This chapter has two main sections: Section 9.2 deals with two critiques of human rights-based judicial review based on the democratic thesis that law-makers should be accountable to the people they represent: (1) a rule of law objection, that the bills of rights are insufficiently specific and clear as to what they require and permit, and (2) a practical objection: that human rights judicial review is largely ineffective in promoting human rights goals. Section 9.3, argues (1) that the weaker ‘Dialogue’ or ‘Commonwealth’ versions of court-based human rights judicial review do not successfully evade either the rule of law or the efficacy critiques, and (2) that a better alternative is to institutionalise bills of rights as political constitutions involving mechanisms such as human rights-based legislative review of existing and prospective legislation.