Abstract
Over the past decades, international election observation has become an institutionalized and widely accepted norm of the global democratic order. Even regimes with pronounced authoritarian characteristics rarely outright refuse to allow international missions. This empirical persistence poses an analytical challenge: how do electoral authoritarian regimes manage the potential political costs of international monitoring without rejecting the norm itself? This article offers a conceptual clarification of existing approaches to the dynamics of international norms, moving beyond the compliance-non-compliance dichotomy and complementing the debate on norm capture. We introduce and theoretically substantiate the concept of neutralization—a strategy by which authoritarian regimes do not redefine a norm’s content but fragment the interpretive power surrounding it, preventing the formation of a single authoritative conclusion about the quality of elections. Neutralization is realized through the institutional fragmentation of missions, selective access restrictions, discursive delegitimization of critical assessments, and the creation of procedural opacity. The study draws on a deductive model that combines regime type and actors’ positioning within the supply–demand mechanism for international observation, thereby identifying four strategic logics: norm-making, legitimation, norm capture, and neutralization. A review of patterns across several electoral processes in different regions suggests that neutralization manifests as a managed pluralism of assessments, with international presence maintained. However, its capacity to generate binding interpretive closure is systematically weakened. Theoretically, the article advances research on international norms by analyzing the struggle for epistemic power as a key dimension of global governance. It demonstrates that the institutional stability of a norm does not necessarily indicate its consolidation: under conditions of authoritarian adaptation, the preservation of form can be accompanied by a weakening of the norm’s political impacts.
1 Introduction
In recent decades, international election observation has become an institutionalized and widely accepted component of the global democratic order. Initially promoted by democratic states and international organizations, it evolved into a stable norm embedded in broader standards of transparency, accountability, and human rights. International presence in electoral processes is now widely regarded as a routine feature of legitimate elections, and even authoritarian regimes rarely reject it outright.
This persistence presents an analytical puzzle. Research shows that international election observation can expose irregularities, deter fraud, increase diplomatic pressure, and impose reputational costs on regimes that manipulate elections (Hyde, 2011; Kelley, 2012; Donno, 2013a). Observation missions also shape domestic politics by strengthening opposition actors, validating claims of fraud, influencing voter mobilization, and affecting post-electoral contestation (von Borzyskowski, 2019). If monitoring generates these risks, why do electoral authoritarian regimes continue to permit international presence? Why tolerate observers when scrutiny may toughen challengers or trigger external pressure? The persistence of observation under such conditions calls into question straightforward accounts of compliance or strategic signaling.
Existing literature offers several explanations. Scholarship on norm diffusion emphasizes processes of entrepreneurship, cascade, and internalization (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998), suggesting that election observation has become part of the accepted repertoire of state behavior. Research on observer invitations shows that even authoritarian incumbents may use monitoring to signal confidence, manage uncertainty, or deter overt fraud (Hyde, 2011; Kelley, 2012). More recent work on “shadow observers” highlights how illiberal actors reproduce the institutional form of liberal monitoring while advancing alternative standards (Bush et al., 2025). These approaches illuminate important dynamics but largely frame state behavior in terms of compliance, contestation, or erosion. Even norm capture—where actors appropriate a norm while altering its meaning—does not fully explain a recurring pattern: the coexistence of supportive and critical assessments that prevents a single authoritative verdict on electoral integrity. In such cases, observation is neither rejected nor fully embraced, and the norm is neither openly defied nor replaced. Instead, interpretive authority becomes fragmented.
This article introduces the concept of neutralization, understood as the fragmentation of interpretive power rather than normative transformation. Under conditions of strong institutional embeddedness, authoritarian regimes increasingly manage the political consequences of election observation not by abolishing the norm but by preventing interpretive convergence. The objective is not to eliminate criticism but to ensure that no single authority can produce binding interpretive closure capable of generating coordinated international pressure or sustained domestic mobilization.
Although observable across regions, practices associated with neutralization have been documented in the post-Soviet space since the early 2000s. Scholars show how regimes constrained high-credibility monitoring missions—particularly OSCE/ODIHR—through institutional restrictions, parallel observer organizations, and discursive contestation (Fawn, 2006). From this perspective, this article does not claim to identify a new phenomenon, but rather to conceptualize and systematize these practices as a broader mechanism of norm management applicable beyond one region.
Neutralization operates through institutional, discursive, and procedural mechanisms: proliferating monitoring missions with heterogeneous standards, restricting high-credibility observers, delegitimizing critical assessments, and creating procedural opacity that complicates verification. The result is not the absence of scrutiny but the proliferation of competing evaluations, which dilutes political criticism. The argument is situated within a broader framework that treats election observation as a transactional mechanism structured by supply and demand. Observation missions emerge through interaction between providers and recipients. When democracies supply monitoring, the goal is typically norm-building; when democracies demand it, it is about legitimation. By contrast, authoritarian suppliers may seek norm capture, while authoritarian demanders rely on neutralization to manage the consequences of an entrenched norm.
The central question guiding this article is therefore: under what conditions and through what mechanisms do authoritarian regimes fragment interpretive authority in international election observation, and how does this differ from norm capture? Addressing this question requires moving beyond the compliance–resistance dichotomy toward a focus on epistemic authority in global governance. The key issue is not whether a norm survives, but how its political effects are structured and managed.
The article proceeds in three steps. First, it develops a two-dimensional model combining regime type and position within the supply–demand structure of monitoring. Second, it specifies neutralization as a distinct mechanism and operationalizes its dimensions. Third, it applies the framework to empirical scenarios demonstrating how interpretive fragmentation functions in practice. By introducing neutralization as a mode of norm management, this study contributes to debates on international norms and authoritarian adaptation. It shows that the persistence of election observation does not necessarily indicate normative consolidation. Institutional endurance may reflect strategic containment rather than strength, allowing norms to remain formally intact while their political effects are weakened.
2 Methodology and research design
This study adopts a theory-building and concept-development approach designed to increase analytical precision in the study of international electoral observation under conditions of electoral authoritarianism. Its primary objective is to systematize and operationalize a mechanism—neutralization—within a broader analytical model, and to evaluate its empirical applicability across diverse political contexts.
The research design follows a deductive strategy. It begins with the construction of a two-dimensional framework that combines regime type with actor position within the supply–demand structure of election observation. On this basis, the study identifies a distinct strategic logic and derives observable implications for demand-side monitoring management. Rather than testing causal hypotheses, the analysis evaluates whether the proposed mechanism provides a coherent and fitting explanation for recurring empirical configurations.
To render the concept empirically tractable, neutralization is operationalized through four analytically distinct dimensions: (1) institutional fragmentation of monitoring missions, (2) selective restriction of access or mandate, (3) discursive contestation of evaluative authority, and (4) procedural arrangements that complicate verification. Each dimension is associated with observable indicators, enabling systematic comparison across cases and reducing the risk of conceptual stretching.
To illustrate our model, we examine a purposively selected set of scenarios from different geographical regions. Venezuela, Russia, Nicaragua, Mozambique, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Madagascar, and Belarus were selected because they exhibit variation in regime type, regional context, and international alignment, while sharing three analytically relevant characteristics: the presence of international election observation, the emergence of competing evaluative reports, and institutional or discursive mechanisms that shape the authority of those assessments. The aim of this selection is analytical generalization, namely, assessing whether comparable mechanisms operate across diverse contexts. Accordingly, the selected scenarios are not intended to be statistically representative but analytically illustrative of recurring patterns of fragmented monitoring authority.
The profiles of these cases were developed through the triangulation of multiple sources, including official observation mission reports, accreditation documents, electoral legislation, public statements by state and international actors, and reports produced by civil society organizations. Media sources are used primarily to reconstruct discursive positioning and are cross-checked against primary documentation. This triangulated approach enables the analysis to trace how institutional design, access regulation, and narrative framing interact to structure the interpretive field surrounding electoral processes.
Finally, the framework specifies scope conditions under which neutralization is most likely to operate. The mechanism presupposes the continued availability of international monitoring, the reputational relevance of external assessments, and the existence of alternative or parallel monitoring infrastructures capable of producing competing evaluations. Where these conditions are absent, regimes may instead opt for outright exclusion or isolation. By delineating these boundaries, the research design clarifies the conditions under which neutralization constitutes a distinct and analytically meaningful strategy.
3 A two-dimensional model of election observation
While Kelley (2012) does not offer a single, compact definition of the concept, she constructs one by characterizing election observation as the deployment of independent missions that assess whether electoral processes meet recognized international standards, thereby contributing to the production of a public judgment on the integrity of the vote and generating reputational consequences for host governments. In this way, observers perform three functions: they produce information, generate deterrence, and confer legitimation. As Hyde (2011) argues, the normative value of observation rests on a set of recognized methodological practices, such as territorial deployment, unrestricted access, and evaluation against international standards, as well as the mission’s independence from the host government. Together, these elements are what give the mission its credibility.
In view of the above, “zombie” missions (Walker and Cooley, 2013) are not a variant of election monitoring but its functional negation. The consolidation of the norm around a specific set of practices and criteria, led by actors with recognized authority (Santa-Cruz, 2005), is precisely what makes its appropriation by unqualified actors strategically useful; a norm without defined content cannot be captured. It follows that, as Bush et al. (2025) argue, the proliferation of low-quality missions does not reflect legitimate pluralism but rather a strategic degradation of the field dynamic that becomes analytically visible only when the unit of analysis shifts from individual missions to the competing configurations they produce. This is the perspective adopted in this article, and it strengthens the argument for neutralization. It is against this baseline that the two-dimensional model developed here acquires its analytical purchase.
As we noted in previous work (Milanese and Rouvinski, 2023; Rouvinski and Milanese, 2024), election observation processes must necessarily be conceived as operating through a two-level dynamic, a domestic one and an international one. Indeed, they are the result of a transactional process characterized by actors oriented toward supply and demand; that is, there are states—or other kinds of actors—focused on proposing monitoring missions, and others focused on receiving them.
However, as indicated, the proliferation of electoral authoritarianism means this oversight exercise is no longer exclusively associated with democracies. Therefore, both the supply and the demand for monitoring can also be generated by autocracies. From this perspective, we argue that to better understand the nature of monitoring, it is necessary to consider the interaction between two variables: regime type—democracy or authoritarian regime—and actors’ positions vis-à-vis the transactional mechanism—supply or demand (see Table 1).
Table 1
| Transitional mechanism dimension | Position in the transitional mechanism | Regime type | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Democracy | Authoritarian | ||
| Supply side | Offer | Norm building | Norm capture |
| Demand side | Demand | Legitimation | Neutralization |
Two-dimensional dynamics of election observation.
Source: adapted from Rouvinski and Milanese (2024).
Combining these variables establishes a state’s purposes for election observation. In particular, if a democracy assigns missions of this kind, its focus lies in international norm-building and reinforcement of the norm. In contrast, if it demands them, the focus shifts to legitimizing the results of an election. Meanwhile, if the supplier is an authoritarian regime, its objective is to capture norms. If it is the demand-side agent, it will seek to neutralize the impact of “genuine” exercise by means of “zombie” observers (Rouvinski and Milanese, 2024).
To make this framework usable in empirical analysis, the combination of regime type and actor position generates observable expectations about who is allowed to observe, which actors recur across cases, and how evaluations are distributed across missions. The model, therefore, serves not only to classify strategic logics but also to guide the identification of patterned configurations in the empirical record. Below, we explain how each of the four dimensions operates.
3.1 Norm building
Norms in international relations are commonly understood as “standards of appropriate behavior for actors with a particular identity” (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998). Contemporary scholarship, however, stresses that norms are more than external constraints or formal rules. They are institutionalized expectations embedded in networks of actors, practices, and organizations that shape behavior through persuasion, moral framing, and social learning (Checkel, 1999; Wiener, 2004). Norms therefore function both as regulatory and constitutive structures, constraining behavior while defining what counts as legitimate and appropriate.
The widely used “norm life cycle” model (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998) identifies stages of emergence, cascade, and internalization. In electoral monitoring, democratic states and international organizations act as norm entrepreneurs seeking to institutionalize election observation as a standard component of legitimate electoral processes. Their objective is to transform observation from an optional confidence-building measure into a self-evident element of democratic elections (Santa-Cruz, 2005; Hyde, 2011). Norm internalization may follow either a logic of consequences—when states adopt norms for strategic benefits such as aid or international support—or a logic of appropriateness, where monitoring is accepted as normatively legitimate (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998). Empirical research shows that inviting observers often signals democratic commitment (Hyde, 2011), yet over time, this practice becomes institutionally expected, reducing its signaling function while reinforcing normative force.
Recent scholarship complicates this classical model. Norm consolidation depends on embeddedness within transnational networks, coherence with broader normative frameworks, and adaptability to changing political contexts (Krook and True, 2012; Pollak, 2025). Electoral monitoring gained resilience by becoming linked to broader democratic norms such as transparency, accountability, and human rights. At the same time, norms are never fully stabilized. They remain subject to contestation and reinterpretation (Wiener, 2004; Dandashly and Noutcheva, 2022). Contestation occurs internationally through competition between liberal and illiberal actors and domestically through interaction with local normative structures. Diffusion, therefore, does not always produce simple adoption but may generate hybridization, translation, or partial transformation.
Percy and Sandholtz (2022) argue that norms rarely disappear entirely; instead, they are modified, replaced, or partially eroded while retaining core features. This insight is especially relevant to electoral monitoring. Even under growing electoral authoritarianism, observation is seldom abandoned. Rather, it is reworked, constrained, or reinterpreted institutionally. Debates over epistemic and moral authority add another dimension. Conflicts over norms concern not only procedures but also who has the authority to define universal standards (Sending, 2015; Zürn, 2018). In electoral monitoring, this appears in alternative observation missions supported by authoritarian states that replicate institutional forms while advancing different interpretations of electoral legitimacy.
Early studies of post-Soviet electoral observation identified systematic efforts to fragment the authority of established monitoring missions. Tensions surrounding OSCE/ODIHR deployments revealed patterns of restriction, selective engagement, and the emergence of alternative observer networks (Fawn, 2006). These practices suggest empirical precedents for what is conceptualized here as neutralization. Existing accounts, however, often treat them as regional or descriptive phenomena. This article instead conceptualizes them as a broader mechanism defined by the structured fragmentation of interpretive authority.
Norm internalization also depends on domestic institutions. Checkel (1999) highlights how openness and deliberative capacity shape persuasion. In pluralistic systems, international standards are more easily integrated into legislation and practice; in less open contexts, norms may be formally adopted but substantively altered. Similar dynamics appear in democracy promotion and the “spiral model” of transnational pressure (Risse et al., 2013; Abadía and Rouvinski, 2025), where international and domestic actors interact to reshape institutional environments.
Together, these debates suggest two conclusions. First, international election observation has achieved strong institutional embeddedness within the global democratic order. Second, stability does not imply immutability: norms remain open to contestation, reinterpretation, and even norm capture, in which formal compliance coexists with shifts in meaning and interpretive authority. It is precisely at this intersection—between normative stability and strategic management—that the phenomenon of capture and neutralization is analytically necessary to understand electoral authoritarianism.
3.2 Legitimation
To explain why democracies open their electoral processes to monitoring organizations, we return to the logic of consequences and appropriateness (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998). These are best understood as ideal types; in practice, states often combine instrumental rationality with normative commitments when adopting international norms.
In this context, openness to monitoring should not be interpreted solely as endorsement of the norm itself. While support for the norm may matter, the decision is often driven more by domestic than international dynamics. Monitoring contributes to the legitimacy of electoral processes beyond fraud prevention (Donno, 2013a,b). Numerous studies show that governments invite observers to strengthen both domestic and international confidence in elections (Hyde, 2011; Kelley, 2012; von Borzyskowski, 2019).
In free and competitive elections, allowing observers imposes relatively low costs while generating significant benefits through external certification of electoral quality. Monitoring can enhance democratic stability by reducing controversy, mitigating the loser effect, compensating for weak Election Management Bodies (EMBs), and supporting institutional transitions in democratizing regimes (Levitsky and Way, 2010; Bush et al., 2025).
These benefits are well documented in comparative research (Hyde, 2011; Kelley, 2012; Bjornlund, 2004), which shows that observation missions perform deterrent, stabilizing, and legitimating functions. In polarized contexts marked by distrust, hate speech, or institutional weakness, monitoring can also serve as third-party reassurance, moderating post-electoral conflict and reducing the delegitimation of close results (Milanese et al., 2023).
Empirical studies further suggest that election observation increases perceptions of electoral integrity and acceptance of outcomes, particularly where margins are narrow or electoral authorities are viewed as biased (Anderson et al., 2005; Blais and Gélineau, 2007; Birch, 2011; Dahlberg and Linde, 2016; Planchuelo, 2023). Although observation does not replace domestic institutions, it can reinforce legitimacy when those institutions lack credibility.
Ideally, disputes would be managed by EMBs with strong autonomy, operational independence, and social legitimacy. Such bodies can certify results and resolve conflicts institutionally (Dahlberg and Linde, 2016; Mozaffar and Schedler, 2002). Yet many transitional or low-quality democracies face institutional weaknesses and political pressures that undermine EMB credibility (Norris, 2015; van Ham and Lindberg, 2015). In these cases, international monitoring serves as a complementary mechanism, contributing to post-electoral stability through technical validation and external pressure for transparency (Donno, 2013a,b; Bush, 2015). Norm-building and legitimation, therefore, represent the most predictable functions of election observation. By contrast, norm capture and neutralization are analytically more significant because they emerge in contexts where observation serves less intuitive political purposes.
3.3 Norm capture
The concept of capture requires a return to the study of norms and international regimes, in which norms are understood as persistent sites of contestation (Sending, 2015; Zürn, 2018). Norms are neither fixed nor universal; their meanings evolve through practical and discursive interaction among actors (Wiener, 2004). Likewise, Deitelhoff and Zimmermann (2019) argue that norms are continually exposed to contestation—which may strengthen them—and erosion, which weakens their legitimacy and applicability. As a result, recipients reinterpret, adapt, or resist norms in line with their own institutional and political contexts (Wiener, 2004).
Yet contestation and erosion do not exhaust the range of possible dynamics. A third mechanism, less theorized but increasingly relevant, is capture (Rouvinski and Milanese, 2024). Capture involves mimicry: liberal discourse and institutional practices are adopted while infused with non-liberal meanings (Bettiza and Lewis, 2020). Rather than simply imitating existing norms, actors engage in a “re-articulation with local flavors” positioned as an alternative to liberal originals (Ling, 2001: p. 117). This produces an indirect form of erosion. The goal is not to abolish norms outright (Panke and Petersohn, 2016), but to appropriate them for opposite purposes—legitimating electoral authoritarianism while undermining the credibility of international monitoring mechanisms (Daxecker and Schneider, 2014; Bush et al., 2025).
Why pursue capture instead of abolition? Because electoral observation, like elections themselves, has become deeply institutionalized. Since eliminating such an entrenched norm is politically costly and often infeasible, authoritarian actors instead seek to appropriate and denaturalize it. Most lack the resources required for outright removal and therefore rely on strategies that reshape rather than reject institutionalized practices.
This dynamic is visible in the growing “shadow market” of zombie observation, where autocracies both supply and demand permissive monitoring that relativizes liberal standards and weakens their normative authority (Bettiza and Lewis, 2020). Unlike norm-building, where democratic actors promote universal standards of electoral integrity, norm capture occurs when authoritarian states or coalitions use established norms to advance alternative interpretations and political objectives. Election observation is not rejected but strategically redefined. As research on norm diffusion shows, international monitoring has become part of the global repertoire of legitimacy (Santa-Cruz, 2005; Hyde, 2011), and this institutionalization creates opportunities for exploitation.
Studies of “shadow observers” demonstrate how authoritarian and hybrid regimes reproduce the appearance of liberal monitoring while altering its meaning (Morgenbesser, 2016). The struggle is therefore less about rejecting norms than about controlling interpretive authority. As Percy and Sandholtz (2022) note, norms rarely disappear; instead, they are transformed, modified, or absorbed into new normative constellations. Norm capture follows this logic: the norm survives, but its epistemic and evaluative functions are redistributed.
Capture also depends on actors’ institutional position within the monitoring supply mechanism. When authoritarian states provide observation missions, they can create parallel infrastructures of legitimation that compete with democratic standards. This multiplication of evaluative authorities reduces the likelihood of convergence around a single critical assessment. Literature on norm contestation similarly emphasizes that diffusion depends on internal and external competition over meaning (Dandashly and Noutcheva, 2022). This way, capture represents a form of institutionalized contestation in which monitoring is preserved while its normative content is altered.
Evidence from EU election observation in Africa highlights this dual dynamic (Ronceray, 2017). The EU promotes standards of electoral integrity as a normative actor, while host regimes use observation to gain legitimacy while restricting mission access and influence. In such contexts, capture appears not only through alternative monitoring organizations but also through the controlled management of mandates, access, and information.
Norm capture in electoral monitoring should therefore be understood as a strategic redistribution of interpretive power under conditions where the norm itself is too institutionalized to eliminate. Unlike simple non-compliance or erosion, capture preserves the norm’s external form while transforming its functional consequences. It demonstrates that normative stability can coexist with significant shifts in meaning and political effect (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
3.4 Neutralization
Although analytically distinct, norm capture and neutralization should be understood as interconnected dimensions of authoritarian adaptation to entrenched international norms. Capture primarily operates on the supply side by reshaping the meaning and evaluative content of election observation, whereas neutralization operates on the demand side by fragmenting interpretive authority and preventing convergence around a single authoritative assessment. In practice, captured monitoring structures often become instruments for implementing neutralization. This relationship helps explain a central paradox of electoral authoritarianism: authoritarian governments are not typically expected to admit missions capable of exposing electoral manipulation (Hyde, 2011; Kelley, 2012; Daxecker and Schneider, 2014). Evidence further suggests that boycotts of “dirty” elections increase when international monitors are present (Kelley, 2011). Rather than excluding observation altogether, many regimes instead manage who observes, under what conditions, and with what authority.
Elections in authoritarian contexts generate both benefits and risks. They can provide legitimation and information about the social climate (Mozaffar and Schedler, 2002), but they also create opportunities for international scrutiny and democratic pressure. Excluding observers entirely may undermine the legitimating benefits of elections (Daxecker and Schneider, 2014; Mochtak et al., 2021). Consequently, authoritarian regimes address this dilemma through zombie observation.
The mechanism is more complex than simple replacement. Although permissive observation does not necessarily increase legitimacy, competing reports can neutralize the societal effects of critical evaluations (Hyde and Marinov, 2014). Zombie missions increase the number of observers and reports, creating interpretive noise that weakens the impact of criticism (Daxecker and Schneider, 2014; Donno, 2013b; Bush et al., 2025). From this perspective, neutralization should not be understood solely as a posterior response to criticism. Recent cases suggest that it may also operate anticipatorily by restricting independent observers, preventing authoritative criticism from emerging. In this variant, indulgent missions do more than counterbalance negative assessments; they occupy the interpretive space left by excluded observers, generating favorable or ambiguous narratives that dampen external critique before it consolidates. Neutralization thus functions both reactively—through competing judgments—and proactively, by shaping the observation field in advance.
If high-quality monitoring raises the costs of sustaining pseudo-democratic regimes, zombie monitoring reduces them (Bush et al., 2025). This produces a symbiotic relationship between the supply and demand of monitoring within authoritarian settings: suppliers use permissive observation to advance international positioning, while demand-side regimes use it to manage domestic consequences (see Figure 2).
Figure 2
To apply this framework empirically, neutralization must be specified in terms of observable practices. When an authoritarian regime occupies the demand-side position, the model predicts structured patterns of observer selection, access control, and evaluative divergence. Although the literature identifies its strategic logic—noise production, parallel reporting, and reputational buffering—the mechanisms through which neutralization operates remain underspecified. It is therefore necessary to clarify what constitutes evidence of neutralization beyond the mere coexistence of multiple monitoring missions.
Although norm capture and neutralization may coexist, they differ analytically. Norm capture is primarily supply-driven and seeks to redefine a norm’s content by generating alternative standards of legitimacy. Neutralization, by contrast, is demand-driven and aims not to alter the norm itself but to prevent interpretive convergence. Its outcome is a structured plurality of assessments in which no single evaluation acquires decisive authority. While capture reshapes normative meaning, neutralization reorganizes interpretive authority without changing the norm’s substantive core.
A central empirical challenge is distinguishing strategically degraded monitoring from ordinary variation in mission quality. Not all low-quality observations are intentional; institutional limitations, resource constraints, and methodological weaknesses may also produce biased outcomes. The distinction proposed here is therefore not between perfect and imperfect observation, but between degradation as an unintended effect and degradation as a strategic objective. The two-dimensional model makes this distinction by linking regime type and actor position within the supply–demand structure to the logic governing monitoring.
Three observable features help identify strategic degradation. First, missions exhibit a consistent directional bias, yielding favorable assessments when high-credibility observers offer criticism. While organizations may possess ideological or institutional predispositions, these would normally vary across contexts. Persistent alignment with host-regime interests instead suggests a structured logic beyond organizational bias.
Second, these missions tend to appear where credible observers are excluded or constrained. Resource asymmetries alone cannot explain selective exclusion. The repeated pairing of restricted access for high-credibility missions with permissive conditions for alternative actors indicates deliberate management by the host regime, African Union (2020), Commonwealth Observer Group (2019), European Union Election Observation Mission (2018), European Union Election Observation Mission (2020).
Third, the recurrence of the same organizations across similar contexts reinforces this interpretation. If variation in monitoring quality resulted mainly from logistical or organizational differences, one would expect more dispersed patterns. Instead, repeated appearances in contexts marked by restricted access and fragmented evaluations suggest integration into a broader configuration.
Taken together, these features do not eliminate the possibility of overlap with alternative explanations, but they allow analysts to distinguish strategic degradation from organizational bias or resource limitations. In the cases examined, favorable evaluations repeatedly emerge from a narrow set of organizations while high-credibility missions face restriction or exclusion. The convergence of directional bias, observer selection, and actor recurrence points to systematic structuring rather than coincidence.
Tables 2, 3 operationalize neutralization by identifying its dimensions, observable indicators, and sources of evidence. Rather than treating neutralization as a single event, this framework conceptualizes it as a set of institutional, discursive, and procedural strategies that may operate reactively or anticipatorily. This operationalization strengthens the empirical leverage of the concept by clarifying how neutralization can be observed and compared across cases.
Table 2
| Dimension | Norm capture | Neutralization |
|---|---|---|
| Actor position | Supply side | Demand side |
| Objective | Redefine content | Prevent convergence |
| Strategy | Mimicry + reinterpretation | Fragmentation + access control |
| Outcome | Competing normative standard | Managed pluralism |
Norm capture and norm neutralization.
Table 3
| Dimension of neutralization | Observable indicator | What would count as empirical evidence? | Possible sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Institutional fragmentation | Multiplication of monitoring missions with heterogeneous standards | Parallel accreditation or invitation of multiple missions using divergent methodologies; absence of shared evaluative criteria; production of contrasting reports | Official resolutions, accreditation records, terms of reference, comparative analysis of mission reports |
| Selective restriction | Limitation or exclusion of high-credibility observers | Denial of visas or accreditation; territorial access restrictions; formal reduction of supervisory powers; delayed or conditional authorization | Diplomatic communications, accreditation registries, official correspondence, public complaints by organizations |
| Discursive delegitimation | Narrative framing that denies evaluative authority | Official statements questioning the impartiality, competence, or legitimacy of observers; framing monitoring as foreign interference | Presidential speeches, government press releases, parliamentary debates, systematic content analysis |
| Strategic opacity | Ambiguity or lack of transparency in verifiable procedures | Unclear regulatory changes; delayed or incomplete publication of electoral data; restricted access to key procedural information | Legal reforms, electoral regulations, official databases, access-to-information requests |
Operationalization of neutralization.
4 Empirical section
Within the two-dimensional supply–demand model, neutralization primarily occurs when an authoritarian regime occupies the demand-side position in election observation. Unlike norm capture, the regime does not seek to redefine the norm but to manage its domestic consequences by fragmenting interpretive authority. Here, the empirical analysis examines recurring configurations of four dimensions of neutralization: institutional fragmentation, selective access restriction, discursive delegitimization, and strategic procedural opacity, as summarized in Table 4.
Table 4
| Dimension of neutralization | Observable indicator | Country and election evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Institutional fragmentation | Multiplication of monitoring missions with heterogeneous standards | Venezuela (2015, 2018): Coexistence of liberal-standard observers and Russian-linked missions (e.g., AFRIC) issuing permissive counter-reports that fragmented evaluative authority. Democratic Republic of Congo (2018): Alternative missions validated results despite substantial evidence of manipulation. Madagascar (2018): Russian-linked missions (CIS-EMO, AFRIC) operated alongside stricter observers, creating organizational and discursive fragmentation. Russia (2024): CEELA-linked and aligned foreign observers validated the process, counterposed to independent denunciations. |
| Selective restriction (anticipatory neutralization) | Limitation or exclusion of high-credibility observers | Venezuela (2024): EU and OAS missions excluded; limited presence allowed (Carter Center). Nicaragua (2021): Traditional observers replaced with “electoral companions,” reducing scrutiny. Belarus (2025): Controlled accreditation; cultivation of “independent observers” not attached to recognized missions. |
| Discursive delegitimation | Narrative framing denying evaluative authority | Russia (2024): Independent monitoring framed as biased; official narrative emphasized order, legality, and sovereignty. Venezuela (2024): The government rejected “interventionist actions” and framed critiques as foreign interference. Nicaragua (2021): U.S., EU, and OAS criticism dismissed; election reframed as sovereign process. Belarus (2025): Western criticism labeled biased interference; the election was framed as “electoral sovereignty.” |
| Strategic opacity | Ambiguity or lack of transparency in verifiable procedures | Venezuela (2024): Refusal to publish disaggregated tally sheets; reliance on official aggregation. Russia (2024): Expansion of three-day and remote electronic voting systems criticized as unverifiable. Belarus (2025): Controlled accreditation and limited independent verification. |
Patterns of neutralization.
Sources: authors’ own elaboration based on Al Jazeera (2018, 2021), Amani Africa (2018), Americas Quarterly (2021), Anadolu Agency (2024), Associated Press (2021, 2024), Belarus 24 (2025), Belarus.by (2025), BelTA (2025a,b), Bloomberg (2019), Boyashov (2025), EFE (2024), European External Action Service (2024, 2025), Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (2025), CSTO Parliamentary Assembly (2025), European Platform for Democratic Elections (2024, 2025a,b), African Union (2020), Commonwealth Observer Group (2019), European Union Election Observation Mission (2018), European Union Election Observation Mission (2020).
Although the focus is neutralization, several cases also demonstrate its interaction with norm capture. In practice, authoritarian regimes frequently combine demand-side fragmentation with supply-side monitoring infrastructures that can produce permissive or competing assessments. The cases thus illustrate both neutralization and the supporting role of captured observation structures.
Empirically, neutralization does not reject election observation; it fragments interpretive authority while preserving the norm’s institutional form. International presence remains, yet the conditions of observation are altered to prevent a single authoritative assessment of electoral quality. Earlier cases show a reactive form of neutralization, responding to criticism already expressed; more recent cases reveal a proactive form in which the observation field is structured before interpretive convergence becomes possible.
In Venezuela during the 2015 and 2018 electoral cycles, critical international assessments coexisted with alternative missions linked to Russian observation networks, whose reports acknowledged irregularities but framed elections as legally valid. A similar pattern appeared in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2018, where competing evaluations prevented a unified international verdict. In these cases, criticism persisted, but its political impact was diluted through parallel reporting and fragmented authority.
More recent cases illustrate anticipatory neutralization. In Venezuela’s 2024 presidential election, the European Union and the Organization of American States missions were excluded, while politically aligned observers remained. In 2021, Nicaragua reclassified observers as “accompanying” actors, thereby limiting evaluative authority. In Russia in 2024, the absence of the OSCE/ODIHR was accompanied by CIS and allied missions that emphasized transparency and competitiveness. Belarus in 2025 similarly structured accreditation to favor actors outside recognized monitoring frameworks. Here, neutralization prevented criticism from institutionalizing by shaping the observation environment in advance.
Across cases, four mechanisms recur. First, institutional fragmentation occurs through parallel accreditation of missions using different standards. In Mozambique, Madagascar, Russia, and Venezuela, high-standard missions coexisted with organizations focused only on formal legal compliance, generating competing claims of legitimacy.
Second, selective access restriction limits the capacity of authoritative observers. Through accreditation rules, territorial constraints, and procedural limitations, regimes redistribute interpretive opportunities without eliminating international presence.
Third, discursive delegitimization frames criticism as interference or bias. Official narratives emphasize sovereignty, legality, and stability, while favorable reports reinforce procedural correctness. Contestation thus shifts from electoral conduct to disputes over interpretive authority.
Fourth, strategic procedural opacity complicates verification. Multi-day or remote voting, restricted access to protocols, and delayed publication of data weaken observers’ ability to reach definitive conclusions. Observation remains institutionally present, but its capacity to generate interpretive closure declines.
Together, these mechanisms produce a structured pluralism of assessments. Criticism coexists with confirming verdicts, international actors diverge, domestic opposition lacks unified external validation, and coordinated international pressure becomes more difficult. Neutralization, therefore, operates not through rejection of the norm but through fragmentation of its consequences. The norm remains formally intact while its ability to generate binding political conclusions is weakened.
Across heterogeneous cases, neutralization displays a consistent configuration. International observation is maintained, but its institutional and procedural conditions are modified to prevent the emergence of a single interpretive center. Although the instruments vary—from parallel accreditation to exclusion or opacity—the recurring pattern of fragmented assessments strengthens the analytical validity of neutralization as a mechanism.
5 Conclusion
This study demonstrates that the resilience of international electoral observation should not be taken as automatic evidence of the normative strength of the liberal order. Under conditions of electoral authoritarianism, an entrenched norm can be institutionally preserved while simultaneously being subject to strategic management. The introduced concept of neutralization demonstrates that norms can not only be observed, contested, or eroded, but also fragmented at the level of interpretive authority. Authoritarian regimes adapt to institutionally inescapable norms not by formally denying them, but by preventing them from producing mandatory interpretive “closure.” Theoretically, this requires rethinking the “compliance-resistance” dichotomy and shifting the analytical focus to the struggle for epistemic authority in global governance. Empirically, this means that protecting the integrity of international observation requires not only preserving institutional forms but also protecting the criteria of interpretive authority. In a broader context, neutralization can be seen as a characteristic way of adapting authoritarian regimes to a deeply institutionalized international normative order: not the denial of a norm, but its managed neutralization.
The implications of neutralization also extend to domestic political dynamics. Opposition actors and civil society organizations often rely on external validation to transform allegations of fraud into politically consequential claims (Donno, 2013a; Bush, 2015). When interpretive authority becomes fragmented, criticism is not necessarily silenced, but its public and political resonance may be weakened. Competing assessments create ambiguity regarding electoral integrity, making it more difficult for domestic actors to consolidate pressure around a single authoritative verdict (von Borzyskowski, 2019).
This article contributes to the literature in two main ways. First, it conceptualizes election observation not simply as a mechanism of compliance or contestation, but as a field of competing interpretive authority. Second, it distinguishes neutralization from norm capture by locating both within a supply–demand framework of monitoring, thereby showing how authoritarian regimes manage entrenched norms without directly rejecting them.
One implication of this argument deserves particular emphasis. The analysis developed here does not treat the heterogeneity of the election observation field as a given background condition but as something that requires explanation. Not all instances of low-quality monitoring are strategically motivated; conflating the two risks obscures important analytical distinctions. The distinction this article draws—between degradation as an unintended effect of institutional limitations and degradation as a deliberate instrument of norm management—is analytically consequential. It is what separates neutralization from routine variation in mission quality and what allows the mechanism to be identified empirically rather than simply inferred from outcomes. The recurrence of the same actors across structurally similar cases, their systematic directional bias, and their tendency to appear precisely where high-credibility observers have been excluded are not incidental features of the field. They are the observable signature of a strategy. Recognizing this distinction matters not only for the study of electoral authoritarianism but for any research agenda concerned with the integrity of international monitoring as an institution.
A future research agenda involves in-depth empirical testing of the proposed concept. Detailed comparative case studies are needed to trace the mechanisms of neutralization across specific electoral cycles, including analyses of institutional decisions, discursive strategies, and configurations of international actors. It is also important to expand quantitative databases for observation missions, taking into account access parameters, mandates, and divergent final assessments, to operationalize the degree of fragmentation of interpretive power. An additional avenue could be to explore the impacts of neutralization on domestic political mobilization, international sanctions coordination, and transnational democracy networks. More broadly, future research should examine whether norm neutralization is specific to electoral monitoring or constitutes a broader strategy by which authoritarian regimes adapt to institutionalized international norms while preserving their formal legitimacy.
Statements
Author contributions
JM: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. VR: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. DA: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Generative AI tools were used exclusively for language editing and proofreading purposes. All substantive analytical and conceptual contributions are the responsibility of the authors.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AbadíaA. A.RouvinskiV. (2025). Exploring the global erosion of democracy: understanding multicausal threats and international dynamics. Front. Polit. Sci.7:1694804. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2025.1694804
2
African Union. (2020). Report of the African Union Election Observation Mission to the 15 October 2019 General Elections in the Republic of Mozambique. Addis Ababa: African Union. Available online at: https://au.int/sites/default/files/documents/38697-doc-report_of_the_african_union_election_observation_mission_to_the_15_november_2019_general_elections_in_the_republic_of_mozambique.pdf (Accessed March 31, 2026).
3
Al Jazeera. (2018). “Madagascar Election Observers Report ‘Very Minor’ Anomalies.” Available online at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/11/9/madagascar-election-observers-report-very-minor-anomalies (Accessed March 31, 2026).
4
Al Jazeera. (2021). “Under Fire for ‘Sham’ Vote, Nicaragua Begins Withdrawal from OAS.” Available online at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/19/under-fire-sham-elections-nicaragua-begins-withdrawal-from-oas (Accessed March 31, 2026).
5
Amani Africa (2018). Briefing on Madagascar. Available online at: https://amaniafrica-et.org/briefing-on-madagascar/ (Accessed March 31, 2026).
6
Americas Quarterly. (2021). “Nicaragua: How Latin America Reacted.” Available online at: https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/nicaragua-how-latin-america-reacted/ (Accessed March 31, 2026).
7
Anadolu Agency. (2024). “OIC Election Monitoring Group says Russia created opportunities to vote for all categories of citizens.” Available online at: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/oic-election-monitoring-group-says-russia-created-opportunities-to-vote-for-all-categories-of-citizens/3166434 (Accessed March 31, 2026).
8
AndersonC. J.BlaisA.BowlerS.DonovanT.ListhaugO. (2005). Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9
Associated Press. (2021). “OAS assembly condemns Nicaragua’s election as ‘Not Free’.” Available online at: https://apnews.com/article/daniel-ortega-mexico-nicaragua-elections-5520d1cf6a580078775112c5077a8a99 (Accessed March 31, 2026).
10
Associated Press. (2024). “Venezuela Election, as it happened: Maduro declared winner, González claims victory.” Available online at: https://apnews.com/live/venezuela-election-updates-maduro-machado-gonzalez (Accessed March 31, 2026).
11
Belarus 24 (2025). “President meets with Head of the CIS Observation Mission.” Available online at: https://belarus24.by/en/news/president/president-meets-with-head-of-the-cis-observation-mission/ (Accessed March 31, 2026).
12
Belarus.by. (2025). “Russia MFA Slams West’s Unfounded Statements on Belarus’ Election as Interference in Internal Affairs.” Available online at: https://eng.belta.by/politics/view/russia-mfa-slams-wests-unfounded-statements-on-belarus-election-as-interference-in-internal-affairs-165040-2025/ (Accessed March 31, 2026).
13
BelTA. (2025a). “CEC accredits 486 international observers to monitor Belarus’ election.” Available online at: https://www.belarus.by/en/press-center/belarus-presidential-election-news/cec-accredits-486-international-observers-to-monitor-belarus-election_i_0000184471.html (Accessed March 31, 2026).
14
BelTA. (2025b). “CIS observation mission: Belarus’ President Election was free, competitive.” Available online at: https://eng.belta.by/society/view/cis-observation-mission-belarus-president-election-was-free-competitive-165218-2025/ (Accessed March 31, 2026).
15
BettizaG.LewisD. (2020). Authoritarian powers and norm contestation in the liberal international order: theorizing the power politics of ideas and identity. J. Glob. Secur. Stud.5, 559–577. doi: 10.1093/jogss/ogz075
16
BirchS. (2011). Electoral Malpractice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17
BjornlundE. (2004). Beyond Free and Fair: Monitoring Elections and Building Democracy. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
18
BlaisA.GélineauF. (2007). Winning, losing and satisfaction with democracy. Polit. Stud.55, 425–441. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00659.x
19
Bloomberg. (2019). “Mozambique Opposition Claims ‘Mega Fraud’ After Election Rout.” Johannesburg: Daily Maverick. Available online at: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-10-21-mozambique-opposition-claims-mega-fraud-after-election-rout/ (Accessed March 31, 2026).
20
BoyashovA. (2025). “Main Goals of Sanctions against Belarusian Organisers of Elections and Results of the Restrictive Measures.” Opinions, Central Election Commission of the Republic of Belarus. Available online at: https://www.rec.gov.by/en/expert-community-en/view/anatoly-boyashov-37/
21
BushS. S. (2015). The Taming of Democracy Assistance: Why Democracy Promotion Does Not Confront Dictators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22
BushS. S.CottieroC.PratherL. (2025). Zombies ahead: explaining the rise of low-quality election monitoring. Rev. Int. Organ.20, 261–291. doi: 10.1007/s11558-024-09554-3
23
CheckelJ. T. (1999). Norms, institutions, and national identity in contemporary Europe. Int. Stud. Q.43, 84–114. doi: 10.1111/0020-8833.00112,
24
Commonwealth Observer Group. (2019). Mozambique Presidential, National and Provincial Assembly Elections, 15 October 2019: Report of the Commonwealth Observer Group. London: The Commonwealth. Available online at: https://pure.coventry.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/92566220/Mozambique_2019_COG_Report_0_1_.pdf (Accessed March 31, 2026).
25
CSTO Parliamentary Assembly. (2025). “Aleksandr Lukashenko: we demonstrated electoral sovereignty in practice.” Available online at: https://pacsto.org/events/aleksandr-lukashenko-my-pokazali-elektoralnyy-suverenitet-v (Accessed March 31, 2026).
26
DahlbergS.LindeJ. (2016). Losing happily? The mitigating effect of democracy and quality of government on the winner-loser gap in political support. Int. J. Public Adm.39, 652–664. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2016.1177831
27
DandashlyA.NoutchevaG. (2022). Conceptualizing norm diffusion and norm contestation in the European neighbourhood: introduction to the special issue. Democratization29, 415–432. doi: 10.1080/13510347.2021.2012161
28
DaxeckerU.SchneiderG. (2014). “Electoral observers: the implications of multiple monitors for electoral integrity,” in Advancing Electoral Integrity, eds. NorrisP.FrankR. W.Martínez i ComaF. (New York: Oxford University Press), 73–93.
29
DeitelhoffN.ZimmermannL. (2019). Norms under challenge: unpacking the dynamics of norm robustness. J. Glob. Secur. Stud.4, 2–17. doi: 10.1093/jogss/ogy041
30
DonnoD. (2013a). Defending Democratic Norms: International Actors and the Politics of Electoral Misconduct. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31
DonnoD. (2013b). Elections and democratization in authoritarian regimes. Am. J. Polit. Sci.57, 703–716. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12013
32
EFE. (2024). “Bukele Calls Maduro’s Re-Election a ‘Fraud.’” Antiguo Cuscatlán: La Prensa Gráfica. Available online at: https://www.laprensagrafica.com/elsalvador/Bukele-califica-de-fraude-las-elecciones-de-Venezuela-20240729-0043.html (Accessed March 31, 2026).
33
European External Action Service. (2024). “Venezuela: statement by high representative Josep Borrell on the presidential elections.” Available online at: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/venezuela-declaraci%C3%B3n-del-alto-representante-josep-borrell-sobre-las-elecciones-presidenciales_es (Accessed March 31, 2026).
34
European External Action Service. (2025). “Belarus: Joint Statement by the EU, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK on the Sham Presidential Elections.” Available online at: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/belarus-joint-statement-eu-australia-canada-new-zealand-and-uk-sham-presidential-elections_en (Accessed March 31, 2026).
35
European Platform for Democratic Elections. (2024). Fake International Observers and Experts at Russia’s Fraudulent 2024 “Presidential Election.”BerlinEPDE. Available online at: https://epde.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/EPDE_2024_FakeObservers_russia_updated.pdf
36
European Platform for Democratic Elections. (2025a). “Meet the Props: How Lukashenka’s fake observers tried to sell his Sham election.” Available online at: https://epde.org/?news=press-statement-meet-the-props-how-lukashenkas-fake-observers-tried-to-sell-his-sham-election (Accessed March 31, 2026).
37
European Platform for Democratic Elections. (2025b). Undermining Institutions: How the Kremlin Involves International Election Management Bodies in Fake Observation Activities. Berlin: EPDE. Available online at: https://epde.org/reports/new-report-undermining-institutions-how-the-kremlin-involves-international-election-management-bodies-in-fake-observation-activities/ (Accessed March 31, 2026).
38
European Union Election Observation Mission. (2018). Madagascar presidential election 2018: final report. Available online at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/212496/Madagascar_presidential-election-2018_final-report_FR.pdf (Accessed March 31, 2026).
39
European Union Election Observation Mission. (2020). Republic of Mozambique Final Report: General and Provincial Assembly ElectionsMaputoEuropean Union. Available online at: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-eom-mozambique-2019-%E2%80%93-final-report-official-version_en (Accessed October 15, 2019)
40
FawnR. (2006). Battle over the box: international election observation missions, political competition and retrenchment in the post-soviet space. Int. Aff.82, 1133–1153. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2006.00592.x
41
FinnemoreM.SikkinkK. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. Int. Organ.52, 887–917. doi: 10.1162/002081898550789
42
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. (2025). 2025 presidential elections in Belarus: joint statement to the OSCE. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/2025-presidential-elections-in-belarus-joint-statement-to-the-osce (Accessed March 31, 2026).
43
HydeS. D. (2011). The Pseudo-Democrat’s Dilemma: Why Election Observation Became an International Norm. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
44
HydeS. D.MarinovN. (2014). Information and self-enforcing democracy: the role of international election observation. Int. Organ.68, 329–359. doi: 10.1017/S0020818313000465
45
KelleyJ. (2011). Do international election monitors increase or decrease opposition boycotts?Comp. Polit. Stud.44, 1527–1556. doi: 10.1177/0010414011399885
46
KelleyJ. G. (2012). Monitoring Democracy: When International Election Observation Works, and Why It Often Fails. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
47
KrookM. L.TrueJ. (2012). Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: the United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality. Eur. J. Int. Relat.18, 103–127. doi: 10.1177/1354066110380963
48
LevitskyS.WayL. A. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
49
LingL. H. M. (2001). Postcolonial International Relations: Conquest and Desire between Asia and the West. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
50
MilaneseJ. P.ManfrediL.Pérez RendónN. (2023). Efectos de la accesibilidad sobre la abstención electoral: Colombia, 2014–2018. Rev. Mex. Sociol.85, 857–890. doi: 10.22201/iis.01882503p.2023.4.61142
51
MilaneseJ. P.RouvinskiV. (2023). Observadores rusos en las elecciones latinoamericanas (2022). Available online at: https://transparenciaelectoral.org/blog/observadores-rusos-en-las-elecciones-latinoamericanas-2022/ (Accessed March 31, 2026).
52
MochtakM.LesschaeveC.GlaurdićJ. (2021). Voting and winning: perceptions of electoral integrity in consolidating democracies. Democratization28, 1423–1441. doi: 10.1080/13510347.2021.1918111
53
MorgenbesserL. (2016). Behind the façade: Elections under Authoritarianism in Southeast Asia. New York: State University of New York Press.
54
MozaffarS.SchedlerA. (2002). The comparative study of electoral governance. Int. Polit. Sci. Rev.23, 5–27. doi: 10.1177/0192512102023001001
55
NorrisP. (2015). Why Elections Fail. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56
PankeD.PetersohnU. (2016). Norm challenges and norm death: the inexplicable?Coop. Conflict51, 3–19. doi: 10.1177/0010836715597948
57
PercyS. V.SandholtzW. (2022). Why norms rarely die. Eur. J. Int. Relat.28, 934–954. doi: 10.1177/13540661221126018
58
PlanchueloV. C. P. (2023). Celebrar elecciones para elegir a los representantes políticos es una costumbre internacional. [Holding elections to elect political representatives is an international custom]. Rev. Tribuna Int.12, 85–114. doi: 10.5354/0719-482X.2023.70337
59
PollakM. (2025). Mimicking election observation: the politics of parallel election monitoring. Elect. Law J. Rules Polit. Policy24, 172–196. doi: 10.1089/elj.2024.0012
60
RisseT.RoppS. C.SikkinkK. (2013). The Persistent Power of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61
RoncerayM. (2017). “A bureaucratic bias? EU election observation missions in Africa: between independence and development industry.” EU Diplomacy Papers 3/2017, College of Europe. Available online at: https://www.coleurope.eu/research-paper/bureaucratic-bias-eu-election-observation-missions-africa-between-independence-and (Accessed February 20, 2017)
62
RouvinskiV.MilaneseJ. P. (2024). It takes two to tango: electoral monitoring by and in authoritarian states, the case of Venezuela. Lat. Am. Policy15, 710–716. doi: 10.1111/lamp.12364
63
Santa-CruzA. (2005). Constitutional structures, sovereignty, and the emergence of norms: the case of international election monitoring. Int. Organ.59, 663–693. doi: 10.1017/S002081830505023X
64
SendingO. J. (2015). The Politics of Expertise: Competing for Authority in Global Governance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
65
van HamC.LindbergS. I. (2015). From sticks to carrots: electoral manipulation in Africa, 1986–2012. Gov. Oppos.50, 521–548. doi: 10.1017/gov.2015.6,
66
von BorzyskowskiI. (2019). The Credibility Challenge: How Democracy Aid Influences Election Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67
WalkerC.CooleyA. (2013). Vote of the living dead. Foreign policy. Available online at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/10/31/vote-of-the-living-dead/ (accessed March 31, 2026).
68
WienerA. (2004). Contested compliance: interventions on the normative structure of world politics. Eur. J. Int. Relat.10, 189–234. doi: 10.1177/1354066104042934
69
ZürnM. (2018). A Theory of Global Governance: Authority, Legitimacy, and Contestation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Summary
Keywords
electoral authoritarianism, epistemic authority, global governance, international election observation, international norms, neutralization, norm capture
Citation
Milanese JP, Rouvinski V and Albarracín Cuervo D (2026) Beyond compliance and resistance: neutralization and norm capture in international election observation. Front. Polit. Sci. 8:1820829. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2026.1820829
Received
01 March 2026
Revised
28 April 2026
Accepted
14 May 2026
Published
02 June 2026
Volume
8 - 2026
Edited by
Régis Dandoy, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Ecuador
Reviewed by
Rick Fawn, University of St Andrews, United Kingdom
Facundo Galván, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Milanese, Rouvinski and Albarracín Cuervo.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Juan Pablo Milanese, jmilanese@icesi.edu.co
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.