Experimentalism in Northern Ireland: Learning during a Bill of Rights process

Northern Ireland benefits from the Human Rights Act 1998 but does not have a Bill of Rights. The story of what happened merits scrutiny. The Good Friday Agreement 1998 framed a project that witnessed multiple attempts to secure enactment. An advisory role for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was supplemented by a Bill of Rights Forum and, in recent years, the creation of an Ad Hoc Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly. These efforts produced extensive evidence and expert insights, combined with detailed practical proposals. Materials that risk being neglected. The participative civic and political engagements influenced mobilisations on other specific rights initiatives, pointing to the merits of such deliberative exercises even when the primary ambition is not achieved. A culture of experimentalism is evident. What has emerged—across the fields of equality and rights—is a patchwork of protections that demand a firm grasp of jurisdictional complexities and underline the pluralist nature of legal and political relationships on these islands. The UK Government never legislated for a Bill of Rights and recent events confirm many aspects of the existing stalemate. Brexit changed what it means to talk about the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, and the Windsor Framework embraces a "no diminution" obligation with special guarantees. Prominent discussions about constitutional change on the island of Ireland raise the question of mapping present reflections, and past work, onto any new arrangements that may emerge. It is a good time to pause and consider what can be gathered from the story thus far. The specific intention of this article is to draw out relevant lessons, keeping in view the limitations of generalising from such a subnational regional case study. Understanding how deliberations on a Bill of Rights were framed, the institutional mechanisms deployed to advance this collective effort, the nature of the disagreements, and the suggested proposals all remain of value. Not simply for those focusing on whether there is a future for the anticipated Bill of Rights—in whatever configurations develop—but, accepting the caveats noted, what this experience says about contemporary debates on rights discourse and the design of constitutional projects intended to deliver practical legal outcomes. My argument is that the evidence lends support to experimentalist accounts that place an emphasis on the impact and effectiveness of iterative and participatory processes.