Neurorights as Constitutional Rights: Enforcement Gaps in Chile and Lessons for Comparative Neurodata Governance

Abstract

Chile's Law No. 21.383 (2021) is widely cited as the first constitutional intervention explicitly safeguarding brain activity and derived information, but evidence on its enforceability remains limited. This article asks not whether neurorights should be constitutionalized, but under what institutional conditions constitutionalization produces effective protection. We use three methods: doctrinal analysis of Law No. 21.383, six-dimension institutional capacity assessment, and mechanism-based diffusion analysis with tiered evidence coding (E0-E3). We show that Chile exemplifies a broader structural condition---Rights-Without-Infrastructure Syndrome (RWIS)---in which three of four institutional links remain broken despite constitutional recognition. The central implication is conditional: constitutional recognition is most effective when synchronized with implementing legislation, designated oversight authority, and adaptive technical standards.