COR Point 48 Right to Housing (ICESCR Article 11)
The State report only lists the principles of revisions to the Urban Renewal Act that have been proposed by the Executive Yuan. The State report does not mention the following: (a) the number of persons evicted due to urban renewal plans during the past five years; (b) details on how the proposed revisions would realize and bolster citizen rights and what methods will be adopted to avoid forced evictions; (c) a detailed comparison of the existing Urban Renewal Act and the draft package of revisions showing which articles still retain stipulations for forced eviction and bulk reward (the additional floor area permitted by the government as incentives); (d) details on the corrective mechanisms in the draft revisions to ensure the rights of effective participation for property owners, land owners, informal settlers and tenants; and, (e) methods adopted for the disposition of existing disputes. The above five points show that the Ministry of the Interior still neglects the rights of residence of residents in informal settlements and of tenants and has yet to carry out a re-examination of equality in rights of participation.
Although the Urban Renewal Act is in the process of revision, existing situations which contravene the ICESCR have not been resolved. Due to the principle of non-retroactivity, it will be impossible to apply the revised act to existing urban renewal cases and the right of residents will continue to be infringed in violation of the ICESCR even after the act is revised. However, neither legislative or executive agencies have proposed plans to deal with infringements, as described in Paragraphs 204-207 below.
Article 36 of the existing Urban Renewal Act which regulates forced removals or relocation is vague on the issue of necessity and thereby grants excessive administrative discretionary power, only permits objections to be raised about the timing of removal, the methods and negotiation of compensation and neglects the question of the rationality of removal. If consultations fail, residents only have the option of accepting forced removal. This situation contravenes Point 12 of General Comment 4 and Points 8, 9, 10 and 13 of General Comment 7 of the ICESCR.
Point 13 of General Comment 7 for the ICESCR mandates that “(S)tates parties shall ensure, prior to carrying out any evictions, and particularly those involving large groups, that all feasible alternatives are explored in consultation with the affected persons with a view to avoiding, or at least minimizing, the need to use force.” The term “consultation” if unintentionally becomes the last narrative before forced eviction, then it must be interpreted as a kind of equal dialogue without the threat of coercive methods as a shield. The existing Urban Renewal Act adopts a system under which a vote by the property-owning residents can decide whether to participate in urban renewal. If the majority is for participation, those residents who did not want to participate will face forcible eviction since their homes will be demolished. There may be some consultative processes before the evictions, but if we use the above interpretation of “consultations,” it is clear that if one side has the power to carry out forcible demolition, what is happening is not “consultation” but a kind of coercion. Therefore, the continuation of this system will contravene Point 13 of General Comment 7 of the ICESCR.
Article 6 of the ICESCR and Point 6 of General Comment 18 clearly stipulate that State parties recognize the right to work for each person. The current urban renewal system usually treats the original independent buildings as a new residential complex, causing residents who previously operated shops to be unable to continue to do business. The government has not put forward any measures to protect the right of work from harm due to urban renewal projects in contravention to the ICESCR.
Revisions of laws or regulations are still insufficient to meet the demands of the ICESCR. At present, the Legislative Yuan may approve draft revisions to the Urban Renewal Act which have at least three aspects which violate the two covenants: (a) In the draft revisions, it is the government to decide the scope of urban renewal projects, aiming to justify the public interest and necessity of the provision which led to compulsory demolitions, but there is no correlation between the subject delineating the scope of urban renewal projects and the public interest or necessity of any particularly urban renewal project. This provision will continue the existing act’s contravention of Point 13 of General Comment 7 for the ICESCR;(b) See Paragraph 175; and, (c) See Paragraph 176.