臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：人權途徑與居住權運動：臺北、香港公共住宅政策之研究
作者：劉恆君
作者(外文)：LIU, HENG-CHUN
校院名稱：東吳大學
系所名稱：政治學系
指導教授：黃秀端
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2023
主題關鍵詞：人權途徑；居住權運動；公共住宅；國際人權建制；適足的住房；Rights-based Approach；Housing Right Movement；Public Housing；International Human Rights Regime；Adequate Housing
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:6
全球都會人口在二十一世紀初首次超越鄉村人口，城市住宅問題日趨嚴重，尤其是在亞、非、拉丁美洲開發中國家。據聯合國統計，2030年都會人口將成長20億，低收入國家的城市人口增長約佔其中94%。成功的亞洲經濟發展模式，在富裕的大城市中卻不斷發生侵害居住權的人權議題，包括房屋商品化、迫遷、居住歧視等。本研究在此背景下，以權利途徑分析居住權運動與公共住房政策變遷之間的關係，並且以都市層級討論台北與香港的案例，說明不同脈絡之下居住權保障的發展。
香港、臺北是全球房價負擔比最高的前兩名城市，有著相似的文化與經濟發展經驗，但不同的歷史與政治體制顯示出國際人權規範對這兩地的居住權運動有著不同的影響。社會住宅推動聯盟自2010年成立以來，成功推動中央政府與臺北市共同施行社會住宅政策。2000年臺灣第一次政黨輪替之後，政治民主化趨向穩定，2009年通過《公民與政治權利國際公約及經濟社會與文化權利國際公約施行法》，引入國際人權建制，透過定期國家報告審查，進一步拓展居住權運動的政治機會。
香港較臺灣更早是國際人權社會的一員，港英政府時期，香港偕同適用兩個核心的國家人權公約規範，並透過英國政府提交國家報告，然而自1997年回歸中國之後，香港政治空間逐步限縮，使得公民社會在公屋政策以及都市迫遷問題更少能發揮作用。國際人權條約與監督報告機制對居住權的效果十分有限，從香港的公屋減租運動與司法覆核案來看，雖然香港適用《經濟、社會與文化權利國際公約》，然因未能建立完整的國內法律，因此法院只能援引部分相關國內法律，喪失對居住權的基本保障。
本研究認為擴大政治參與是落實居住權保障重要的一環。然而，臺北市居住權團體在決策過程中沒有建立起完整的制度化角色，因而無法進一步參與社會住宅政策的規劃與執行。而香港則受限於變動中的政治環境，居住權團體在2019年香港反送中運動之後只能退回到社區，提供貧困弱勢服務。
In the early 21st century, the world's urban population is more than rural population for the first time. The lack of sufficient housing has become increasingly a serious urban problem, especially in developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. According to statistics from the United Nations, urban population will grow by 2 billion in 2030, and low-income countries will account for about 94% of this growth. Despite successful economic development in Asia, human rights violations on urban residents continue to occur in wealthy cities, including housing commodification, forced eviction, and housing discrimination. Against this background, this study analyzes the relationships between the housing right movement and the changes on public housing policy through the rights-based approach, and discusses the cases of Taipei and Hong Kong to illustrate the development of the protection of housing right in different contexts.
Hong Kong and Taipei are two cities at the metropolitan level with the least affordable housing markets in the world. They have similar cultural and economic development experiences, but their different histories and political systems show that international human rights norms exert different influences on the housing right movement in these two places. Since its establishment in 2010, the Social Housing Advocacy Consortium in Taipei has successfully urged both the central government in Taiwan and the Taipei City to build more public housing. After Taiwan's first transfer political power in 2000, political democratization proceeded stably. The Act to Implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has introduced the international human rights regime into Taiwan. Through periodical reviews of the national reports by international experts, the political opportunities for the housing right movement have broadened.
In contrast, Hong Kong was a member of the international human rights community earlier than Taiwan. Under the rule of the British Hong Kong government, it had applied the two core international human rights covenants and submitted national reports through the British government. However, since its return to China in 1997, the political participation is increasingly limited and the civil society has less opportunities to play a role in public housing policy and urban evictions. International human rights treaties and monitoring and reporting mechanisms have very limited effects on the right to housing in Hong Kong. Judging from Hong Kong’s public housing rent reduction campaign and judicial review, although Hong Kong applies the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, it has not established comprehensive domestic laws, so the court can only invoke part of it, losing the basic protection of the right of residence.
This study argues that expanding political participation is an important part of implementing the protection of housing rights. Yet, as there is no institution for the disadvantaged groups to play a role in the decision-making process in Taipei, they cannot fully participate in the planning and implementation of social housing policies. For Hong Kong, it is limited by the changing political environments. After the anti-extradition movement in Hong Kong in 2019, the housing right groups can only retreat to the community to provide services for the poor and vulnerable.
一、西文書目
Allendoerfer, Michelle Giacobbe et al. 2020. “The Path of the Boomerang: Human Rights Campaigns, Third-Party Pressure, and Human Rights.” International Studies Quarterly 64, 1: 111-119.
Amenta, Edwin. 2006. When Movements Matter: The Townsend Plan and the Rise of Social Security. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Barry, Colin M. et al. 2013. “Avoiding the Spotlight: Human Rights Shaming and Foreign Direct Investment.” International Studies Quarterly 57, 3: 532-544.
Amenta, Edwin et al. 1992. “A Hero for the Aged? The Townsend Movement, the Political Mediation Model, and U.S. Old-Age Policy, 1934-1950.” American Journal of Sociology 98, 2: 308-339.
───. 2005. Age for Leisure? Political Mediation and the Impact of the Pension Movement on US old-age Policy. American Sociology Review 70: 516-538.
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Christine Mahoney. 2005. “Social Movements, the Rise of New Issues, and the Public Agenda.” Eds. by David S. Meyer et al. Routing the Opposition: Social Movements, Public Policy, and Democracy: 65–86. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bratt, Rachel G. et al. eds. 2006. A Right to Housing: Foundation for a New Social Agenda. Philadelphia PA: Temple University.
Brenner, Neil et al. eds. 2012. Cities for People, Not for Profit: Critical Urban Theory and the Right to the City. New York, NY: Routledge.
Burstein, Paul. 1985. Discrimination, Jobs and Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Castells, Manuel. 1983. The City and the Grassroots. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chatterjee, Partha. 2004. The Politics of Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Chen, Yi-Ling. 2011. “New Prospects for Social Rental Housing in Taiwan: The Role of Housing Affordability Crises and the Housing Movement.” International Journal of Housing Policy 11, 3: 305-318.
Costain, Anne N., and Steven Majstorovic. 1994. “Congress, Social Movements and Public Opinion: Multiple Origins of Women’s Rights Legislation.” Political Research Quarterly, 47: 111-135.
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations. 1996. Concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Hong Kong). E/C.12/1/Add.10.
Dai, Xinyuan. 2013. “The ‘Compliance Gap’ and the Efficacy of International Human Rights Institutions.” Eds. by Thomas Risse et al. The Persistent Power of Human Rights: From Commitment to Compliance: 85-102. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
DeMeritt, Jacqueline H. R. 2012. "International Organizations and Government Killing: Does Naming and Shaming Save Lives?" International Interactions 38, 5: 597-621.
Draaisma, J., and P. van Hoogstaten. 1983. “The Squatter Movement in Amsterdam.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 7: 405-416.
Earle, Lucy. 2012. “From Insurgent to Transgressive Citizenship: Housing, Social Movements and the Politics of Rights in São Paulo.” Journal of Latin American Studies 44, 1: 97-126.
Engels, Frederick. 2021 [1928]. The Housing Question. Paris: Foreign Languages Press.
Fisher, R. 1992. “Organizing in the Modern Metropolis: Considering New Social Movement Theory.” Journal of Urban History 18, 2: 222-237.
Gabel, Shirley Gatenio. 2016. A Rights-Based Approaches to Social Policy Analysis. New York, NY: Springer.
Gamson, William. 1990. The Strategy of Social Protest. Belmont, Califl.: Wadsworth.
Gatenio, Shirley. 2016. A Rights-Based Approach to Social Policy Analysis. New York, NY: Springer.
Giugni, Marco. 2004. Social Protest and Policy Change: Ecology, Antinuclear, and Peace Movements in Comparative Perspective. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Giugni, Marco, and Florence Passy. 1998. “Social Movements and Policy Change: Direct, Mediated, or Joint Effect?” In http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:103599. Latest update 20 July 2022.
Harloe, Michael. 1995. The People’s Home: Social Rented Housing in Europe and America. Blackwell, Oxford.
Harvey, David. 1973. Social Justice and the City. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
───. 1989. The Urban Experience. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
───. 1996. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell.
───. 2003. The New Imperialism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Harvey, David, and Wachsmuth David. 2012. “What is to be Done? And who the Hell is Going to do it? Eds. by Neil Brenner et al. Cities for People, Not for Profit: Critical Urban Theory and the Right to the City: 264-274. New York, NY: Routledge.
Holston, James. 2008. Disjunctions of Democracy and Modernity in Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hopkins, Keith. 1972. Hong Kong: the industrial colony; a political, social and economic survey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huang, Mab. 2020. Political Reform in Taiwan and the International Human Rights Regime. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Keck, Margarete, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Transnational Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Klandermans, Bert. 1984. “Mobilization and Participation: Social – Psychological Expansions of Resource Mobilization Theory.”American Sociological Review 49, 5: 583-600.
Kothari, Miloon. 2017. “2017 Review Meeting of the ROC’s Second Report Under ICESCR_Morning Clusters.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QEVr8_t14U&t=0s. Latest update 22 November 2022.
McAdam, Doung et al. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, John D., and Mayer N. Zald. 1977. “Resource Mobilization and Social Movement: A Practical Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 82, 6: 1212-1241.
Merry, Sally Engle. 2006. Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Murdie, Amanda. 2014. Help or Harm: The Human Security Effects of International NGOs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Passy, Florenc. 2009. “Charles Tilly’s Understanding of Contentious Politics: A Social Interactive Perspective for Social Science.” Swiss Political Science Review 15, 2: 351-359.
Pattillo, Mary. 2013. “Housing Commodity versus Rights.” Annual Review of Sociology 39: 509-531.
Peksen, Dursun, and A. Cooper Drury. 2009. “Economic Sanctions and Political Repression: Assessing the Impact of Coercive Diplomacy on Political Freedoms.” Human Rights Review 10, 3: 393-411.
Piven, Frances Fox. 2006. Challenging Authority: How Ordinary People Change America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Piven, Frances Fox, and Richard Cloward. 1977. Poor People’s Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail. New York: Random House.
Potepan, Michael J. 1996. “Explaining Intermetropolitan Variation in Housing Prices, Rents and Land Prices.” Real Estate Economics 24, 2: 219-245.
Risse, Thomas, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1999. “The Socialization of International Human Rights Norms into Domestic Practices: Introduction.” Eds. by Thomas Risse et al. The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change: 1-38. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Risse, Thomas et al. eds. 1999. The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
───. 2013. The Persistent Power of Human Rights: From Commitment to Compliance. Cambridge Studies in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rodríguez-Garavito, César. 2015. “Multiple Boomerangs: New models of Global Human Rights Advocacy.” OpenDemocracy. In https://uco-scu.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/886UCO_SCU/1qs85vv/cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1647100935. 22 November 2022.
Rolnik. 2013. “Late Neoliberalism: The Financialization of Homeownership and Housing Rights.” International Urban and Regional Research 37, 3: 1058-1066.
Sikkink, Kathryn, and Carrie Booth Walling. 2007. “The Impact of Human Rights Trials in Latin America.” Journal of Peace Research 44: 427-445.
Simmons, Beth A. 2009. Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. Massachusetts: Harvard University.
───. 2012. “Reflections on Mobilizing for Human Rights.” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 44: 729-750.
Skocpol, Theda. 1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
───. 2003. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman: University Oklahoma Press.
Snyder, Jack, and Leslie Vinjamuri. 2003-2004. “Trials and Errors. Principle and Pragmatism in Strategies of International Justice.” International Security 28, 3: 5-44.
Stone, Michael E. 2006“Social Ownership.” Eds. by Rachel G. Bratt et al. A Right to Housing: Foundation for a New Social Agenda: 240-260. Philadelphia PA: Temple University.
Swack, Michael. 2006. “Social Financing.” Eds. by Rachel G. Bratt et al. A Right to Housing: Foundation for a New Social Agenda: 261-278. Philadelphia PA: Temple University.
Tarrow, Sidney. 2011. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tilly, Charles and Sidney Tarrow. 2006. Contentious Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tilly, Charles. 1984. “Social Movements and National Politics.” Eds. By Charles Bright and Susan Harding. Statemaking and Social Movements: 297-317. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
───. 1999. “Conclusion: From Interactions to Outcomes in Social Movement.” Eds. by Marco Giugni et al. How Movements Matter: Theoretical and Comparative Studies Consequences of Social Movements: 253-270. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Urban Reform Institute and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. 2022. Demographia International Housing Affordability. In http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf. Latest update 22 November 2022.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2014. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352). New York, NY: United Nations.
───. 2019. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/420). New York, NY: United Nations.
UN-Habitat. 2002. Housing Rights Legislation: Review of International and National Legal Instruments. Nairobi: UNON Printshop.
───. 2016a. “Only 13% of World’s Cities Have Affordable Housing – According to New Research.” In https://unhabitat.org/only-13-of-worlds-cities-have-affordable-housing-according-to-new-research/. Latest update 22 November 2022.
───. 2016b. “Up for Slum Dwellers Transforming a Billion Lives Campaign Unveiled in Europe.” In https://unhabitat.org/up-for-slum-dwellers-transforming-a-billion-lives-campaign-unveiled-in-europe. Latest update 22 November 2022.
Walgrave, Steffan and Rens Vliegenthart. 2012. “The Complex Agenda-Setting Power of Protest: Demonstrations, Media, Parliament, Government, and Legislation in Belgium, 1993–2000.” Mobilization 17: 129-156.
Wood, Reed M. 2008. “A Hand Upon the Throat of the Nation? Economic Sanctions and State Repression, 1976–2001.” International Studies Quarterly 52, 3: 489-513.

二、中文書目
Marsh, David、Gerry Stoker等。2009。《政治學方法論與途徑》。陳義彥等譯。臺北：韋伯文化。
人權大步走。2013a。《對中華民國（臺灣）政府落實國際人權公約初次報告之審查國際獨立專家通過的結論性意見與建議》。https://www.humanrights.moj.gov.tw/media/12486/341611295471.pdf?mediaDL=true。2022/10/25。
───。2013b。《中華民國初次人權報告國際審查會議結論性意見發表會紀錄》。https://www.humanrights.moj.gov.tw/media/12488/3528502739.pdf?mediaDL=true。2022/10/25。
───。2013c。《回應81點結論性意見與建議之追蹤管考》。https://www.humanrights.moj.gov.tw/17725/17733/17760/17770/17776/Lpsimplelist。2022/10/25。
───。2017。《對中華民國（臺灣）政府關於落實國際人權公約第二次報告之審查：國際審查委員會通過的結論性意見與建議》。https://www.humanrights.moj.gov.tw/media/12295/3552004141607ed2b9.pdf?mediaDL=true。2022/10/25。
───。2022。《對中華民國（臺灣）政府落實國際人權公約第三次報告之審查：國際審查委員會通過的結論性意見與建議》。https://www.humanrights.moj.gov.tw/media/20212006/兩公約第三次國際審查結論性意見與建議-中文定稿版.pdf?mediaDL=true。2022/10/25。。
中華人民共和國香港特別行政區。1998。《行政長官1998年施政報告》。https://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/pa98/chinese/highc.htm。2022/10/25。
───。2013。《行政長官2013年施政報告》。https://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/2013/chi/index.html。2022/10/25。
───。2014。《長遠房屋策略》。香港：運輸及房屋局。https://www.hb.gov.hk/tc/policy/housing/policy/lths/LTHS201412.pdf。2022/10/25。
───。2022。《行政長官2022年施政報告》。https://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/2022/tc/policy.html。2022/11/25。
中華民國內政部營建署。2005。〈整體住宅政策（94.5.24核定版）〉。https://www.cpami.gov.tw/最新消息/業務新訊/10032-整體住宅政策(94-5-24核定版).html。2022/10/25。
內政部不動產資訊平台。2022a。〈111年第2季住宅資訊統計彙報全文〉。《住宅資訊統計彙報》。 https://pip.moi.gov.tw/Upload/Statistics/season/111Q2/111Q2_111年第2季住宅資訊統計彙報全文.pdf。2022/10/25。
───。2022b。〈社會住宅推動進度〉。 https://pip.moi.gov.tw/v3/b/SCRB0501.aspx?mode=7。2022/10/25。
王甫昌。1996。〈臺灣反對運動的共識動員：一九七九至一九八九兩次挑戰高峰的比較〉。《臺灣政治學刊》1， 1：129-209。
立法院公報處。1957。《立法院公報》第19會期第10期：114-115。
───。1975。〈「國民住宅條例」草案並廢止「興建國民住宅貸款條例」案審查案－廣泛討論－〉。《立法院公報》64，48：13-37。
江穎慧。2011。〈社會住宅的迷思〉。《新社會政策》，15：30-31。
行政院。2013。〈江揆聽取「國家人權報告推動辦理情形」報告〉。https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/9277F759E41CCD91/dbde68f9-b882-462b-9f2b-4958f1b36a0f。2022/10/25。
何明修、林秀幸。2011。《社會運動的年代：晚近二十年來的臺灣行動主張》。臺北市：群學。
何明修。2003。〈政治民主化與環境運動的制度化（1993-1999）〉。《台灣社會研究季刊》，50：217-275。
李念祖。2012。〈論依巴黎原則於監察院設置國家人權委員會〉。《台灣人權學刊》1，3：125-143。
周月清。2005。〈住宅與人權——「2004年國際住宅研究會議」與會心得〉。《社區發展季刊》，108：267-276。
周諾恆。2019。〈周諾恆：為了弱勢當衝組〉。《鏡週刊》。https://tw.news.yahoo.com/國兩制下的港人心聲11-周諾恆-為了弱勢當衝組-225849479.html 。2022/12/20。
林伯勛。2021。〈魔鬼藏在「簡章第六點」的細節裡：台北公宅抽籤可能沒有你想像的公平〉。《關鍵評論》。https://www.thenewslens.com/article/147781/fullpage。2022/10/25。
社會住宅推動聯盟。2020。〈致Jeroen Van Der Veer 我們最敬愛的朋友與社宅夥伴〉。http://socialhousingtw.blogspot.com/2020/12/jeroen-van-der-veer.html。2022/10/25。
───。2022。〈台灣社會住宅數量統計表_111.11月更新〉。http://socialhousingtw.blogspot.com/2010/08/blog-post_3164.html。2022/10/25。
青年拒當樓奴運動。2011。〈青年拒當樓奴運動宣言〉。http://noflatslave.blogspot.com/2011/07/blog-post_4750.html。2022/10/25。
施逸翔。2021。〈被控制的、還是獨立的人權委員會？〉。《台灣人權學刊》6，2：115-118。
───。2022。〈台灣的人權基礎建設，兩公約第三次國家報告審查後何去何從？〉。《台灣人權學刊》6，4：119-124。
香港地政總署。2021。《香港地理資料》。https://www.landsd.gov.hk/tc/resources/mapping-information/hk-geographic-data.html。2022/11/22。
香港房屋委員會。2022。〈香港房屋委員會資助房屋小組委員會議事備忘錄： 截至 2022年6月底一般公屋申請者安置情況的特別分析〉。https://www.housingauthority.gov.hk/tc/common/pdf/about-us/housing-authority/ha-paper-library/SHC32-22TC.pdf。2022/10/25。
香港政府新聞網。2002。〈房屋及規劃地政局局長孫明揚的聲明〉。https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200211/13/1113240.htm。2022/10/25。
───。2013。〈全面調高樓宇印花稅率〉。https://www.news.gov.hk/tc/categories/finance/html/2013/02/20130222_161421.shtml。2022/10/25。
香港特別行政區政府統計處。2022。《香港人口趨勢1991-2021》。香港：政府統計處。
香港特別行政區發展局等。2016。《新界北發展—初步概念》。https://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/p_study/comp_s/hk2030plus/TC/document/NTN_TC.pdf。2022/11/22。
香港特別行政區廉政公署。2022。〈廉署起訴二人涉嫌就元朗丁屋物業發展項目串謀詐騙地政總署〉。https://www.icac.org.hk/tc/press/index_id_1288.html。2022/10/25。
孫健智。2017。〈法庭上的居住權〉。《財團法人法律扶助基金會》。https://www.laf.org.tw/index.php?action=LAFBaoBao-detail&tag=232&id=27。2022/10/27。
徐世榮。1999。〈新社會運動、非營利組織、與社區意識的興起〉。《中國行政》，66：1-20。
徐亦甫。2018。〈兩種土地掠奪體制〉。國立臺灣大學社會科學院社會學系碩士論文。
崔雅慧。2018。〈公宅非鄰避設施 週邊最多漲3成〉。《蘋果日報》。2022/10/25。
巢運。2014。〈巢運總訴求說明（2014）〉。 https://housingov.blogspot.com/2015/02/blog-post.html。2022/10/25。
張宏業。2013。〈取消勾地制度乃明智之舉〉。《文匯報》。2013/03/05。
張金鶚。2016。《居住正義：你我都能實踐的理想》。 臺北市：天下出版。
郭秋永。2009。〈改造運動：政治哲學與政治科學〉。《東吳政治學報》27，3：1-64。
陳依雯。2009。〈國際無住屋運動入門資訊〉。Facebook 。OURs。https://www.facebook.com/notes/寶藏巖公社/國際無住屋運動入門資訊/310271058159/。2022/10/25。
陳杰等編。2015。《公共住房的未來：東西方的現狀與趨勢》。北京：中信出版集社。
陳美鈴。2011。〈臺灣社會住宅運動起源〉。《中華民國建築學會會刊雜誌》，63：21-24。http://www.architw.org.tw/ftp/magazine/mag63/p21-24.pdf。2022/10/27。
彭建文、張金鶚。1995。〈臺灣地區空屋現象與原因分析〉。《住宅學報》，3：45-71。
曾稚驊。2018。〈中介空間：臺灣社會住宅的制度與權力分析〉。臺北市：國立臺灣大學社會科學院社會學研究所碩士論文。
馮雅康。2016。《賦權的參與：再造都會民主》。李仰桓譯。新北市：五南。
黃秀端、林政楠。2012。〈國際人權體系與在地人權保障: 檢視香港種族歧視條例的立法過程〉。《台灣政治學刊》16，2：3-63。
黃奕瀠等。2014。〈住宅政策 25年只換來空城〉。《中時新聞網》。https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20140609000335-260102?chdtv 。2022/10/25。
黃脩閔。2019。〈意識報中的土地議題〉。《台大意識報》，100刊。http://cpaper-blog.blogspot.com/2019/12/blog-post_73.html。2022/10/30。
黃肇鴻。2019。〈香港丁權案關鍵：「傳統權益」論述從何而來？〉。《端傳媒》。https://theinitium.com/article/20190226-hongkong-new-territories-small-house-policy/ 。2019/02/26。
黃麗玲。2017。《紹興社區居住權簡報》。https://www.slideshare.net/OURsOURs/ss-79960342。2022/10/25。
楊穎仁等。2013。《拋磚記——回應新自由主憶的香港房屋運動》。香港：基層發展中心。
廖庭輝。2021。〈從無殼蝸牛到巢運：臺灣住宅運動的倡議模式形構與轉化〉。臺中：東海大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
臺北市政府。2014。《2014臺北市健全房市行動綱領》。臺北市：臺北市政府。https://www-ws.gov.taipei/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvcHVibGljL0F0dGFjaG1lbnQvNDEwNzE3NDQyMzUxLnBkZg%3D%3D&n=NDEwNzE3NDQyMzUxLnBkZg%3D%3D&icon=..pdf。2022/10/25。
趙麗霞。2015。〈公共住房政策在亞洲的可轉移性：香港—中國內地的個案研究〉。陳杰等編。《公共住房的未來：東西方的現狀與趨勢》：003-013。北京：中信出版集社。
聯合國人類住區規劃署編。2014 [2010]。《亞洲城市狀況報告2010/2011》。北京：中國建築工業出版社。
聯合國人權事務委員會。1995。《人權事務委員會的結論性意見──大不列顛及北愛爾蘭聯合王國（香港）》。CCPR/C/79/Add.57。https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2F79%2FAdd.57&Lang=zh。2022/10/25。
聯合國大會。1948。《世界人權宣言》。
───。1996。《經濟、社會與文化權利國際公約》。
顏永銘。2016。〈人權力量今猶在？──螺旋模式與規範社會化的反思〉。《中研院法學期刊》，19：253-283。
魏千峯。2012。〈為什麼我們需要國家人權委員會？〉。《台灣人權學刊》1，3：97-123。
蘇友辰。2002。〈論國家人權委員會的角色與地位〉。《國家政策季刊》1，2：1-23。
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：996（臺灣：995，外國：1） ／ 本年度總使用人次：3534422 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：69328988
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上