Most countries believed that international monitoring of elections constitutes a violation of their national sovereignty. These countries were keen to prevent the violation of their sovereignty, not to adopt the idea of international monitoring of the elections, and to refuse to accept it. It may be a tool in the hands of the major powers to achieve their interests under the pretext of promoting democracy and protecting human rights. On the other hand, many countries supported and adopted this idea and included it in their internal legislation. Because of its importance in promoting democracy, protecting human rights, and expressing states' solidarity to maintain international peace. Therefore, the problem of the study revolves around clarifying the extent to which international monitoring of elections affects the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of countries, and how international committees can exercise them as a means to protect human rights without compromising national sovereignty. The researcher used the descriptive-analytical method of legal texts related to international control and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of countries. The study concluded that international monitoring is one of the international mechanisms that work to strengthen democracy and protect human rights without compromising national sovereignty. However, it is not in itself evidence of the democracy of a particular political system. The study concluded with a number of proposals, most notably: the need for countries to adopt electoral systems that guarantee fair elections in accordance with international standards for democratic elections. And work on setting explicit and clear goals and plans for international monitoring, by separating the monitoring work from other work.
Al-A&#;meri et al. (Wed,) studied this question.