Rights to Housing: Reviewing the Terrain and Exploring a Way Forward
Rights to Housing: Reviewing the Terrain and Exploring a Way Forward
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/14036096.2014.923506
复制
发表时间：
2014-01-01
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Watts, Beth
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fitzpatrick, Suzanne;Bengtsson, Bo;Watts, Beth
由于住房作为一种福利商品的特殊性，关于住房、公民身份和权利的辩论十分复杂，往往令人困惑。本文试图澄清在住房、住所和无家可归问题上关于基于权利的办法的辩论。它侧重于“自然”权利和“社会构建”权利之间的哲学区别，并建议通过使用Martha Nussbaum的“核心人的能力”方法作为普遍人权的基础，可以找到一条看似合理的“第三条道路”。“公民身份”是作为关于权利的哲学论述与其在具体政治背景下的实际应用之间的概念桥梁提出的。为此，T。H.马歇尔对“公民”和“社会”公民权利的经典划分被转化为对住房的“法律的”和“方案的”权利的区分。该条表明，可以反对住房领域的自然权利和/或人权概念，但仍然赞成明确界定无家可归者和其他迫切需要者的住房法律的权利。相反，人们可能赞同普遍道德权利的论述，但对个人可强制执行的法律的权利所具有的所谓“原子化”影响持怀疑态度。
Exacerbated by the specificity of housing as a welfare good, debates on housing, citizenship and rights are complex and often confusing. This article attempts to clarify the debate on rights-based approaches in the field of housing, shelter and homelessness. It focuses on the philosophical distinction between "natural" and "socially constructed" rights, and suggests that a plausible "third way" may be found by using Martha Nussbaum's "central human capabilities" approach as a foundation for universal human rights. "Citizenship" is proposed as a conceptual bridge between the philosophical discourse on rights and its practical application in specific political contexts. For this purpose, T. H. Marshall's classic division between "civil" and "social" citizenship rights is translated into a distinction between "legal" and "programmatic" rights to housing. The article demonstrates that it is possible to object to the notion of natural and/or human rights in the housing field, and still be in favour of clearly delimited legal rights to housing for homeless people and others in acute need. Conversely, one may be in sympathy with the discourse of universal moral rights, but be sceptical about the allegedly "atomizing" implications of individually enforceable legal rights.