SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Black Sea Journal of Public and Social Science / 2026 / Sayı: 9

The Right to Vote and Freedom of Expression in Elections: UN Soft Law Responses to Disinformation and Digital Threats

Asm Mahmudul Hasan(KARABÜK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-8833-5101
Pages
90–102
Publication Date
2026-03-24
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Key contributions include a Model Law on Digital Electoral Integrity, a proposed UN Platform Accountability Charter, and Principles for Algorithmic Transparency, aiming to transform aspirational norms into operational standards and affirm digital electoral justice as a global democratic imperative.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In the digital age, core democratic rights- voting and freedom of expression- face growing threats from algorithmic disinformation, opaque platform governance, and transnational electoral interference.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This article explores how evolving UN soft law instruments-including General Comments No. 25 and 34, the 2020 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Elections in the Digital Age, and Report A/77/287- address these challenges.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Key contributions include a Model Law on Digital Electoral Integrity, a proposed UN Platform Accountability Charter, and Principles for Algorithmic Transparency, aiming to transform aspirational norms into operational standards and affirm digital electoral justice as a global democratic imperative.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Right to vote · Freedom of expression · UN soft law

Abstract

In the digital age, core democratic rights- voting and freedom of expression- face growing threats from algorithmic disinformation, opaque platform governance, and transnational electoral interference. Although grounded in binding legal instruments such as the ICCPR and UDHR, protections for these rights in digitally mediated elections remain fragmented and inadequately enforced, particularly in jurisdictions where private tech companies mediate political discourse. This article explores how evolving UN soft law instruments-including General Comments No. 25 and 34, the 2020 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Elections in the Digital Age, and Report A/77/287- address these challenges. Employing a normative-analytical methodology, it combines interpretive legal analysis with comparative case studies from India and Kenya to evaluate the normative strength and practical limitations of soft law. The findings show that while lacking coercive force, UN soft law sets essential normative expectations on transparency, electoral integrity, and proportionate content moderation. The paper identifies persistent implementation gaps and proposes innovative soft-regulatory approaches to enhance the alignment of non-binding frameworks with real-world digital governance. Key contributions include a Model Law on Digital Electoral Integrity, a proposed UN Platform Accountability Charter, and Principles for Algorithmic Transparency, aiming to transform aspirational norms into operational standards and affirm digital electoral justice as a global democratic imperative.

Özet

In the digital age, core democratic rights- voting and freedom of expression- face growing threats from algorithmic disinformation, opaque platform governance, and transnational electoral interference. Although grounded in binding legal instruments such as the ICCPR and UDHR, protections for these rights in digitally mediated elections remain fragmented and inadequately enforced, particularly in jurisdictions where private tech companies mediate political discourse. This article explores how evolving UN soft law instruments-including General Comments No. 25 and 34, the 2020 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Elections in the Digital Age, and Report A/77/287- address these challenges. Employing a normative-analytical methodology, it combines interpretive legal analysis with comparative case studies from India and Kenya to evaluate the normative strength and practical limitations of soft law. The findings show that while lacking coercive force, UN soft law sets essential normative expectations on transparency, electoral integrity, and proportionate content moderation. The paper identifies persistent implementation gaps and proposes innovative soft-regulatory approaches to enhance the alignment of non-binding frameworks with real-world digital governance. Key contributions include a Model Law on Digital Electoral Integrity, a proposed UN Platform Accountability Charter, and Principles for Algorithmic Transparency, aiming to transform aspirational norms into operational standards and affirm digital electoral justice as a global democratic imperative.

🔖

Cite This Article

Hasan, A. M. (2026). The Right to Vote and Freedom of Expression in Elections: UN Soft Law Responses to Disinformation and Digital Threats. Black Sea Journal of Public and Social Science, Sayı: 9, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.52704/bssocialscience.1837075

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (34)

  1. Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2000). Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organization, 54(3), 421–456. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081800551280
  2. Abbott, K. W., Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., Slaughter, A. M., & Snidal, D. (2000). The concept of legalization. International Organization, 54(3), 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081800551271
  3. ACHPR. (2019). African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Guidelines on access to information and elections in Africa. https://achpr.au.int/en/node/894 (accessed on 10 August 2025).
  4. Agbele, F. (2023). Disinformation and misinformation during Kenya's 2022 election: implications for voter confidence in the electoral process. https://d-nb.info/130402069X/34 (accessed on 12 August 2025).
  5. Akbar, S. Z., Panda, A., & Pal, J. (2024). Political hazard: Misinformation in the 2019 Indian general election campaign. In Political Campaigning in Digital India (pp. 133-151). Routledge. Berman, P. S. (2007). Global legal pluralism. Southern California Law Review, 80(6), 1155–1237.
  6. Boyle, A. (1999). Some reflections on the relationship of treaties and soft law. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 48(4), 901–913. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589300063739
  7. Boyle, A. (2021). Soft law in international law-making. In D. French, M. Saul, & N. White (Eds.), International law and governance (pp. 128–143). Oxford University Press.
  8. Bradshaw, S., & Howard, P. N. (2019). The global disinformation order: 2019 global inventory of organized social media manipulation. Oxford Internet Institute. https://demtech.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2019/09/CyberTroop-Report19.pdf (accessed on 12 August 2025).
  9. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. Yale University Press.
  10. Ehrlich, E. (1936). Fundamental principles of the sociology of law (W. L. Moll, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
  11. European Commission. (2024). Digital Services Act: Ensuring a safe and accountable online environment. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act (accessed on 27 July 2025).
  12. Freedom House. (2021). Freedom on the net: Belarus. https://freedomhouse.org/country/belarus/freedom-net/2021 (accessed on 13 August 2025).
  13. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
  14. Gorwa, R. (2021). Elections, institutions, and the regulatory politics of platform governance: The case of the German NetzDG. Telecommunications Policy, 45(6), 102145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102145
  15. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. MIT Press.
  16. Hasan, A.M. (2025). Global Soft law instruments in public auditing: The role of INTOSAI and JURISAI in shaping supreme audit institutions. Sayıştay Dergisi, 36(136), 97-124. https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1601674
  17. Isaac, M., & Frenkel, S. (2019). Cambridge Analytica and Facebook: The scandal and the fallout so far. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallout.html (accessed on 13 August 2025).
  18. Kleinlein, T. (2012). Between myths and norms: constructivist constitutionalism and the potential of constitutional principles in international law. Nordic Journal of International Law, 81(2), 79-132.
  19. McGoldrick, D. (1994). The Human Rights Committee: Its role in the development of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Clarendon Press.
  20. Merry, S. E. (1988). Legal pluralism. Law & Society Review, 22(5), 869–896. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053638
  21. Nowak, M. (1993). U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR commentary (2nd ed.). N.P. Engel.
  22. Nyabola, N. (2018). Digital democracy, analogue politics: How the internet era is transforming politics in Kenya. Zed Books.
  23. OHCHR. (2023). Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: Human rights and digital technology: Update of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression.
  24. OSCE. (2021). Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe: Final report: Presidential election in Belarus.
  25. Rydzak, J. (2019). Of blackouts and bandhs: The strategy and structure of disconnected protest in India. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3330413 (accessed on 18 August 2025).
  26. Shelton, D. (2008). Soft law. In D. Armstrong (Ed.), Routledge handbook of international law (pp. 68–81). Routledge.
  27. Supreme Court of India. (2020). Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 1031 of 2019.
  28. Suzor, N. P. (2019). Lawless: The secret rules that govern our digital lives. Cambridge University Press.
  29. Tamanaha, B. Z. (2017). Understanding legal pluralism: past to present, local to global. In Legal theory and the social sciences (pp. 447-483). Routledge.
  30. UN OHCHR. (1996). United Nations Human Rights Committee: General Comment No. 25: The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights, and the right of equal access to public service (Art. 25). CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7.
  31. UN OHCHR. (2011). United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: General Comment No. 34: Freedom of opinion and expression (Article 19).
  32. UNGA. (2022). United Nations General Assembly: Promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression: Report of the Special Rapporteur (A/77/287). https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3982044 (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  33. URL1. United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR), OSCE, OAS, & African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights [ACHPR]. (2020). Joint declaration on freedom of expression and elections in the digital age. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Opinion/JointDeclarationDigitalAge_30April2020_EN.pdf (accessed on 18 August 2025).
  34. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.