The Public International Law and Policy Group (PILPG) advises parties in peace negotiations, on drafting post-conflict constitutions, and assists in prosecuting war criminals. As part of this work, PILPG assists States in establishing and implementing electoral systems that meet international standards for democratic elections, and undertakes election monitoring. Free and fair elections are crucial for the legitimacy of democratic States and are protected by human rights law. The present article focuses on the issue of the franchise and on the restrictions permitted under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Specifically, this article addresses franchise restrictions on non-resident citizens across ECHR member States. Setting out the protections for the franchise in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 ECHR, this article analyses the permissible limitations on those rights according to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The article presents a comparative analysis of other voting rights cases, such as the limitations on prisoners’ franchise. After considering whether residency-based limitations pursue legitimate and proportionate aims, it questions whether blanket restrictions disenfranchising non-resident citizens should be permissible today. The article concludes by advocating the importance of an inclusive franchise for the legitimacy of democratic systems as well as the protection of individual rights, and inviting the ECtHR to revisit its jurisprudence on this topic.

中文翻译：

---

包容性民主：根据《欧洲人权公约》，对非居民公民的特权限制是对权利的不公正限制

国际公共法律和政策小组（PILPG）在和平谈判中为当事各方提供咨询，以起草冲突后的宪法，并协助起诉战争罪犯。作为这项工作的一部分，PILPG协助各国建立和实施符合国际民主选举标准的选举制度，并进行选举监督。自由和公正的选举对于民主国家的合法性至关重要，并受到人权法的保护。本文重点讨论专利权问题以及《欧洲人权公约》（ECHR）允许的限制。具体而言，本条款解决了ECHR成员国对非居民公民的特许经营限制。在《欧洲人权公约》第1号议定书第3条中规定了对专利权的保护，本文根据欧洲人权法院（ECtHR）的判例分析了这些权利的允许限制。文章对其他投票权案件进行了比较分析，例如对囚犯特权的限制。在考虑了基于居住权的限制是否追求合法和相称的目标之后，它质疑今天是否应允许剥夺非居民公民权利的全面限制。最后，文章主张建立包容性专营权对于民主制度的合法性以及保护个人权利的重要性，并邀请欧洲人权法院重新审视其在该主题上的判例。文章对其他投票权案件进行了比较分析，例如对囚犯特权的限制。在考虑了基于居住权的限制是否追求合法和相称的目标之后，它质疑今天是否应允许剥夺非居民公民权利的全面限制。最后，文章主张建立包容性专营权对于民主制度的合法性以及保护个人权利的重要性，并邀请欧洲人权法院重新审视其在该主题上的判例。文章对其他投票权案件进行了比较分析，例如对囚犯特权的限制。在考虑了基于居住权的限制是否追求合法和相称的目标之后，它质疑今天是否应允许剥夺非居民公民权利的全面限制。最后，文章主张建立包容性专营权对于民主制度的合法性以及保护个人权利的重要性，并邀请欧洲人权法院重新审视其在该主题上的判例。