<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-04-28T15:22:37Z</responseDate>
  <request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:verfassungsblog.de/62544" metadataPrefix="oai_dc">https://verfassungsblog.de/oai/repository/</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <header>
      <identifier>oai:verfassungsblog.de/62544</identifier>
      <datestamp>2022-01-17T06:46:43Z</datestamp>
      <setSpec>posts</setSpec>
    </header>
    <metadata>
      <dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
        <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.17176/20220117-105816-0</dc:identifier>
        <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/paper-constitutionalism/</dc:identifier>
        <dc:title>Paper Constitutionalism - The Constitutional Referendum in Serbia, Judicial Independence and the EU Accession Process</dc:title>
        <dc:creator>Miljojkovic, Teodora</dc:creator>
        <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
        <dc:date>2022-01-17</dc:date>
        <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>constitutional amendment</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>EU Accession</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>judicial independence</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Rule of Law</dc:subject>
        <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
        <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
        <dc:rights>CC BY-SA 4.0</dc:rights>
        <dc:description>On January 16, Serbian citizens voted in a referendum on constitutional changes concerning the guarantees of the judicial independence and organization of the judicial sector. According to preliminary results, 57, 4% of citizens voted for the reforms, while 41,6% voted against, with a turnout of not more than 30% of all registered voters. I would argue that constitutional amendments concerning the judiciary should have been postponed for two reasons.</dc:description>
      </dc>
    </metadata>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>
