...standards for fair...? elections are established and election disputes maybe arbitrated by an international court. Leaders of nations not complying with those standards will not be recognized as the legitimate government of those nation by the other nations.

I view this as necessary because when leaders set their own election standards, they tend to favor the leaders then in power, thereby thwarting democracy. But when you set up standards for other countries, you tend not to have a direct interest in anything other than assuring that the leaders of other countries are answerable to their citizens. Of course, not all nations would agree at first, but if you also tie it to economic benefits, most of them will eventually come around because of the pressure from both the other nations and from within their nations. Furthermore, those that attempt to seize power by bypassing those standards, would be viewed by the other nations as no different than an invasion from another country and are authorized to use military force to restore democracy.

Just throwing this out there...
Joe, respectfully, you misunderstand how international law works. Yes, the Supreme Court is the final decider under US law, but we would be violating the treaty. The consequence of that is that other nations wouldn't necessarily recognize the Court's decision. This isn't a bad thing as the Supreme Court has always been political and it may consist of partisans you don't support someday. This encourages the Court to be fair to put aside their own political biases in its election rulings.