适足住房权可诉性研究

发布时间：2018-08-31 16:30

【摘要】：适足住房权（the right to adequate housing）不仅是一项基本人权，更是一项实然意义上的法律权利。“无救济则无权利”，在权利受到侵犯时，应当拥有合理的救济手段加以救济，尤其是司法救济或者准司法救济。然而，适足住房权的司法救济或准司法救济之路却坎坷不平，存在很多争议。为此，本文在厘清适足住房权和可诉性的基本概念基础之上，对否定适足住房权具有可诉性的理由进行梳理和分析，从而证明适足住房权具有可诉性。与此同时，，结合有关案例分析国际层面和国家层面实现适足住房权可诉性的运行机理，试图探寻我国实现适足住房权具有可诉性的可能路径。全文由绪论、正文和结语组成，其中正文共分为四个部分。第一部分是适足住房权可诉性的基本概念界定，主要是厘清适足住房权和可诉性两个概念的内涵。笔者认为，适足住房权的内容已经由联合国经社文权利委员会颁布的《第四号一般性意见：适足住房权》进行详细阐释，该解释具有规范性和权威性。因此，适足住房权的权利内容是明确的且各缔约国负有遵守的义务。同时，适足住房权的性质具有人权属性和法律属性。可诉性的概念不能作狭隘解释——仅仅理解为司法机关的裁判，而应当作广义的理解，除了司法机关的裁判以外，还包括准司法机构的裁判。简言之，可以理解为“将权利提交第三方裁决”。第二部分是适足住房权具有可诉性的理论证成。笔者梳理了否定适足住房权具有可诉性的理由，主要有四个方面，分别为积极权利不可诉、权利内容模糊、权利成本高昂和影响权力分立。笔者对这四个方面内容分别加以分析和批判，从而论证适足住房权具有可诉性。第三部分是适足住房权可诉性的司法实践。这部分主要是结合有关案例分析适足住房权可诉性的运行机理，从两个方面展开论述：一是国际和区际层面的准司法救济，包括联合国经社文权利委员会、欧洲社会权利委员会和其他人权监督机构；二是国家层面的司法救济，包括直接救济和间接救济。第四部分则是笔者试图探寻中国语境下适足住房权实现可诉性的可能路径。笔者认为，国际条约在我国的效力问题、行政诉讼受案范围的狭窄及宪法司法化难题阻碍着中国适足住房权的可诉性。在现实条件下，可以分层次实现适足住房权的可诉性，即尊重义务具有完全可诉性，保护义务具有部分可诉性，实现义务具有有限可诉性。与此同时，还需合理完善相关制度保障实施，主要有扩大行政诉讼的受案范围、建立公益诉讼制度和提高法院的司法能力。
[Abstract]:The right to adequate housing (the right to adequate housing) is not only a basic human right, but also a real legal right. "No remedy, no right", when the right is violated, there should be reasonable relief means, especially judicial relief or quasi-judicial relief. However, the judicial or quasi-judicial remedy of the right to adequate housing is bumpy and controversial. Therefore, on the basis of clarifying the basic concepts of the right to adequate housing and justiciability, this paper combs and analyzes the reasons why the right to adequate housing is actionable, thus proves that the right to adequate housing is actionable. At the same time, by analyzing the operational mechanism of the realization of the right to adequate housing at the international and national levels, the author tries to explore the possible path to the realization of the right to adequate housing in China. The full text consists of introduction, text and conclusion, in which the text is divided into four parts. The first part is the definition of the basic concept of the right to adequate housing justiciability, mainly to clarify the connotation of the two concepts of the right to adequate housing and justiciability. The author holds that the content of the right to adequate housing has been explained in detail by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its General comment No. 4: the right to adequate Housing, which is normative and authoritative. The right to adequate housing is therefore explicit and the obligation of States parties to comply is clear. At the same time, the nature of the right to adequate housing has human rights and legal attributes. The concept of justiciability cannot be narrowly interpreted-it should be understood only as a decision of a judicial organ, but as a broad understanding, including the decision of a quasi-judicial body, in addition to the decision of a judicial organ. In short, it can be understood as "submitting a right to a third party award". The second part is the theoretical proof that the right to adequate housing is actionable. The author combs the reasons why the right to adequate housing is actionable, mainly in four aspects: the positive right is non-actionable, the content of the right is vague, the cost of the right is high and the power separation is affected. The author analyzes and criticizes the four aspects, and proves that the right to adequate housing is actionable. The third part is the judicial practice of the justiciability of the right to adequate housing. This part mainly discusses the operational mechanism of the justiciability of the right to adequate housing in the light of relevant case studies: first, quasi-judicial remedies at the international and interregional levels, including the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, European Commission of Social Rights and other human rights monitoring bodies; second, judicial remedies at the national level, both direct and indirect. The fourth part is the author tries to explore the Chinese context of the right to adequate housing to achieve the possible path of litigability. The author believes that the validity of international treaties in China, the narrow scope of administrative litigation and the problem of constitutional judicature hinder the justiciability of the right to adequate housing in China. Under the realistic conditions, the right to adequate housing can be realized in different levels, that is, the obligation to respect is completely actionable, the obligation to protect is partially actionable, and the obligation to realize is limited. At the same time, it is necessary to improve the implementation of relevant systems reasonably, mainly to expand the scope of accepting cases in administrative proceedings, to establish the system of public interest litigation and to improve the judicial capacity of the courts.
【学位授予单位】：南京工业大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.29

【相似文献】