<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<mods xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.7" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-7.xsd">
  <titleInfo>
    <title>Third Time’s A Charm? - Chile's Second Constituent Process</title>
  </titleInfo>
  <name type="personal" usage="primary">
    <namePart>Kaufmann, Rodrigo</namePart>
    <role>
      <roleTerm type="text">Author</roleTerm>
    </role>
    <role>
      <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">aut</roleTerm>
    </role>
  </name>
  <typeOfResource/>
  <genre authority="rdacontent">Text</genre>
  <originInfo>
    <place>
      <placeTerm type="code" authority="marccountry">xx#</placeTerm>
    </place>
    <dateIssued encoding="marc">2023</dateIssued>
  </originInfo>
  <originInfo eventType="publisher">
    <place>
      <placeTerm type="text"/>
    </place>
    <publisher>Verfassungsblog</publisher>
    <dateIssued>2023-12-11</dateIssued>
  </originInfo>
  <language>
    <languageTerm authority="iso639-2b" type="code">eng</languageTerm>
  </language>
  <physicalDescription>
    <form authority="marccategory">electronic resource</form>
    <form authority="marcsmd">remote</form>
    <form type="media" authority="rdamedia">Computermedien</form>
    <form type="carrier" authority="rdacarrier">Online-Ressource</form>
  </physicalDescription>
  <abstract displayLabel="Summary">The second process to draft a new constitutional text in Chile ended on November 7. A referendum to be held on December 17 will decide upon the fate of the constitutional proposal that resulted from it. Polls indicate that the proposal will be rejected, even if the option in favor of the proposal has been gaining support lately. Irrespective of the outcome of the referendum, it might be fair to say that this second version of the constituent process has already failed. In particular, I argue that just like the first draft, the second proposal seeks to constitutionally entrench the goals of the political factions that held the majority within the drafting organ, instead of providing a constitutional framework that would allow for broad self-governance based on the democratic principle.</abstract>
  <accessCondition type="use and reproduction">CC BY-SA 4.0</accessCondition>
  <note type="statement of responsibility">Kaufmann, Rodrigo</note>
  <subject>
    <topic>constituent process</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>constitution making</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>fundamental rights</topic>
  </subject>
  <classification authority="ddc" edition="23">342</classification>
  <location>
    <url displayLabel="raw object" usage="primary display">https://verfassungsblog.de/third-times-a-charm/</url>
  </location>
  <relatedItem type="host">
    <titleInfo>
      <title>Verfassungsblog</title>
    </titleInfo>
    <identifier type="issn">2366-7044</identifier>
    <name>
      <namePart>Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH</namePart>
    </name>
  </relatedItem>
  <identifier type="doi">10.59704/4522b8b0f3911495</identifier>
  <recordInfo>
    <recordCreationDate encoding="marc">231211</recordCreationDate>
    <recordIdentifier source="DE-Verfassungsblog">10.59704/4522b8b0f3911495</recordIdentifier>
    <recordOrigin>Converted from MARCXML to MODS version 3.7 using MARC21slim2MODS3-7.xsl
				(Revision 1.140 20200717)</recordOrigin>
  </recordInfo>
</mods>
