. The office tries to ensure that human rights and transitional justice considerations are reflected in peace agreements and it supports the establishment of truth-seeking processes, judicial accountability mechanisms, and reparations programmes.

    6. However, flexibility is needed in applying these principles as many nations are still transitioning to full liberal democracy. Emerging systems should be supported if showing progress towards democratic norms through non-violent and lawful means. Minimum thresholds could include a commitment to regular elections determined as free and fair by international monitors, protection of basic civil liberties and human rights, and peaceful transfers of power.


Crimes against democracy: Crimes against democracy encompass any actions or behaviours that undermine the principles of democratic governance, including but not limited to election fraud, voter suppression, disinformation campaigns, cyberattacks on electoral infrastructure, and foreign interference in democratic processes.

How would you hold violators accountable? How do you identify violators? I.e. How does the ICC choose who they will try in court?

  1. In the event of the establishment of an International Constitutional Court, it would need to have a mechanism for receiving petitions/complaints from opposition groups or civil society within a state, alleging violations related to unfree/unfair elections or constitutional subversion.

  2. During the panel, it was suggested the International Constitutional Court could declare election results invalid if findings demonstrate lack of free political participation, media censorship, ballot fraud or other irregularities violating international democratic standards, based on evidence presented.

  3. Proposal:

  4. It would accept complaints from credible third parties like opposition groups, NGOs, independent election monitors alleging specific violations related to undemocratic electoral or constitutional processes.

  5. The International Constitutional Court would conduct investigations into complaints, collecting evidence from multiple sources. Parties to the complaint would have opportunity for rebuttal and defense.

  6. Potential consequences could include invalidating unfree election results, ordering re-runs under international monitoring, and recommendations for democratic reforms.

  7. For serious and sustained undemocratic actions, the International Constitutional Court ruling could also refer cases of named individuals to the International Criminal Court for prosecution of crimes against democracy, if such a crime was defined in international law.

2. Explore establishing an International Constitutional Court: potential of a court that could invalidate rigged elections in non-democratic countries and strengthen opposition to dictatorships, as a way to help prevent the rise of authoritarianism.

  1. Who should establish this court? Is it only made out of democratic nations? What roles would be included?

  2. The idea of an International Constitutional Court was brought up multiple times by former Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki. He could be contacted to explore this idea further. 

  3. He suggested the UN could play a role in establishing such a court to begin with. But no specifics were provided on the process or membership.

  4. Potential roles discussed included reviewing elections in authoritarian regimes at the request of opposition groups, and declaring elections invalid if found to be unfree or unfair based on evidence presented

  5. Potential proposal for an International Constitutional Court:

  6. An International Constitutional Court could be established through a multilateral treaty process open to all UN member states, but would require ratification by a minimum number of democracies to enter into force.

  7. The ICC would be composed of judges elected by state parties for staggered terms, following nominations through a process ensuring diversity and judicial independence. Non-permanent judges could also represent key global regions.

  8. The ICC would have jurisdiction to review election results and constitutional processes in any state accused of violations, upon receiving a petition from opposition groups or civil society within that state.

  9. It could declare election results invalid and order new elections if findings demonstrate lack of free political participation, media censorship, or other irregularities violating international democratic standards.

  10. The ICC's rulings would aim to deter authoritarian tendencies and strengthen democratic opposition movements. But it could not directly intervene in states' sovereignty. Compliance would rely on moral authority and potential diplomatic/economic consequences for non-compliance.

  11. An international treaty process could begin exploring the feasibility and design of such an institution.

3. "Marshall Plan" for democracy: initiative similar to the post-WWII Marshall Plan that would provide funding and support to bolster democratic institutions in countries committed to democracy, especially in Europe and Central/South America.

    1. What is the funding going towards specifically? We wouldn't want to fund violent movements, for instance. Going towards education, infrastructure, etc?

    2. The "Marshall Plan for democracy" concept was brought up by José Igreja Matos, the honorary president of the International Association of Judges. He could be contacted to explore this idea further. 

    3. Care would need to be taken to ensure any funding does not enable or arm violent non-state actors. The focus should be on strengthening democratic processes, oversight of power, and empowering civic participation through non-violent means.

    4. The implied intent was to bolster democratic institutions and civil society organisations through targeted funding. Some potential areas the funding could support include:

      1. Education programs promoting civic engagement and democratic values

      2. Capacity building for independent media, NGOs and watchdog groups

      3. Rule of law reforms like judicial training and anti-corruption initiatives

      4. Election administration assistance and monitoring missions

      5. Infrastructure to enable free and fair political participation


4. Enforce EU Treaty on rule of law: the European Commission needs to more clearly enforce Article 2 of the EU Treaty requiring all member states to uphold the rule of law and not compromise on democratic principles.

    1. Would Article 2 apply to only the EU or globally? Who is enforcing this rule of law? How?

    2. Article 2 of the EU Treaty refers specifically to the European Union and would only apply to EU member states. It was mentioned by José Igreja Matos, the honorary president of the International Association of Judges.

    3. Article 2 states that the EU is "founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights."

    4. Matos argued that the European Commission needs to be more proactive in enforcing this article and clearly saying that all EU member states must uphold the rule of law and democratic principles as outlined in the treaty, without compromise.

    5. Currently the European Commission has some ability to take member states that are violating the principles of Article 2 to the European Court of Justice. But Matos felt they needed to strengthen enforcement and more explicitly call out states that are backsliding on judicial independence, checks on power, and other core tenets of democracy and the rule of law.

    6. It could be explored how to take this Treaty and apply it on a global scale through some of the mechanisms outlined here.


5. Prevent dictatorships with new solutions: continually exploring innovative ways to help prevent authoritarian regimes from rising to power

    1. What solutions do you propose/did the panellists propose anything in the talk?

    2. Moncef Marzouki previously proposed the concept of an International Constitutional Court, as discussed, to invalidate rigged elections and strengthen opposition in non-democratic countries.

    3. More funding and support for civil society organizations and independent media through initiatives like José Igreja Matos' proposed "Marshall Plan for Democracy." Strengthening civic engagement was seen as important.

    4. Monitoring elections and political processes more closely through international election observation missions.

    5. Targeted sanctions/freezing of funds for non-democratic governments cracking down on opposition or subverting elections.

    6. Are there any programs that are doing this now?

    7. Existing programs working in related areas include the UN Democracy Fund, National Endowment for Democracy, International IDEA, IFES, Carter Center election monitoring, and regional democracy assistance programs run by the EU, USAID, and other donors.

    8. United Nations activities in support of democracy are carried out through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF), the Department of Peace Operations (DPO), the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR),and the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women)


6. Enforce US antitrust laws: using existing antitrust regulations to break up large technology companies, citing a precedent of such enforcement curbing companies' growing influence in the past.

    1. Explain what this has to do with the topic-are you talking about how social media can influence votes?

    2. The reference to enforcing US antitrust laws against large technology companies relates to how social media platforms can influence democracy and elections. Specifically, one panellist proposed that breaking up companies like Google and Amazon using existing antitrust regulations could help curb their growing influence, similar to how AOL was broken up in the past. The implication was that large tech platforms have become so powerful that they can spread disinformation and manipulate public opinion in a way that threatens free and fair elections. So it directly connects to the broader discussion around protecting democratic processes and countering authoritarian threats enabled by new technologies.


7. Sanctions: What sanctions to be imposed that are actually effective--how does the court identify what sanctions are effective?

What works best?

  • Since the 1950s, nearly 90 percent of the U.S. penalties that have proved to be effective were imposed on states with multiparty electoral systems—most of which are democracies.

  • Effective sanctions typically have a narrowly defined objective. International penalties with the aim of toppling governments almost always fail (e.g. Cuba or North Korea). Moreover, international penalties against authoritarian regimes rarely hurt ruling elites

    • Case study: Venezuela. Years of economic mismanagement have brought about a deep economic crisis, but the country’s rulers have found a perfect scapegoat in sanctions. As a result, 60 percent of Venezuelans oppose sanctions and blame those who have imposed them for their economic hardship.

    • Sanctions are usually more effective if the country imposing them has significant economic ties to the targeted state

      The 2018 U.S. sanctions against Turkey worked partly for this reason: The two countries have significant economic links and are NATO allies. 

  • The most effective sanctions are multilateral ones. When many countries impose the same restrictions, targeted states are left with limited options to continue trading. 

  • Many sanctions are designed to impose hardship on the populations of targeted countries so that they pressure their governments to change course. These sorts of penalties don’t tend to work against authoritarian states: Citizens living under dictatorship have few means of persuading their rulers to change direction. 

  • Despite challenges, sanctions remain a tool for sending strong messages and constraining autocratic regimes' ability to achieve their goals. The impact of sanctions is gradual and cumulative. 

    • E.g: Western sanctions on Russia. Western penalties curb Russia’s access to the financing and technology it needs to keep its energy sector thriving in the long term.

  • Studies find that: On average, democratic sanctions are, in fact, associated with higher levels of democracy in the targeted state. 

    • In authoritarian states targeted by democratic sanctions, authoritarian leaders are more likely to lose power and countries are more likely to change their basic political institutions. Such institutional changes do not necessarily lead to a fully-fledged liberal democracy, but often open up to increased civilian political control or multiparty elections.

      E.g.: In Peru, sanctions contributed to democratisation without ruler change. When President Fujimori suspended the legislature and introduced rule by decree in 1992, the US withheld military assistance and economic aid and blocked Peru’s efforts to obtain loans from international financial institutions. In response, Fujimori agreed to hold elections and to reinstate formally democratic institutions. 

  • Sanctions can, if effectively designed and strategically imposed, be used to increase such economic pressure on authoritarian elites. Moreover, by targeting central elite figures or strategically important industries, sanctions can also effectively undermine the inner elite’s support for top-leaders or current institutions.

Russia as an example: Western democracies have made sanctions their go-to diplomatic weapon. The United States and European Union administer hundreds of sanctions programs, targeting thousands of individuals, companies, and economic sectors in nearly every single country