MADLANGA J Based on this, but – for the moment – leaving aside the question of the threshold,34 associations that fall within the positive element are protected by the right to freedom of association. Woolman says “[t]he eclectic grounds for associational freedom should strongly suggest that there are very few kinds of association which enjoy no constitutional protection”.35 Moving on, does an individual’s choice not to associate at all also enjoy protection under section 18 of the Constitution? Put differently, does section 18 protect the “negative right” not to be compelled to associate? Let me answer this question by taking a brief historical journey that extends beyond our jurisdiction. And I do so with section 39(1)(b) of the Constitution in mind. In terms of section 39(1)(b) it is obligatory for a court interpreting the Bill of Rights to consider international law. The historical discourse will entail a consideration of decisions of international courts on regional Conventions or Charters.36 The question whether freedom of association protects the negative element of the right came before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in a matter decided in 1981, the matter of Young.37 The case concerned former employees of the British Railways Board, the three applicants. The Board concluded a “closed shop” agreement with three unions.38 The consequence was that it became a condition of continued 34 Id. 35 Currie and de Waal above n 27 at 401-2. 36 According to S v Makwanyane [1995] ZACC 3; 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC); 1995 (6) BCLR 665 (CC) (Makwanyane) at para 35, international law includes international agreements, customary international law, “decisions of tribunals dealing with comparable instruments, such as the United Nations Committee on Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Commission on Human Rights, and the European Court of Human Rights”. Of course, in that case this Court was dealing with section 35(1) of the interim Constitution. But that matters not because the substance of that section does not differ from that of section 39(1)(b) of the Constitution. 37 Young, James and Webster v The United Kingdom, 13 August 1981, Series A no. 44. 38 The judgment describes a closed shop thus: “In essence, a closed shop is an undertaking or workplace in which, as a result of an agreement or arrangement between one or more trade unions and one or more employers or employers’ 14