Full Program »
Constitutions of Western Europe: Resolving Disputes On Election Results
This paper presents a survey of what the constitutions of each country in Western Europe say about resolving disputes about election results. Eurovoc’s definition of Western Europe was used to select the countries studied in this paper. This is the first paper to conduct a comparative study on what the constitutions of Western European countries say about resolving disputes on national election results. The constitutions fall into four distinct categories.
The first category is constitutions that assign the highest judicial body or a specialized court to review election results. The countries that fit into this category are Andorra, Austria, France, Ireland, Liechtenstein, and the United Kingdom. The second category is constitutions that require judicial review of the election results but not judicial review by the highest court. The only country that fits into this category is Monaco. The third category, comprised of Switzerland and Germany, is constitutions where Parliament decides whether to invalidate the election results but there is judicial review. The last category that is most ripe for reform is constitutions where Parliament decides whether to invalidate the election results and there is no judicial review. The old democracies of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands fall into this category.