In order to make their dispute resolution services more accessible, the CPA adopted a policy to conclude “host country agreements” with the parties to the 1899 or 1907 Pacific International Dispute Settlement Agreement. The dispute resolution managed by the PCA includes arbitration, conciliation, conciliation and investigative commissions. By an agreement on the host country, the host country and the APC create a legal framework allowing the ad hoc implementation of future procedures managed by the APC on the territory of the host country, without the need for a permanent physical presence in that area. Dispute resolution procedures can be implemented by the CPA, whether or not they are implemented in accordance with the 1899 or 1907 Agreements on the Settlement of International Disputes in the Pacific or one of the optional rules of procedure of the CPA, thus guaranteeing the parties to the dispute the maximum procedural autonomy. Some host countries, such as Canada and some European countries, only allow external votes in embassies or consulates or by mail. When external votes are held in a country`s consulates or embassies, agreements with host countries are often not necessary. Although external surveys must be conducted by mail and vote, the need for agreements with host countries is less urgent. However, agreements may still be essential to ensure critical support from the host country. The process of establishing an FAO presence in a country is triggered by a formal request from the Member State and is subject to an agreement on the host country to be signed by the government and FAO (HCA). The actors who help implement campaign voting programmes and the parties who sign formal agreements with the country that organizes the elections are different. Agreements can be signed with host governments, UN missions, local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or third parties. The decision to create a new position is the prerogative of the Director General. The link with the country concerned is provided directly by the OSD, by FAOR in case of multiple approvals.
If external voters are refugees, agreements can also ensure that participation in elections does not become a means of repatriating these populations until the conditions for their return are met. Agreements may stipulate that the external voting programme does not prevent or delay the voluntary repatriation of refugees living in the host country. A number of semi-written measures between IOM and countries hosting Iraqi refugees contained a language to that effect to ensure that the principle of non-refoulement – the principle set out in the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees – that no state can deport or return a refugee to an area where his or her life or liberty would be threatened on the basis of race. Religion, nationality or political opinion — respected. On the other hand, in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the external vote was largely by post, the Dayton Agreements provided for the repatriation of refugees during the election period, noting that “the exercise of a refugee`s right to vote is interpreted as confirmation of his intention to return to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The return of refugees should be underway by election day, so that many people can participate personally. If an electoral process provides for the end of a peace agreement (and the end of humanitarian aid programmes and related refugees), the requirement for refugees to return to their country of origin to vote may violate the principle of non-refoulement.