| Summary: | 對於已開發國家而言，都市土地的開發往往趨於飽和，因此多藉助舊有土地再開發之策略增加居住或者使用空間，並以此為「公共利益」而證立其正當性。然而，開發行為亦涉及諸多對人權之干預，尤其在強制拆遷的執行上，一方面侵害既有居住者之私人與家庭生活，另方面則因欠缺程序權保障而徒增糾紛。同時，因為臺灣當前對強制拆遷之司法論述，仍聚焦於財產權範疇，而使司法人權保障難以及於非正式住居者。
本文擬以非正式住居之居住權保障為中心，整合人權法治與政治思想，透過國際人權法與當代正義理論的詮釋，以討論公權力主張公共利益執行強制拆遷之界限。本文主張，衡平權利衝突之公共利益，應進一步以差異政治之觀點加以審視。法律做為一種權利保障機制，應避免制度設計對於對社會弱勢形成壓迫、支配。故自承認政治的觀點出發，非正式住居者亦應受正當法律程序保障，才是社會正義實踐之基礎。
=== For developed countries, urban region was overdeveloped. Facing with this condition, the government used to resort to the strategy of urban renew, trying to make the most efficient use of the urban land and claim the renew project was based on the public interest. However, the urban renew project execution often violate the human right condition, especially the execution of forced eviction. In Taiwan, the government disobeyed the due process principle, infringed the right to respect for private and family life. The process also resulted the conflict between government and citizens.
Such kind of dilemma reveals that the legal protection of housing right was limited primarily to the property rights, and it’s also the reason why informal settlement resident in Taiwan still couldn’t acquire the legal protection. In this article, we will focus on the housing right of the informal settlement and ascertain the boundary of the public interest in which created by urban renew, by the international humanitarian law and contemporary justice theory perspectives. In the end, from the point of the politics of difference, we consider that the informal-settled resident still should have the legal due process protection. The law should protect the social vulnerable from the oppression and domination of the injustice institution.
|
|---|
