| 摘要: | 中華民國於二O一三年主動舉辦類似條約之監督機制以進行報告審查會議，會議上由國際獨立專家作成多項結論性建議，其中第四十八點，針對政府未給予居民符合國際人權標準住房環境，要求政府應當重新審查都市更新條例。一九六七年，中華民國簽署經濟社會文化權利國際公約，又二OO九年中華民國所公布之公民與政治權利國際公約及經濟社會文化權利國際公約施行法第八條明文規定，中央及地方機關應在兩年內檢討改進國內的法規範，以符合經濟社會文化權利國際公約之規定。根據維也納條約法公約第十八條法理，中華民國當然伴隨著相當程度之國際義務產生。
本文以司法院大法官解釋第七O九號為論述核心，主張憲法第十五條生存權應當包含適足住房權。又，根據經濟社會文化權利委員會為闡明經濟社會文化權利國際公約第十一條第一項所著第四號一般性意見中所提出政府應當在「使用權之法律保障、基礎設施之可提供性、可支付性、適居性、易取得性、地點以及文化適當性」面向檢視都市更新條例是否符合經濟社會文化權利國際公約之適當住房。另外，就各締約國是否有效實踐經濟社會文化權利而言，第一「權利之尊重」，第二「權利之保護」，第三「權利之充足」，第四「權利之促進」，此四個層次面向加以檢視現行都市更新條例。本文肯定都市更新條例第六、七條具有真正公共利益，至於其餘非本於居民擁有主導權而任由建商擔任實施者，是否能夠使得人民享有居住權保障最低標準，實有重新檢討必要。經濟社會文化權利委員會所著第四號、第七號一般性意見中，確立締約國在實行強制驅離手段時，必須踐行實體與程序要件。因此，都市更新條例第三十六條第一項規定強制拆除，恐怕未對房屋及土地居住者提供盡可能最大使用保障；都市更新條例第三十六第二項規定殘餘價值補償，有不符合國際法及憲法所要求正當補償精神之虞。
In 2013, the Republic of China, in order to process the review session of its report on the present situation of the right to the Review Conference as a member of the United Nations would do, initiated a supervisory treaty-based mechanism, where International independent experts made several conclusive comments and suggestions. Among these conclusions, the Article 48 pointed out that the government did not provide a living environment which corresponds with the international standard based on humanity requirements. Besides, it requested that the government re-examine the Urban Renewal Act.
In 1967, the Republic of China has signed the International Convention for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights；further in 2009, it implemented the Act to Implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, of which Article 8 expressly requires that the central institution and local institution review and improve national laws and regulations within two years in order to conform to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.Based upon Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, the Republic of China should also abide by certain international obligations.
The thesis in the article focuses on J.Y. Interpretation No.709 and asserts that Article 15 of the constitution of the Republic of China, the right to life, should cover the right to adequate housing. Furthermore, according to the General Comments No.4 presented by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to interpret the Article 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, our government should examine whether our Urban Renewal Act comforms to the right to adequate housing from the aspects of legal security of tenure, availability of services, materials, facilities, affordability, habitability, accessibility, location and cultural adequacy.
In addition, as if checking whether those nations signing this Convention have put into practice effectively the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, this thesis aims to examine from these four aspects:
I, the Obligation to Respect the Right to Housing,
II, the Obligation to Protect the Right to Housing,
III, the Obligation to Fulfill the Right to Housing,
IV, the Obligation to Promote the Right to Housing.
As it turns out, this article approves of the Article 6 and 7, of the Urban Renal Act, for it covers real public interests. However, for the rest of the act, where not the residents but the contractors own hegemony, it remained to be seen whether they can ensure people’s right to the minimal satisfactory housing. Therefore, as the general comments No. 4 and 7 made by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have noted, the states should obey the legal process when implementing forced evictions.
Thus, the forced removal based on the Article 36, Paragraph 1, of the Urban Renal Act might prevent the government from providing the greatest possible security for the occupants of the land and housing. In addition, the residual value compensation in Article 36, Paragraph 2, of the Urban Renal Act is also inconsistent with International Law and the righteous compensation required by the spirit of the Constitution. |
