Procesi zgjedhor përbën një kompetencë ekskluzive të institucioneve kushtetuese të shtetit dhe një shprehje të drejtpërdrejtë të sovranitetit popullor, në përputhje me parimet themelore të së drejtës ndërkombëtare dhe rendit kushtetues demokratik¹. Zgjedhjet janë mekanizmi përmes të cilit qytetarët ushtrojnë të drejtën e vetëvendosjes së brendshme, duke përcaktuar lirisht përfaqësimin politik dhe drejtimin e qeverisjes².
Sipas nenit 2(1) dhe 2(7) të Kartës së Kombeve të Bashkuara³, si dhe praktikës së konsoliduar të Gjykatës Ndërkombëtare të Drejtësisë (GJND)⁴, organizimi i zgjedhjeve, përcaktimi i kushteve të tyre dhe vlerësimi i rezultateve përbëjnë pjesë të domaine réservé të shtetit dhe nuk i nënshtrohen ndërhyrjes së aktorëve të jashtëm⁵.
Në këtë kontekst, “Konventa e Vjenës për Marrëdhëniet Diplomatike (1961)”⁶ vendos një detyrim të qartë për përfaqësuesit diplomatikë që të mos ndërhyjnë në punët e brendshme të shtetit pritës, detyrim që merr peshë të veçantë gjatë periudhave parazgjedhore. Neni 41 i Konventës kërkon që diplomatët të përmbahen nga çdo veprim ose deklaratë publike që mund të interpretohet si ndikim në procesin demokratik, orientim i elektoratit ose favorizim i rezultateve të caktuara zgjedhore⁷. Edhe në mungesë të elementit të shtrëngimit, deklaratat parazgjedhore të diplomatëve mund të cenojnë parimin e neutralitetit diplomatik, të krijojnë perceptimin e ndërhyrjes politike dhe të minojnë besimin publik në autonominë e procesit zgjedhor⁸.
Praktika ndërkombëtare dhe doktrina juridike theksojnë se, në periudha zgjedhore, përfaqësuesit diplomatikë duhet të kufizohen strikt në komunikime teknike dhe institucionale, duke shmangur çdo deklaratë me përmbajtje politike ose vlerësuese⁹.
Për rrjedhojë, çështja e zgjedhjeve dhe e formimit të institucioneve është dhe mbetet kompetencë e rendit kushtetues të shtetit dhe e vullnetit demokratik të qytetarëve të tij¹⁰.
Çdo implikim diplomatik përmes deklaratave parazgjedhore bie ndesh me parimin e mos-ndërhyrjes dhe me standardet e sjelljes diplomatike të pranuara gjerësisht në të drejtën ndërkombëtare¹¹.
Ky parim nuk cenon bashkëpunimin ndërkombëtar apo marrëdhëniet miqësore ndërmjet shteteve, por garanton që legjitimiteti demokratik të buron ekskluzivisht nga qytetarët dhe institucionet e shtetit përkatës, pa ndikim ose perceptim ndikimi nga faktorë të jashtëm¹².
Fusnota ;
1. Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law, 8th ed., Oxford University Press, 2012, fq. 54–57.
2. Cassese, A., International Law, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2005, fq. 54–58.
3. Karta e Kombeve të Bashkuara, nenet 2(1) dhe 2(7).
4. GJND, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, paras. 202–205.
5. Crawford, J., Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 9th ed., Oxford University Press, 2019, fq. 447–452.
6. Konventa e Vjenës për Marrëdhëniet Diplomatike (1961), neni 41(1).
7. Denza, E., Diplomatic Law: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, 2016, fq. 457–470.
8. Aust, A., Handbook of International Law, 3rd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2019, fq. 115–121.
9. Shaw, M. N., International Law, 9th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2021, fq. 821–826.
10. OSCE/ODIHR, Election Observation Handbook, standarde ndërkombëtare të zgjedhjeve.
11. ILC – International Law Commission, Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law, 2018, Konkluzioni 3.
12. Gjykata Ndërkombëtare e Drejtësisë, Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, ICJ Reports 2004, para. 87.
Vendi i Lekës; 25.12.2025

The Principle of Exclusive State Competence over the Electoral Process and the Obligation of Diplomatic Non-Interference
Isuf B.Bajrami
The electoral process constitutes an exclusive competence of the constitutional institutions of the state and a direct expression of popular sovereignty, in accordance with the fundamental principles of international law and the democratic constitutional order¹. Elections are the mechanism through which citizens exercise their right to internal self-determination, freely determining political representation and the direction of governance².
According to Articles 2(1) and 2(7) of the United Nations Charter³, as well as the consolidated practice of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)⁴, the organization of elections, the determination of their conditions, and the assessment of results fall within the state’s domaine réservé and are not subject to interference by external actors⁵.
In this context, the “Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)”⁶ imposes a clear obligation on diplomatic representatives to refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of the receiving state, a duty that becomes particularly significant during pre-election periods. Article 41 of the Convention requires diplomats to abstain from any act or public statement that could be interpreted as influencing the democratic process, guiding the electorate, or favoring particular electoral outcomes⁷.
Even in the absence of coercion, pre-election statements by diplomats can violate the principle of diplomatic neutrality, create the perception of political interference, and undermine public confidence in the autonomy of the electoral process⁸. International practice and legal doctrine emphasize that, during electoral periods, diplomatic representatives should strictly limit themselves to technical and institutional communications, avoiding any politically evaluative statements⁹.
Consequently, the issue of elections and the formation of state institutions remains an exclusive competence of the state’s constitutional order and the democratic will of its citizens¹⁰. Any diplomatic involvement through pre-election statements contravenes the principle of non-intervention and internationally recognized standards of diplomatic conduct¹¹.
This principle does not impede international cooperation or friendly relations between states but ensures that democratic legitimacy derives exclusively from the citizens and institutions of the respective state, without influence or perceived influence from external actors¹².
Footnotes;
1. Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law, 8th ed., Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 54–57.
2. Cassese, A., International Law, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 54–58.
3. United Nations Charter, Articles 2(1) and 2(7).
4. ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, paras. 202–205.
5. Crawford, J., Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 9th ed., Oxford University Press, 2019, pp. 447–452.
6. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), Article 41(1).
7. Denza, E., Diplomatic Law: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 457–470.
8. Aust, A., Handbook of International Law, 3rd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 115–121.
9. Shaw, M. N., International Law, 9th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2021, pp. 821–826.
10. OSCE/ODIHR, Election Observation Handbook, latest editions (international standards on elections).
11. ILC – International Law Commission, Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law, 2018, Conclusion 3.
12. ICJ, Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, ICJ Reports 2004, para. 87.
The Land of Leka; 25.12.2025
Le principe de compétence exclusive de l’État sur le processus électoral et l’obligation de non-ingérence diplomatique
Isuf B.Bajrami
Le processus électoral constitue une compétence exclusive des institutions constitutionnelles de l’État et une expression directe de la souveraineté populaire, conformément aux principes fondamentaux du droit international et à l’ordre constitutionnel démocratique¹. Les élections sont le mécanisme par lequel les citoyens exercent leur droit à l’autodétermination interne, en déterminant librement la représentation politique et l’orientation de la gouvernance².
Selon les articles 2(1) et 2(7) de la Charte des Nations Unies³, ainsi que la pratique consolidée de la Cour internationale de Justice (CIJ)⁴, l’organisation des élections, la détermination de leurs conditions et l’évaluation des résultats relèvent du domaine réservé de l’État et ne sont pas soumis à l’ingérence d’acteurs extérieurs⁵.
Dans ce contexte, la “Convention de Vienne sur les relations diplomatiques (1961)”⁶ impose une obligation claire aux représentants diplomatiques de s’abstenir d’interférer dans les affaires intérieures de l’État hôte, obligation qui prend une importance particulière pendant les périodes préélectorales. L’article 41 de la Convention exige que les diplomates s’abstiennent de tout acte ou déclaration publique susceptible d’être interprété comme une influence sur le processus démocratique, une orientation de l’électorat ou un favoritisme envers certains résultats électoraux⁷.
Même en l’absence de coercition, les déclarations préélectorales des diplomates peuvent violer le principe de neutralité diplomatique, créer la perception d’une ingérence politique et miner la confiance publique dans l’autonomie du processus électoral⁸. La pratique internationale et la doctrine juridique soulignent que, pendant les périodes électorales, les représentants diplomatiques doivent strictement se limiter à des communications techniques et institutionnelles, en évitant toute déclaration politiquement évaluative⁹.
Par conséquent, la question des élections et de la formation des institutions de l’État reste une compétence exclusive de l’ordre constitutionnel de l’État et de la volonté démocratique de ses citoyens¹⁰. Toute implication diplomatique par le biais de déclarations préélectorales contrevient au principe de non-intervention et aux normes internationalement reconnues de conduite diplomatique¹¹.
Ce principe n’entrave pas la coopération internationale ni les relations amicales entre les États, mais garantit que la légitimité démocratique émane exclusivement des citoyens et des institutions de l’État concerné, sans influence ou perception d’influence d’acteurs extérieurs¹².
Notes de bas de page ;
1. Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law, 8th ed., Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 54–57.
2. Cassese, A., International Law, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 54–58.
3. Charte des Nations Unies, articles 2(1) et 2(7).
4. CIJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua c. États-Unis d’Amérique), Mérite, Jugement, Recueil CIJ 1986, paras. 202–205.
5. Crawford, J., Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 9th ed., Oxford University Press, 2019, pp. 447–452.
6. Convention de Vienne sur les relations diplomatiques (1961), article 41(1).
7. Denza, E., Diplomatic Law: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 457–470.
8. Aust, A., Handbook of International Law, 3rd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 115–121.
9. Shaw, M. N., International Law, 9th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2021, pp. 821–826.
10. OSCE/ODIHR, Election Observation Handbook, dernières éditions (normes internationales sur les élections).
11. CIL – Commission du droit international, Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law, 2018, Conclusion 3.
12. CIJ, Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Recueil CIJ 2004, para. 87.
Le Pays de Leka ; 25.12.2025