constitutional traditions and the willingness of state institutions to assert their own
authority in the face of supra-nationalisation.
Other less ambiguous signs of a backlash against internationalisation are provided
by regional arrangements, with longer-term implications for the extent of conver-
gence. Examples include the threat by Venezuela to withdraw from the Inter-
American Commission on Human Rights;^98 the effective dissolution of the South
African Development Community Tribunal following refusal by Zimbabwe to
comply with a ruling;^99 and a variety of debates within the United Kingdom about
how to enhance the ‘Britishness’ of the Human Rights Act 1998 , whether by enacting
a specifically UK bill of rights,^100 reducing the effective authority of the European
Court of Human Rights,^101 or accepting that a ‘distinctively British human rights
jurisprudence’ might develop through the interpretation of the rights incorporated
by the Human Rights Act.^102 The UK has always been exceptional in the European
rights debate and the motives of both Venezuela and Zimbabwe are questionable in
these cases. Nevertheless, collectively, these examples point to nascent discomfort of
some member states with supra-national rights protection in three different regions
of the world. Similar reactions can be traced in the field of constitution-making.
Again in Zimbabwe, there has been criticism of ‘interference’ by the United Nations
Development Programme in the constitution-making process because of the
involvement of a South African as a ‘technical expert’,
103
Hungary effectively
ignored criticism of its new constitution by the Venice Commission before bringing
it into effect,
104
and a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood was reported to have
rejected foreign ‘help’ in drawing up the new constitution in Egypt.
(^105) At the very
least, these and other similar examples illustrate a continuing tension between
the authority of a state and the forces for internationalisation that sometimes, at least,
is resolved in favour of local difference.
(^98) Doug Cassel, ‘Will Chavez remove Venezuela from the Inter-American Commission?’,
Opinio Juris, 11 May 2012.
(^99) Ariranga G. Pillay, ‘SADC Tribunal dissolved by unanimous decision of SADC
leaders’, http://www.osisa.org/sites/default/files/article/files/Speech% 20 by% 20 former% 20 Presi-
dent% 20 of% 20 SADC% 20 Tribunal.pdf.
(^100) Commission on a Bill of Rights, ‘Do we need a UK bill of rights?’, discussion paper, August
2011.
(^101) Draft Brighton Declaration presented to the High Level Conference on the Future of the
European Court of Human Rights, 23 February 2012.
(^102) Brenda Hale, ‘Argentoratum Locutum: is Strasbourg or the Supreme Court supreme?’
( 2012 ) 12 Human Rights Law Review 65 at 78.
(^103) ‘New Zimbabwe constitution in limbo following UNDP interference’,Africa Legal Brief,
7 March 2012.
(^104) European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Opinion on
the New Constitution of Hungary, opinion no 621 / 2011 and Position of the Government of
Hungary on the Opinion on the new Constitution of Hungary, available atwww.venice.
coe.int/site/dynamics/N_Opinion_ef.asp?L=E&OID= 621 (viewed 30 July 2012 ).
(^105) Hussien Mahmoud, ‘Heshmat rejects foreign interference in drafting Constitution’,
Ikhwanweb, 23 February 2012.