Search

This article examines European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) jurisprudence concerning free elections and identifies relevant approaches that can be applied to electoral disinformation. The relationship between disinformation and freedom of expression has attracted considerable academic scrutiny in recent years. However, surprisingly little attention has been given to the right to free elections. This article addresses this gap by identifying key ECtHR approaches to free elections under Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR and evaluating the Court's interpretive reasoning in the disinformation context. Focus is given to cases where the Court has addressed falsified information in the electoral process. Considering the special relationship between freedom of expression and free elections in Strasbourg jurisprudence, focus is also given to the Court's contemplation of acceptable limitations to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR in response to deceptive political expression. Mapping the Court's reasoning in key decisions, this article identifies informed democratic engagement as a crucial requirement that permeates the Court's approach to elections. Considering the importance of democracy in the Court's reasoning, this article argues that the Court should be more proactive in elucidating key standards for Contracting Parties to make democracies more resilient to electoral disinformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Electoral disinformation has become one of the most challenging problems for democratic states. All of them are facing the phenomenon of - both online and offline - dissemination of false information during pre-electoral period, which is harmful for individual and collective rights. As a consequence, some European countries adopted special measures, including summary judicial proceedings in order to declare that information or materials used in electioneering are false and to prohibit its further dissemination. There are already three rulings of the ECtHR concerning this expeditious judicial examination provided in the Polish law. In December 2018 France passed complex regulation against manipulation of information that include similar mechanisms. This article, basing on the ECtHR's case law and some national experiences, attempts to define the minimal European standard for measures targeted at electoral disinformation, especially judicial summary proceeding. It contains the analysis of the notion of electoral disinformation, defines the state's positive obligations in this sphere, and indicates mayor challenges for the legal framework. The principal argument is that summary judicial proceedings – if adequately designed – cannot be questioned from the Convention standpoint and provide a partial solution to the problem of electoral disinformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Preventing the progressive phenomena of negative campaign, demagogy and dissemination of false information is one the most important challenges for a qualitative election campaign. One of the solutions may be establishing accelerated electoral proceedings, for which a pattern can be sought inter alia, in polish legislation (article 111 of Polish Electoral Code). Although the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has never comprehensively commented on accelerated control mechanism in the election campaign, the case-law analysis allows to identify the minimum standards. The article indicates a cross-sectional understanding of freedom of expression in regard to electoral campaign, as well as minimum requirements to be met by those mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Promises of religious freedoms have become the standard in national constitutions. Yet, despite these assurances, religious freedoms are routinely denied. Combining new data collections with expanded theoretical explanations, this research explores how dimensions of governance and measures of the religious economy contribute to government restrictions on religion. Consistent with recent work on the judicialization of politics, we find that the absence of an independent judiciary is an important predictor of government restrictions on religious freedoms, whereas free elections and government effectiveness are insignificant in our full models. Consistent with the religious economy theory, we find that social restrictions and government favoritism toward a religion(s) are persistent predictors of the government's restrictions. Although the proportion of the population Muslim holds a strong bivariate association with government restrictions (r = .57), the relationship is reduced to insignificance in our full models. We briefly discuss the implications of these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

El objeto de este trabajo es poner de manifiesto la inadecuación que existe entre los sistemas de voto presencial y manual, y las fórmulas de voto electrónico remoto o mediante Internet. Del estudio de ambas técnicas, completamente distintas, surgen importantes problemas en relación con el modo y forma de preservar las garantías jurídicas entre las dos estrategias de sufragio electoral. El proceso electoral convencional ha garantizado históricamente, con efectividad, el respeto de un conjunto de importante exigencias amparadas por la Constitución: libertad de sufragio; igualdad de voto; y secreto, entre otros principios relevantes. El problema que estudiamos es determinar cómo pueden garantizarse estos principios mediante el uso de tecnologías propietarias, que además no han alcanzado el grado de madurez técnica imprescindible para asegurar tales principios, al menos con tanta efectividad, si no más, que la alcanzada en el marco del sufragio presencial y manual. De la inadecuación entre ambas técnicas, surgen problemas de discriminación, pérdida del voto, concentración del poder por parte de los Gobiernos. Es decir, efectos de la pérdida de seguridad, eficiencia y neutralidad del proceso de voto. La participación de los ciudadanos en la Administración Electoral, como expresión de una fórmula cualificada de participación de los ciudadanos en los asuntos públicos, puede desaparecer, con el perjuicio que tal medida representaría para la limitación de tal derecho fundamental, que además es el fundamento del funcionamiento neutral y eficiente de la Administración Electoral. Una pérdida doble del derecho de participación, que en el marco jurídico del sufragio se transforma en derecho a controlar la pureza e integridad del proceso electoral.