Mega-Events and Housing Rights
大型盛事和住房权利 Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) 居住权及驱逐中心
www.cohre.org
The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) is Geneva-based international human rights organisation, focusing on the human right to adequate housing, and on halting and remedying forced evictions. COHRE has consultative status with the United Nations. 驻瑞士日内瓦的《居住权及驱逐中心》是一个国际性人权机构/组织。该组织致力于适足居住权的人权，以及制 止和补救强制性驱逐。居住权和驱逐中心与联合国有咨商地位。
Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) 83 rue de Montbrillant 1202 Geneva Switzerland Tel: +41.22.734.1028 Fax: +41.22.733.8336 Email: cohre@cohre.org www.cohre.org www.cohre.org/mega-events www.cohre.org/china
This paper was originally published by COHRE as Chapter 2 of Fair Play for Housing Rights: Mega-Events, Olympic Games and Housing Rights (2007), available for download at www.cohre.org/mega-events 本文最初由居住权和驱逐中心发表在住房权利的公平竞赛：大型活动，奥运会和住房权利（2007）的第二章，可 在www.cohre.org/mega-events下载到。
© Copyright 2007 The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), Geneva, Switzerland Fair Play for Housing Rights: Mega-Events, Olympic Games and Housing Rights All rights reserved This project was supported by the Geneva International Academic Network (GIAN) & the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
2
The convening of major international events is becoming increasingly commonplace. While such events were comparatively rare some 30 years ago, we now live in a time of unprecedented mobility where people, products and events span the far corners of the world. Now, it seems that barely a day passes without some city hosting a major international gathering. Such events can be seen as generally positive developments which support and foster mutual understanding among nations and peoples. The host nations, cities and multinational corporations sponsoring large international events often benefit from publicity, tourism and infrastructure development.
大型国际活动的召开日趋变得平常。同30年前这些活动少有相比，今天我们生活在一个空前灵 活的时代，人们、产品和活动能横越到世界上任何角落。几乎好像每天另一个城市举行一次重 大的国际聚会。这些盛事通常会被认为是有利于支持和帮助不同的国家和人民之间相互理解。 主办国、城市和赞助大型国际活动的跨国公司通常能从宣传、旅游和基础设施建设中获取利益。 As the frequency and size of international events are likely to increase in coming years, it is of paramount importance that steps are taken to appropriately guide the planning and development processes linked to the hosting of international events. These processes must become more sensitive to the social impact they may have upon the marginalized sections of society in host cities. This is necessary in order to alleviate negative impacts of hosting such events; namely, forced evictions, reductions in the levels of housing affordability, targeting of vulnerable groups , and other such effects. 在将来的几年，国际盛事的频率和规模都有可能增加，所以极为重要的就是采取行动适当指导 与举办国际活动相关的规划和开发过程。这些过程必须在他们对主办城市社会边缘群体可能造 成的社会影响上更加小心。为了减轻这些活动对住房的负面影响这是必要的；这些负面影响也 就是有强制驱逐，房价过高，针对易受攻击的人群和其他类似的影响。 Mega-events1, also known as ‘hallmark events’, are large-scale tourist events of limited duration, designed to generate attention and attract support (often in terms of public funding and private investment) in order to stimulate redevelopment.2 The staging of a mega-event is typically motivated by three key concerns: (1) putting the city ‘on the world map’ (increasing tourism); (2) boosting economic investment in the city and attracting capital (for improving urban infrastructure and redevelopment); and (3) ‘reimagining’3 the city.
1
Mega-events have been described as “short-term events with long-term consequences for the cities that stage them. They are associated with the creation of infrastructure and event facilities often carrying long-term debts and always requiring long-term use programmes. In addition, if successful, they project a new (or renewed) and perhaps persistent and positive image and identity for the host city through national and international media, particularly TV, coverage. This is usually assumed to have long-term positive consequences in terms of tourism, industrial relocation, and inward investments.” Maurice Roche as quoted in Solomon J. Green, ‘Staged Cities: Mega-events, Slum Clearance and Global Capital’, Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, Vol.6 (2003), p. 165. 2 The two commonly cited definitions of hallmark events are those of Ritchie and Hall: “Major one-time or recurring events of limited duration, developed primarily to enhance the awareness, appeal and profitability of a tourism destination in the short and/or long term. Such events rely for their success on uniqueness, status, or timely significance to create interest and attract attention.” J. R. Brent Ritchie, ‘Assessing the Impact of Hallmark Events: Conceptual and Research Issues’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1984), p. 2.特征活动通常引用的2个定义是由 Ritchie 和 Hall 定的：“规定持续时间主 要为一次或周期性的活动，主要是为了增加知名度，吸引并在短长期内获取观光上的收益。这些活动依赖于 其独特性，情况或及时地引起人们的兴趣并吸引眼球。” “Mega tourist events, otherwise referred to as hallmark or special events, are major large-scale fairs, festivals, expositions, or cultural and sporting events that are held on either a regular or a one-off basis, which often require a substantial input of public funding and/or support that serve as major mechanisms for physical redevelopment and/or reimagining strategies.” Colin Michael Hall, Hallmark Events: Impacts, Management, and Planning of Event Tourism, (Belhaven Press: New Y~rk,1992)."另外和特征或特殊活动相关的，大型观 光活动为主要的大型集会，节日，展览是周期性或一次性举办的或文化和体育盛事，这常需要公众基金坚实 的支撑，并支持物质改造的主要机制和重建策略。” 3 Ibid 3
大型活动，通常也被称为“特征活动”，是为期有限的大型观光活动，为刺激发展而设计得可以 吸引注意和支持（通常是在公共基金和个人投资方面）。推动一个大型活动的举行有三个典型 的主要关系：（1）把该市带到“世界地图”上来（增加旅游业）；（2）促进城市的经济投资并 吸引资本（改善城市基础设施和再发展）；（3）“重新设想”城市。
“Possibly the majority of hallmark events are staged to enhance local, regional or national tourist development. This may be in terms of increasing visitor numbers, boosting tourism industry profitability, or promoting destination awareness. However, increasingly hallmark events, especially mega hallmark events, are sought in order to boost a city’s broader international status, promote wider investment, or to accelerate urban redevelopment. Hallmark events provide an opportunity to ‘show off’ the city for a variety of economic, political and status reasons – motivations that exceed the simple chase for the tourist dollar. Consequently, hallmark events are avidly sought by political and business elites for wider economic and political reasons.”4
或许，举办大多数大型活动是为了提高地方，地区或国家的旅游业发展。这可能包括增加游客 数量，提高旅游产业的收益，或是提高目的地的知名度。可是，日益增加的特征活动，尤其是 大型活动，寻求的是推进城市更广的国际地位，促进更多的投资，或是加速城市的更新发展。 大型活动提供的是一个给城市“炫耀“其经济、政治和身份这些方面的机会-动机除了对旅游业 收入的追求之外还有其他的。因此，政治、商业精英热衷大型活动是因为更广的经济和政治收 益。
Each of these motivations for hosting a mega-event leads to specific impacts: “These impacts frequently show up the city rather than show it off.”5 For example, attempts to improve the urban infrastructure through redevelopment can lead to a decrease in public housing stock and an escalation of real estate prices, which makes housing unaffordable for many low income residents and other marginalized groups. The desire to show off a city and make it an attractive tourist destination is often accompanied by a process sanitization – clean-ups of public areas facilitated by criminalization of homelessness and increases in police powers. Rebuilding a city’s image appears, from the examples of many mega-events, to mean rebuilding a city to make it more attractive for the local, national and international elites (middle and high income earners), and as a result, less livable for those who fall outside these categories. 举办大型活动的这些动机每一个都会导致有特别的影响：“通常这些影响是暴露这个城市的缺 点多于炫耀。”例如，通过改造来尝试改善城市基础设施可以导致公共住房库存的减少和房地 产价格的升高，这会使得很多低收入居民和其他的边缘群体买/租不起房子。渴望炫耀一个城 市并使其更具旅游魅力通常伴有“清理”过程-清除公共区域使无家可归者变成犯人并增加警 力。从很多大型活动的例子中可以看出，重建城市形象看起来意味着对地方，国家和国际精英 更有吸引力（中等和高收入者），但结果却是使得在中高群体外的人更不适宜在这些地方居住。
4
Gary Cox, ‘Faster, Higher, Stronger ... but what about our rights? Human rights and hallmark events’, paper presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment (New Orleans, USA: May 1997). See further, Hall, Hallmark Events (1992). 5 Gary Cox, ‘Showing off or Showing Up the City? The Social Impacts of Major Events’,paper presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment (Lisbon, Portugal: June 1996). 4
Scholars studying mega or hallmark events have identified pre-event, event and post-event impacts, each of which may involve unintended and unanticipated consequences. 6 Professor Kris Olds groups the housing impacts of mega-events into four temporal categories: (1) onsite impacts; (2) post-announcement speculative impact; (3) pre-event tourist accommodation supply impact; and (4) post-event impact.7 These effects are sometimes felt long into the future. Parallel or collateral effects may also be felt, and while these may not be a direct result of the event itself, they nonetheless form part of the overall outcome.8 The cause-effect relationship is often difficult to identify clearly, particularly as regards collateral effects, and impacts may be cumulative in nature.9 Mega-events can often also be a catalyst or excuse for other changes, so that while redevelopment programmes may not be directly connected to the construction of, for example, new event facilities, the two processes are intricately linked. Further, some impacts can entail both positive and negative aspects; i.e. a desirable effect could include the upgrading of deteriorating structures or redeveloping and modernizing a city, while the undesirable consequence of this is often the displacement of groups that contribute to the diversity of the city. 研究大型活动的学者确定出活动前期，活动中和活动后期的影响，每一种都可能有一些无意和 不曾预料的结果。Kris Olds 教授把大型活动对住房权利的影响暂时聚合为4类：（1）区域影响； （2）举办权得到后的投机影响；（3）活动前期旅游住宿供应的影响；（4）活动后期的影响。 这些影响有时会延续到将来很长一段时间内。平行或间接的影响也可能会有所察觉，同时这些 未必可能是活动本身的直接结果，尤其是作为间接影响时，并且影响本身可能会累积。大型活 动通常也可以是催化剂或是其他变化的借口，因此再发展项目可能不会和建设直接联系，例如， 新的活动设施，这两个过程是杂乱相连的。进一步，有些影响可以承受正负两面的影响；例如 一个合意的效果需要包括浓缩恶化的建筑或是再发展并使城市现代化，同时这一带来的不合意 结果通常是为城市社会多样性做出贡献的群体转移。 The staging of a mega-event is considered to be a special or exceptional opportunity for a city, which justifies exceptional measures to facilitate its implementation. Such exceptional measures can include the introduction of special enabling legislation, the reduction of normal protections offered to local residents, changes in construction and redevelopment laws and standards, and restrictions of civil liberties.10 A desire for the community to engage enthusiastically in preparing their city to be the centre of international attention can often result in the dissuasion of dissent and the stifling of objections. This may lead to the further marginalization of those questioning the negative impacts of the event, to their being labeled as anti-national, or as unsupportive of or opposing the event itself. Depending on a country’s tolerance for dissident voices, and the degree of protection afforded to freedom of expression and freedom of association, opposition to the negative effects of mega-events can be met with brutality, repression and in some instances, imprisonment. 举办大型活动被认为是一个城市特殊或千载难逢的机会，这就需要推动其执行的非常措施。这 些非常措施可以包括特殊法律设立，减少提供给当地居民的正常保护，在建筑和城市改造上法 律规定的变化，以及约束公民自由。社区期望能积极参与到使其所在城市成为国际瞩目交点的 准备中来，这经常会阻止不同声音的表达。这可能会导致质疑活动中负面影响的人进一步边缘 化，他们会被标为反国家，或是反对活动本身的反对者。依赖于国家对不同声音的容忍，和对 所给予言论自由及结社自由的保护程度，反对大型活动负面影响会遇暴力，镇压，以及在某些 例子中的羁押。
6
Harry H. Hiller, ‘Assessing the Impact of Mega-Events: A Linkage Model’, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1998). Kristopher Olds, ‘Canada: Hallmark Events, Evictions, and Housing Rights’ in A. Azuela, E. Duhau and E. Ortiz (eds.), Evictions and the Right to Housing: Experience from Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, South Africa, and South Korea (Canada: International Development Research Centre, 1998), available at http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev32007-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html 8 Hiller, ‘Assessing the Impact of Mega-Events’ (1998). 9 Cox, ‘Showing off or Showing Up the City’ (1996). 10 Olds, ‘Canada: Hallmark Events, Evictions, and Housing Rights’ 1998). 5 7
Promoters of mega-events typically comprise a collection of corporate interests, including the tourism industry, construction industry, development corporations and other real estate interests. The business opportunities offered by a mega-event can mobilize vast quantities of capital, from both public and private actors. The organization of mega-events is often a result of public-private collaboration, as both public and private funds are usually required. The decision to stage a mega-event and the process of planning and hosting the event are thus normally entrusted to a business and political elite, with little community participation or transparency regarding the planning and governance processes. 大型活动的推广者通常由一系列的企业家组成，包括旅游业，建筑业，开发企业和其他房地产 企业。大型活动提供的商业机会能动员从公共和私有两方的巨额数量资本。大型活动的组织通 常是公共-私有合作的结果，因为这是公共和私有资本所需要的。从而决定举办大型活动和规 划主办活动的过程通常委托给商业和政治精英，规划及管理过程中很少有社区参与或高度的透 明性。 Our studies show that, whatever the nature of the mega-event, they are not used by their promoters as opportunities to unite the community over a sporting or cultural occasion, but are primarily instruments of economic development, modernization, and an opportunity to re-engineer the image of a city. Yet the benefits of this process are rarely reaped by all, and the negative impacts that are inflicted upon many, before, during and after the event, are not merely undesirable – in many instances, they constitute violations of international human rights law, in particular the right to adequate housing. 我们的研究显示出，无论大型活动的本质如何，推动者并不把活动当作一个通过体育或文化的 盛会而把人们团结起来的机会，他们的根本目的还是要抓住经济发展，建设现代化和重建城市 面貌的机会。然而，这一过程的收益却很少被所有人分享，并且活动前、中、后期所造成负面 效应在很多方面上不仅仅只是不理想，－常有的是，他们仍持续违背国家人权法，尤其是在适 足住房权上。
1. MEGA-EVENTS AND THEIR IMPACT ON HOUSING 大型活动和其对住房的影响 Mega-events frequently have a significant impact on the enjoyment of housing rights. Whether the event is a cultural event such as a World’s Fair or World Expo, a sporting event such as the World Cup or the Commonwealth Games, or a political gathering such as the IMF/World Bank Conferences, it is possible to identify the negative impact that such events have upon local residents. The organization and implementation of such events are all too frequently characterized by forced evictions, discrimination in the implementation of gentrification or beautification programs, and/or a striking decrease in the affordability of housing for local residents. 通常大型活动在享受住房权力上有很大的影响。不管这一活动是文化性的如世界博览会或世博 会，或是体育盛会如世界杯或英联邦运动会，或是政治集会如国际货币基金/世界银行会议， 都可能确定这些活动对当地居民所造成的负面效应。这些活动的组织和执行经常要通过强制驱 逐，将日渐破败的市区改造为中产阶级居住区中的歧视或美化市容项目，还有当地居民无法承 受的住房/房价，这些方面而表现出来的。 Our studies of mega-events show significant housing impacts no matter what the event, be it a cultural celebration, sporting occasion or a political gathering. 我们对大型活动的研究显示出不管活动本身是文化庆典、体育盛会还是政治集会，它对住房都 有巨大影响。
6
1.1 Cultural mega-events 文化大型活动 Cultural mega-events offer an opportunity to open a city to the world, often over an extended period of time. The most notable international cultural mega-event is the World’s Fair or World Expo, a semi-regular event which has been organized for more than a century.11 These expositions are considered to be the third largest event in the world in terms of economic and cultural impact, after the World Cup and the Olympic Games. The regulation of such events is coordinated by the International Exhibitions Bureau (Bureau International des Expositions (BIE) and governed by an international convention.12 The World’s Fairs, which can be either international or specialized events, normally last between three to six months. The Universal World’s Fairs are held in a specially constructed pavilion building, and there is much competition surrounding the design of this structure. Expos were traditionally developed to showcase new inventions and to facilitate cultural exchange between nations. In modern times, they are also used to promote the national image of participating countries and as an exercise in national branding for the host country.13 For example, Expo ’92 in Seville was used by Spain to promote itself as a modern and democratic country. 文化大型活动给城市提供了一个面向世界的机会，常常会经过一个长期的时段。最著名的国际 文化大型盛事就是世界博览会或世博会，一个举行了超过一个世纪的半正则活动。这些展览被 认为是在世界杯和奥运会之后，具有经济和文化影响的世界上第三大盛事。这类盛事的规则由 国际展览属（BIE）并按照国际惯例管理。世界博览会，可认为是任一国际或专门的盛会，通 常要举行3到6个月。而为世界博览会的召开要特别搭建展览棚，围绕它的设计也展开了激烈的 竞争。世博会传统上是为了展示新的发明并推动国家之间的文化交流。在现代，这些盛会也被 用作推动参与国的国家形象和主办国国家展示的演习。例如，92年塞利维亚的世博会促使西班 牙成为一个现代民主的国家 At its General Assembly in 1994, the BIE adopted a resolution designed to “guarantee that Expos will contribute to the quality of life, to the quality of the environment and to the preservation of resources”.14 The resolution, entitled “The Conditions of the Insertion and Re-Utilization of the Site” states: 在1994年的会员大会中，BIE 采取了一种方法“保证世博会推动生活品质，环境品质和资源保 护”。这一方法，命名为“再利用规划世博园区的条件”指出： In order to ensure the contribution which exhibitions should make to the development and the improvement of the quality of life, the organizers should accord a primordial importance to: 为了保证展览能推动改善生活品质，举办者强调： 11
See further http://www.bieparis.org/ 大型活动常被形容为“短期活动但对举办城市造成长期影响。这常常和背负长期债务的基础和活动设施建设相 关，并常需要长期使用方案。另外，如果成功，他们通过国家和国际媒体，尤其是电视的覆盖，建立起对主办 城市一个全新（或重新）的可能持久正面形象和认知。这通常也是假设根据旅游业，工业重置和内部投资有长 期设定而言的。”Maurice Roche引用Solomon J. Green“举办城市：大型活动，贫民窟清理和全球资本”，Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, Vol.6 (2003) 12 Convention Relating to International Exhibitions signed in Paris on 22 Nov. 1928, available at http://www.bie-paris.org/main/index.php?p=5&m2=24. The BIE’s Regulations establish that there is an Executive Committee that assesses the applications to host international exhibitions, but the principles or criteria for selection of such hosts, if any, are not clear: Regulations of the International Exhibitions Bureau, available at http://www.bie-paris.org/main/index.php?p=6&m2=25 1928年在巴黎签署的国际展会共约可见 http://www.bie-paris.org/main/index.php?p=5&m2=24 国际展览委员会规章 建立的是评估主办国际展览申请的行政委员会，但甄选这些主办城市的原则或标准，无论哪个，都不是很清 楚：国际展览委员会规章，可见 http://www.bie-paris.org/main/index.php?p=6&m2=25 13 Wally Ollins, ‘National Branding in Europe’, Business at Oxford: The Magazine of the Said Business School, Issue 7 (Summer 2005). 14 Progression, BIE Newsletter, No. 3 (Fall 2006). 7
•
the environmental conditions of insertion of the site and the infrastructures of access; to the reduction of the risks of pollution, to the preservation and constitution of green spaces and to the quality of real estate development.
园区环境一体化的条件和基础设施的入径；减少污染的风险，保护并创造绿色空间以及保 证房地产开发的品质。 •
the re-utilization of the site and its infrastructures after the exhibition.”15
世博后的再利用园区和其基础设施。 Despite these proclamations, even the most recent World’s Fairs are marred by significant housing impacts. The bulldozing of squatters’ homes in Seville16 is merely one example of the downside of the desire to improve a nation’s image through an event such as the World Expo. At the time of writing this report, the city of Shanghai is being transformed in preparation for its hosting of the 2010 World Expo, and already thousands of people are suffering the effects. A boom in construction in the city has led to the displacement and eviction of many: 18,000 families have been evicted from the Expo site alone.17 However, this figure is only a small portion of the 400,000 people who will be moved to the suburbs as part of a comprehensive urban development scheme that includes the Expo, large infrastructural development, and market-rate commercial and residential development. The Expo site is positioned in a densely populated area of central Shanghai,18 which means many inner city residents are being relocated while the city is transformed. One architect estimates that only five percent of the neighborhoods existing in 2003 will remain by 2010.19 不论这些已宣布的，最近大多数世界展览会仍在严重损害住房权利。塞尔维亚推倒棚户区家庭 仅仅是希望通过世博会改变国家形象的一个负面例子。写这份报告的期间，上海市已在进行主 办2010年世博会的准备工作，已有数以千计的人受其影响。城市中大肆进行的建设导致很多转 移和驱逐：单从世博园区就驱逐了1万8千个家庭。但是，这一数字只是很小一部分，包括世博 会、大型基础设施开发和市场经济及住宅开发等城市综合发展的一部分，将有40万人被移到郊 区。世博园区位于上海中心人口密集的区域，这意味着在城市改造的同时，很多城内居民要被 重新安置。一位建筑师估计2003年现存的街区只有百分之五会保留到2010年。
15
Resolution No 2, ‘The Conditions of the Insertion and Re-Utilization of the Site’, Resolutions Proposed by the Working Group and Adopted by the 115th Session of the General Assembly on 8th June 1994, Bureau International des Expositions. 16 Margot Hornblower, ‘The Dark Side of Spain’s Fiesta,’ Time Magazine - U.S. Edition (13 July 1992). 17 Bill Savadove, ‘City Betting High in World Expo Expectation Game,’ South China Morning Post (10 June 2006). 18 Ibid. 19 Howard French, ‘Shanghai’s Boom: A Building Frenzy’, The New York Times (13 Apr. 2006), p. 1. 8
Residents are being relocated to faraway suburban areas, 20 as their compensation packages are not adequate for them to relocate within the inner city, raising issues related to access to the workplace and livelihood opportunities.21 No low-income housing is being rebuilt in the city’s core.22 There are persistent reports of high-level corruption involving developers and politicians, and it is claimed that the Chinese Government has not engaged in adequate dialogue with evictees nor afforded them appropriate process for consultation.23 For example, there have reportedly been no public consultations on the city’s planned neighborhood demolitions. 24 In fact, Chinese authorities have detained residents protesting against the evictions and their legal representatives.25 To compound these violations of internationally recognized housing standards, in 2005 the Supreme Court ordered lower courts to stop hearing cases brought by those who had been evicted,26 and the Government has introduced new regulations restricting the ability of lawyers to represent groups of evictees.27 居民被重新安置到很远的郊区，因为他们所得的补偿不足以使他们重新回到市内生活，这带来 了与工作地点及谋生机会相关的问题。城市中心不会再建低收入住房。不断有牵涉到开发者和 政治高层腐败情况的报道，有人说中国政府并未和受驱逐者展开充分的对话，也没给他们讨论 的过程。例如，有报道说，到目前为止市政府并未安排市中心社区拆迁规划的听证会。事实上， 中国政府拘留抗议驱逐的居民和他们的法律代表。再加上2005年，最高法院命令低层法院停止 接受这些被驱逐案件的诉讼，并且政府推出新的规章来限制律师代表被驱逐群体的能力，这些 也是违背国际公认的住房权利准则的行为。 Over the course of the past two decades of World’s Fairs, little has changed, although perhaps the quantity of evictees is unprecedented in Shanghai. At the time of the 1988 Expo in Brisbane, Australia, between 1,400 to 3,000 people were estimated to have lost low cost housing due to the escalation in rental costs or the demolition of their homes in favor of high-rent commercial and residential development on the former Expo site.28 In the lead up to the 1988 Brisbane Expo, neither the State Government nor the city made arrangements to provide affordable replacement housing,29 and it is estimated that over 800 beds were lost as a result.30 However, the comprehensive impacts of Expo ‘88 on the surrounding neighborhood and the site (in particular the West End neighbourhood) are difficult to estimate because neither the State nor Federal Government carried out a social impact assessment of the event.31
20
Ibid. ‘Relocation of 17,000 Households from 2010 Shanghai Expo Site To Be Completed by End-2006’ Chinese News Digest (19 Oct. 2004). Reports over compensation vary, but some residents claim to have accepted 4,000-5,000 Yuan per sq. m: Bill Savadove, ‘Residents Cry Foul as Shanghai Hails Expo Relocation Success’, South China Morning Post (1 June 2006). 22 French, ‘Shanghai’s Boom’ (2006). 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. “住房-驱逐抗议者被拘留”，南中国早报（2005年9月21）。也可见，Gady A. Epstein“中国持异议者因破坏‘国 家安全’面临拘留；惩处活动者的用语模糊不清，”The Baltimore Sun (13 Mar. 2005)；同见‘Beijing’ The Economist (11 Oct. 2003)。2006年COHRE授予其“住房权利保卫者奖”给7名中国活动者(Fu Xiancai, Ma Yalian, Liu Zhengyou, Huang Weizhong, Chen Xiaoming; Xu Zhengqing, and Zheng Enchong)，他们很多人因为从事这一活动被投入监狱过。所 有7名活动者都遭受有长期的恐吓，骚扰甚至是破坏他们的住房和土地权利活动。 25 Bill Savadove, ‘Housing-Eviction Protesters Detained’, South China Morning Post (21 Sept. 2005). See also, Gady A. Epstein, ‘Chinese Dissenters Face Jail for ‘State Secrets’ Violations; Vague, Catchall Term is Used to Punish Activists,’ The Baltimore Sun (13 Mar. 2005); See also, ‘Beijing’ The Economist (11 Oct. 2003). In 2006 COHRE awarded its ‘Housing Rights Defender Award’ to seven Chinese activists (Fu Xiancai, Ma Yalian, Liu Zhengyou, Huang Weizhong, Chen Xiaoming; Xu Zhengqing, and Zheng Enchong), many of who had been imprisoned for their activism. All seven activists have been subjected to ongoing intimidation, harassment and even beatings for their housing and land rights activities. 26 Geoff Dyer, ‘Shanghai Property Boom Brings Eviction Protests’, Financial Times (13 Aug. 2005). 27 Human Rights Watch (HRW) A Great Danger for Lawyers: New Regulatory Curbs on Lawyers Representing Protesters (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2006). 28 Mike O’Connor, ‘South Bank Revisited’, Queensland Newspapers (11 Apr. 1990); see also Juanita Phillips, ‘The Dispossessed’, Queensland Newspapers (10 Mar. 1988); and J. Orr, ‘Interest Rates Rise “Threatens Renters”’, Queensland Newspapers (30 May 1988). 29 Orr, ‘Interest Rates Rise’ (1988). 30 COHRE interview with Australian housing advocates, Sydney, March 2007. 31 Phillips, ‘The Dispossessed’ (1988). 9 21
在过去20年里举办的世界展览会，尽管在上海的被驱逐者数量是空前的，但几乎也没什么改变。 在1988年澳大利亚的布里斯班世博会时，因为无法承受的租金或是由于在前世博园区的高价商 业和住宅开发破坏了他们的家庭，有1400到3000人失去了他们的廉价住房。1988年布里斯班世博 会表现的是，国家政府和城市都没有安排提供可承受的转移住房，结果估计有800多家失散。但 是，88年世博会在区域周围街区所造成的全面影响是很难认清的，因为国家和联邦政府都没有 对这一活动的社会影响做任何评估。 The announcement of Vancouver as host city for the 1986 World’s Fair spurred land speculation in neighbourhoods that bordered the site.32 Landlords evicted between 500 and 850 people in order to use their units to accommodate tourists for the fair.33 Most evictees were unemployed, elderly, poor, and either handicapped or in a poor state of health.34 The City Council wanted legislation to protect renters in the area from eviction; however, the provincial government, the only body with the power to do so, refused to intervene.35 In addition, between 1,000 and 2,000 low income lodging house units were lost to demolition or conversion to non-residential uses,36 while 1,150 residential hotel units were lost in years immediately following the Expo, as the Pacific Place, a giant mixed-use development, was constructed on the Expo site.37 当宣布1986年世博会主办城市是温哥华后在园区周围的街区产生了土地投机买卖现象。为了把 他们的房子作为展览会旅游者所用，房东们驱逐了500到850人。大多数被驱逐者都是无业的， 上年纪的，贫困的人，要么身体有残疾要么健康状况很差。市政府希望通过立法保护这一地区 的租赁者不被驱逐；但是，对此事拥有唯一权利的州政府，却拒绝介入。另外，因非住宅用处 1000到2000个低收入寄宿住房单位被破坏或转化而消失，同时因为太平洋地区，一个大型多用 开发项目，被建为世博园区，1150个住宅旅社单位（单人单间的寄宿式旅社）在世博会之后的 几年中消失。 At the 1982 World’s Fair in Knoxville, United States, approximately 1,500 tenants were evicted from low-rent accommodations as landlords rented their apartments to visitors.38 1982年美国诺克斯维尔的世界博览会，因为房东把房子出租给游客，大约1500个租客从低租房 屋中被驱逐出去。 It is not only the World’s Fairs and Expos that create significant housing impacts. During the 2006 Cultural Capital of Europe celebrations in Patras, Greece, Roma were harassed, and threatened with eviction, and most were eventually evicted from their shanty homes, as the municipality attempted to ‘clean’ itself for hosting this festival of culturally-themed events.39 Even events organized by the United Nations, such as the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001), can have an impact on local housing conditions, given their sheer size and the number of visitors who descend upon a city to attend such an event.
32
Kristopher Olds, ‘Canada: Hallmark Events, Evictions, and Housing Rights’ in A. Azuela, E. Duhau and E. Ortiz (eds.), Evictions and the Right to Housing: Experience from Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, South Africa, and South Korea (Canada: International Development Research Centre, 1998), available at http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev32007-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Art Harris, ‘It’s the South’s “Biggest Extravaganza”; But Don’t Ask the Evicted Tenants What They Think of Expo “82”’, The Washington Post (28 Mar. 1982). 39 ‘Roma File Complaint Against Greek City’, Agence France Presse English Wire (27 Dec.2005); See also, Christine Pirovolakis, ‘Culture Capital Patras Shuns the Gypsies’, Bangkok Post (27 Dec. 2005). 10
不是仅有世界展览会和世博会对住房有如此重大影响。2006年在希腊佩特雷举办的欧洲文化庆 典中，吉普赛人疲于奔命，面临被驱逐，并且因为市政府为主办这一文化盛事企图自身“清理”， 最终大多数人被从他们的棚屋驱逐出去。甚至由联合国举办的活动，如世界反对种族主义，种 族歧视，仇外和相关偏狭大会（2001年在南非德班举行）由于其规模和参加这一会议的众多访 问者，也对当地住房情况产生影响。 Historical milestone events can also result in negative housing impacts. The Australian Bicentennial on 26 January 1988, which was marked by a year of celebrations throughout the country, resulted in a loss of low income housing in Sydney as boarding houses were converted into tourist accommodation.40 At the time, there was limited monitoring of these housing impacts. 历史上的里程碑盛事也会导致对住房的负面影响。1988年1月26日的澳大利亚两百周年纪念， 一个跨越世纪的庆典，因为寄宿住房转为观光住宿，导致了悉尼消失了很多低收入住房。同时， 政府对这些住房影响监管不力。 As a consequence of the 1992 celebrations for the 500th Columbus Anniversary in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic, 30,000 families (180,000 people) were evicted from their homes as part of urban redevelopment schemes conducted in the course of preparations (from 1986 to 1992).41 Most were not offered any form of resettlement. 42 These violations of housing rights were addressed by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights when it came to review the Government’s implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).43 While much of the impact of the mega-event surrounding the 500th Columbus Anniversary in Santo Domingo is difficult to separate from ongoing redevelopment schemes, the neighbourhoods surrounding the monument built specifically for this event were directly affected. For example, over 10,000 people were evicted to make way for a lighthouse and surrounding grounds, and a four-mile long wall was erected to block the view of poor areas.44 1992年因为纪念哥伦布500周年而在多米尼加共和国圣多明各举行的庆典，作为准备工作中城 市再开发项目的一部分，3万户家庭（18万人）从他们的家中驱逐出去。很多并没有得到再次 安置住所。当回顾国家政府对经济、社会和文化权利国际公约执行情况中，这些违背住房权利 的行为被联合国经济、社会和文化权利署提出。由于圣多明各围绕着哥伦布500周年这一庆典 太多的影响很难和正在进行的再开发项目区分开来，在特地为此次活动建立的纪念碑旁的街区 受到直接影响。例如，为了给灯塔和周围的广场让路，1万人被驱逐，并且为了不看到贫民区， 建立了一堵4公里长的墙。 It seems that staging horticultural fairs can also involve evictions: in Osaka, Japan, at the 2006 World Rose Convention, 440 private security guards and 350 police officers forcibly removed 28 tents occupied by homeless people from two public parks.45
40
Cox, ‘Showing off or Showing Up the City?’ (1996). Edmundo Morel and Manuel Mejia, ‘The Dominican Republic: Urban Renewal and Evictions in Santo Domingo Rights’, in A. Azuela, E. Duhau and E. Ortiz (eds.), Evictions and the Right to Housing: Experience from Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, South Africa, and South Korea (Canada: International Development Research Centre, 1998). 42 ~~ee~,~~t~~~e~~ Cities’ (2003), p.176. 43 Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Dominican Republic, UN Doc. E/C.12/1994/15 (1994). 44 Green, ‘Staged Cities’ (2003), p. 177. 45 Justin McCurry, ‘Police Move in on Japanese Homeless’, Guardian (31 Jan. 2006); See also, ‘Osaka City Removes Homeless Tents; Tempers Flare as City Workers, Homeless Residents Face Off in Municipal Parks’, The Daily Yomiuri (31 Jan. 2006).
41
11
举办园艺博览会似乎也会有驱逐发生：2006年日本大阪的世界玫瑰大会，440名私人保安和350 名警察强行搬离了28名居住在两个公共公园里无家可归的人。 Finally, perhaps the most headline-grabbing example is that of Nigeria’s attempt to beautify the city of Abuja in preparation for hosting the 2002 Miss World Beauty Pageant. As a consequence, the world witnessed the ugly impacts of mega-events, with the destruction of shantytowns and the forced eviction of at least 1,000 households. 46 Here authorities implemented a policy of rounding up and institutionalizing homeless persons for a four-week period until after the pageant.47 This is not a unique example of evictions carried out in order to beautify the city in preparation for hosting a beauty pageant: Thailand acted similarly when hosting the Miss Universe Beauty Pageant in the same year it hosted the IMF/World Bank Conference (1991).48 At that time, the Thai authorities sought to evict as many as 5,000 people.49 最后，最让人瞩目的可能是2002年尼日利亚主办世界小姐大赛时对阿布贾进行城市美化的例 子。结果，这让世界都看到了大型活动的丑陋一面，破坏了棚屋并强制驱逐了至少1000个家庭。 政府为此展开了一些政策并把无家可归者送到专门机构里待了4个星期直到大赛结束。因为要 为主办的选美比赛做准备美化城市而进行驱逐，这并不是一个特殊的例子：1991年泰国举办环 球小姐大赛和国际货币基金组织/世界银行会议时，也做过类似的事情。那个时候，泰国政府 驱逐了大约5000人。
46
Hugh Dougherty, ‘Nigeria Shows Ugly Side Ahead of Beauty Pageant; “So Far 1,000 Houses Have Been Destroyed”’, The Evening Standard (London) (15 Nov. 2002). 47 Ibid. 48 Philip Shenon, ‘Bangkok Journal; Where Beauty Queens Preen, No Eyesores, Please’, The New York Times (21 Aug. 1991). 49 Ibid. 12
1.2 Political mega-events 政治活动 Large international political events also have negative consequences for many local residents. One event of particular note is the IMF/World Bank Conference. Thirty years ago in Manila, the Philippines, the 1976 IMF/World Bank Conference precipitated the eviction of 400 families from a slum as part of an urban renewal project.50 Forced evictions formed part of the city’s beautification campaign in preparation for the conference. Nine years later, in Seoul, South Korea, preparations for the 1985 IMF/World Bank Conference included bulldozers and police tearing down a slum located between a luxury hotel and the corporate headquarters of Daewoo Corporation, the two principal venues for the conference.51 One thousand, two hundred slum families were evicted from the site.52 It is reported that the head of each household received between only $350 and $750 as compensation for the loss of their homes.53 Furthermore, it appears the Government took steps to prevent students who planned on protesting from marching in the streets.54 大型的政治活动也会对当地居民造成负面结果。一个特别的例子就是世界货币基金组织/世界 银行会议。三十年前在菲律宾的马尼拉，为了1976年世界货币基金组织/世界银行会议，作为 城市重建项目的一部分，从贫民窟驱逐了400个家庭。强制驱逐是作为为会议准备的城市美化 活动中的一部分。9年后，在韩国汉城，为准备1985年世界货币基金组织/世界银行会议推土机 和警察清除了在豪华宾馆和大宇集团总部之间的贫民窟，这两个地方也是会议的所在地。1200 个贫民窟家庭从这一区域上被驱逐出去。据报道，每户户主只收到350到750美元的家庭损失赔 偿。还有的就是，有显示政府采取了行动来阻止学生举行游街抗议。 More recently, there have been similar evictions of 2,000 slum dwellers in Bangkok, Thailand, in the months leading up to the 1991 IMF/World Bank Conference.55 In that instance, some evictees were relocated to new apartments just a few hundred feet from their homes but out of sight of the Conference Centre.56 Others were moved out from the centre of the city, restricting access to work and reliable public transport.57 These evictions, which affected 647 families,58 were reportedly conducted because the authorities claimed that the slums were an eyesore and that it would be shameful for Thailand if foreign dignitaries attending the IMF/World Bank Conference saw them.59 They also claimed that the slums would be a ‘good hiding place for terrorists’.60 更近一些，泰国曼谷在1991年世界货币基金组织/世界银行会议期间也类似地驱逐了2000个贫 民窟居住者。在这一事件中，一些被驱逐者被重新安置到离他们家仅几百英尺外的地方，只是 为了不在会议中心区内。其他的被移到市中心外，使他们的工作机会和享用可靠的公共交通受 限。这些影响到647个家庭驱逐的执行据报道是因为政府认为贫民窟有碍观瞻，如果被参加世 界货币基金组织/世界银行会议的外国政要们看见有损泰国的形象。他们也称贫民窟可能会成 为恐怖主义者的藏匿之处。
50
Greene, ‘Staged Cities’ (2003) Peter McGill, ‘Seoul Gets a Face-Lift’, Maclean’s (14 Oct. 1985). 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid. 55 Shenon, ‘Bangkok Journal’ (1991); See also Stephen Webb, ‘Offending the eyes of the might’, New Internationalist, Issue 229 (Mar. 1992). 56 Shenon, ‘Bangkok Journal’ (1991). 57 Ibid. 58 Webb, ‘Offending the eyes of the might’ (1992). 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 13
51
One of the most recent examples of forced evictions related to the preparations for a political mega-event are reports of the violent forced eviction of 30 households (affecting 42 families) in Lapu-lapu City in Cebu, Philippines, in September 2006, at the site of the 12th ASEAN Summit scheduled for December 2006.61 The land on which the families’ homes were located was needed as a parking lot for the Shangrila Hotel, the place where the participants in the ASEAN summit were staying. Although the homes were on private land, the authorities did not obtain court orders authorising the demolitions, and instead relied upon building permit violations to evict the squatter families, many of whom had resided on the site for decades. The evictions were violent: authorities used water cannons and truncheons to disperse the human barricade put up by students and members of the Atbang Shangrila Urban Poor Association. The monitoring body, Eviction Watch, reported that “scores were hurt, including women and children, twelve protestors were arrested and have been detained for a month now.”62 一个最近有关准备政治活动的强制驱逐例子是2006年9月，在菲律宾宿雾 LAPU-LAPU 市为2006 年12月举行的12届东盟峰会所在区强制驱逐了30个家族。这些家庭原先所在的地方需要成为香 格里拉酒店的泊车场，东盟峰会参加者需要在此停留。虽然这些家庭是土地个人私有的（并非 这些家庭所有而是其他个人所有），但政府并没有法律允许来进行清理，取而代之的是用违章 建筑的藉口来驱逐棚屋家庭，而很多家庭在这一地方居住已有几十年了。驱逐行动是强制性的： 当局用水枪和警棍驱散学生和 ATBANG 香格里拉城市贫民协会成员组成的人墙。监控机构： 驱逐观察，报道“结果很多人受伤，包括妇女和小孩，12名抗议者被捕，被拘留了一个月。” Lately concerns have also been expressed about the treatment of the homeless and beggars, mostly street children, in Uganda, in relation to the preparations the Government of Uganda is undertaking for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in November 2007. Reports indicate that already hundreds of street children have been ‘rounded up’ by the Government and taken to a makeshift holding centre, actually a rehabilitation centre for young offenders, outside of Kampala (the capital).63 It is claimed that this process to date has been voluntary, but that it will soon be made compulsory and enforced by arrests.64 最近我们所关心的是在乌干达，乌干达政府为了准备2007年11月召开的政府领导会议，对无家 可归者和乞讨者，其中包括很多流浪儿，的所作所为。报道显示已有数百计的流浪儿被政府“围 捕”并在坎帕拉城外临时建起一个实际上针对少年犯的收容所。据说这一行动开始是自愿的，但 后来就变成强制性的并强制拘留。
61
Ted Anana, ‘Solidarity with eviction victims of the 12th ASEAN Summit in Cebu Philippines’, Eviction Watch email campaign (31 Oct. 2006), on file at COHRE. 62 Ibid. 63 64
Sarah Grainger, ‘Summit displaces Uganda street children’, BBC News (27 Feb. 2007). Ibid. 14
1.2 Sporting mega-events 体育大型活动 The World Cup, the international men’s football (soccer) competition organized every four years by the Fédération International de Football Association (FIFA), is considered one of the world’s largest sporting events after the Olympic Games. In recent years, FIFA has embarked on a number of campaigns and initiatives to “make the world a better place”, using concepts such as ‘fair play’ to guide the values, mission and goals of its organisation.65 It has begun developing strategic alliances with international organizations such as the United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN Development Programme (UNDP), UN Environment Programme (UNEP), SOS Children’s Villages, FARE Network (Football Against Racism in Europe) and street football world, in order to focus attention on issues such as discrimination, racism, child labour, health, education and the environment. Through concentrating on youth, FIFA is aiming to use football as a tool for social development. 世界杯，国际男子足球大赛由国际足联组织每四年举行一次，被认为是暨奥运会之后最大型的 世界体育盛事。最近几年，国际足联着手进行了很多活动“使世界变得更好”，运用如“公平比赛” 的理念来引导它所组织活动的价值观、任务和目标。它开始发展和其他国际组织如联合国儿童 基金会、世界卫生组织、联合国发展署、联合国环境署、SOS 儿童村、欧洲足球反种族主义网 络和街头足球世界之间的合作项目，这是为了能优先关注如歧视、种族、童工、健康、教育和 环境这些问题。通过关注儿童，国际足联希望把足球作为推动社会发展的一项工具。
“As world footballs’ supreme body, FIFA is responding openly to its social duty as an organization of international status and renown. ... The reason why football is a success story is that it has reached the hearts and minds of humankind and it is our duty to channel this untold potential into making the world a better place.” “作为世界足球的最高组织，国际足联作为这一国际盛事极负盛名的组织者有责任扩大其 社会职责。…足球之所以能这么成功是因为它直达人们的内心和思想，并且这是我们的责 任去引导这一无限潜在使世界变得更美好。” Joseph S. Blatter, FIFA President Joseph S. Blatter，国际足联主席
Yet despite these attempts to embrace socially responsible ideals and its commitment “to protecting and promoting human, social and economic development” 66 , FIFA World Cup events have had a significant negative impact upon housing rights. 尽管这些努力尝试有更多的社会责任理想并且它所承诺的是“保护并促进人类、社会和经济发 展”，但国际足联的世界杯比赛还是对住房权利产生了很大的负面影响。
65
See, for example, Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), Make the World a Better Place: Mission, goals and programmes of the FIFA Football for Hope movement (Zurich: Fifa, 2005). 66 Ibid. p. 9. 15
‘Clean-up’ programmes associated with the World Cup events have led to the displacement of homeless people. For example, nearly 300 homeless were removed from an area surrounding the Nagai Stadium in Osaka, Japan, in 2002.67 City officials claimed the removal would prevent confrontations between rowdy fans and the homeless.68 In Seoul, the co-host city for the 2002 World Cup, city officials created a list of areas that were off-limits to the homeless.69 It is alleged that the City had originally planned to send homeless people to rehabilitation programmes outside the city during the World Cup, but cancelled those plans under pressure from media and human rights groups.70 Other host cities replicate these violations of the right to adequate housing – for example a ‘cleaning operation’ displaced roughly 20 homeless people from their makeshift homes days before the 1994 World Cup in Chicago,71 USA, and between 200 and 300 people were displaced after the demolition of their seven-year old shantytown underneath a highway overpass in Dallas, USA, in preparation for the 1994 World Cup.72 In relation to the evictions in Dallas, a Federal District Court judge ruled that the City could demolish the shantytown because the act was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest (the standard under which a person may be treated unequally under the law).73 While the City dedicated$300,000 towards city-sponsored apartments for the evictees for eight months, those who took up this offer were again evicted when the funding for these sponsored apartments was halted.74 Fears have also been expressed regarding the impact that preparations for the forthcoming 2010 World Cup in South Africa will have on enjoyment of housing rights for many in South Africa.75 与世界杯相关的“清除”工程导致无家可归的人被转移。例如，2002年，在日本大阪 Nagai 体育 场周围的区域无家可归者被清走。大约300个无家可归者被移走，城市官员宣称这一搬迁是为 了防止足球流氓和无家可归者之间的冲突。在汉城，2002年世界杯的共同主办城市，城市官方 建立了一个无家可归者限制进入的区域目录。这声称的是市政府原先已计划在世界杯期间把无 家可归者送到城外复原中心里，但因为媒体和人权群体的压力取消了这一计划。其他主办城市 也有过类似违反适足住房权的事情-例如1994年美国芝加哥世界杯之前的“清理行动”使大约20 个无家可归者从他们的临时住所转移出去，并且在准备94年世界杯的时候，在破坏了通往达拉 斯大桥下的有7年之久的棚屋之后，大约200到300人被转移走。有关达拉斯的驱逐行动，联邦地 区法院判定市政府可以推翻棚屋，因为这一行动从道理上来说和政府合法利益相关（一部分人 在法律面前可能不能得到平等对待）。市政府在市政资助的公寓上投入了30万美元，给被驱逐 者使用了8个月，当这些资助公寓的资金中断后，那些因此受惠的人再次被驱逐。南非在准备 即将来临的2010年世界杯上所带来的影响，使人们已经开始害怕很多南非人是否在将来能享有 住房权利。
67
Fred Varcoe and Eric Johnston, ‘Osaka: Good Times with Attitude’, The Japan Times (3 May 2002). Some were offered shelter in facilities at an opposite end of the large park in which they lived. 68 ‘Niigata Homeless Given Boot to Avoid Hooligans’, Mainichi Daily News (1 June 2002). 69 Min-hee Kim, ‘Seoul Scraps Plan to Take Homeless Out of City During World Cup’, The Korea Herald (8 Feb. 2002). 70 Ibid. 71 Terry Wilson, ‘On Eve of World Cup, City Removes Homeless’, Chicago Tribune (16 June 1994). 72 Jonathan Eig, ‘Needy May Be Forced onto Streets; Funds Dwindling in Plan to House Homeless’ The Dallas Morning News (28 Jan. 1995); see also, Kim Horner, ‘Dallas Razes Homeless Camp Residents Vow to Return; ‘Official Face Task of Breaking Cycle’, The Dallas Morning News (11 May 2005). 73 Johnson v. City of Dallas, 860 F. Supp. 344, 358 (N.D. Tex 1994). 74 Eig, ‘Needy May Be Forced onto Streets’ (1995). 75 Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), Any Room for the Poor? Forced Evictions in Johannesburg, South Africa (Geneva: Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, 2005). 16
Other international sporting events such as the Commonwealth Games and Asian Games bring similar problems, and while the competition for hosting these events is fierce and the selection processes are rigorous, housing concerns are excluded from the evaluation criteria in these processes. The Commonwealth Games is awarded to a candidate city by the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) at its General Assembly. This city is chosen seven years in advance of the year in which it will host the Games and selection is based on an analysis of the candidate city’s bid proposition. A Candidate City Manual, prepared for each Commonwealth Games host city selection process, sets out the legal and technical requirements for this bid proposition.76 It requires an environmental impact assessment to be conducted, and establishes, for example, that the Games facilities, including the Athletes’ Village, must be constructed with post-Commonwealth Games legacy considerations in mind.77 However, no mention is made of the need to carry out an assessment of the potential positive or negative impacts upon the housing rights of the local resident population. 其他国际体育盛会如联邦运动会和亚运会也有类似问题，因为申办这些活动主办权的竞争很激 烈，筛选过程也很严格，而在这些过程中住房问题被排除在衡量标准之外。联邦运动会的候选 城市要是联邦运动会同盟的成员。主办城市7年选一次，筛选会基于申办城市的演讲。申办城 市指南，由每个选中的主办城市准备，设立了申办演讲所需的法律和技术要求。这需要评估对 环境的影响，建设如运动场馆包括运动员村，建设时必须要精心考虑到已有的联邦运动会法律。 但是，并没有提到需要对当地居民住房权利的潜在正面或负面效应进行评估。 In New Delhi, India, the athletes for the 2010 Commonwealth Games will be housed on land from which slum dwellers were cleared.78 Force evictions related to a river beautification plan and development for the Commonwealth Games79 has resulted in the forcible eviction of 35,000 families from public lands on the riverbanks over the course of the last two years.80 The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing, Mr Miloon Kothari, has said that the slum demolition process had led to evictions of around 300,000 people during the 2003-2006 period.81 These large-scale evictions have been blamed on a desire on the part of the city authorities to make Delhi ‘slum-free’ before the athletes and spectators arrive for the Commonwealth Games.82 Evictions from and demolitions of slums occurred without advance notice,83 and were sometimes accompanied by violence.84 Evictees were only entitled to housing alternatives from the Delhi government if they provided documentation proving that they had lived in the same slum for eight years.85 Most evictees currently live in a resettlement camp, where they pay rent and have leases, but no security of tenure.86 The resettlement camp is located far from public facilities such as schools, more than 40 kilometres from the centre of Delhi – three bus rides away.87 One resident of the resettlement camp also complained that children from the camp are discriminated against in school admissions processes. 88 After recognizing the ongoing problems associated with the slum clearances that accompanied the Commonwealth Games preparations, the Government passed The Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act in late May 2006. This legislation placed a one-year moratorium on all actions against ‘unauthorized development’ so that the policy issues could be fully studied and debated.89 76
See, for example, the 2014 Commonwealth Games Candidate City Manual, Commonwealth Games Federation (Nov. 2005), available at http://www.thecgf.com/ccm_v72.pdf 77 In the Commonwealth Games Candidate City Manual it is noted that this document is based on the IOC’s Candidate City Manual, thus both the process and requirements appear very similar. 78 John Sudworth, ‘Slum dispute over Commonwealth Games’, BBC News (21 Oct. 2006), available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/5325034.stm 79 The Athlete’s Village will be built on part of the east bank of the Yamuna River, formerly a slum residence. 80 Rajeshree Sisodia, ‘Out of a Slum, Into Uncertainty’ South China Morning Post (28 May 2006). 81 Associated Press, ‘Slums, shops make way for ‘world-class’ Dehli’, New Delhi (26 Apr. 2006). 82 John Sudworth, ‘Slum dispute’ (2006), available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/5325034.stm 83 Sisodia, ‘Out of a Slum’ (2006). 84 Sudworth, ‘Slum dispute over Commonwealth Games’ (2006). 85 Sisodia, ‘Out of a Slum’ (2006). 86 Ibid. 87 Sudworth, ‘Slum dispute over Commonwealth Games’ (2006). 88 Sisodia, ‘Out of a Slum’ (2006). 89 ‘The Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Bill, 2006 Enacted’, Hindustan Times (26 May 2006). 17
在印度新德里，参加2010年联邦运动会的运动员所居住的土地上已清除了原先居住的贫民窟居 民。和联邦运动会相关的河流美化规划和开发所带来的强制驱逐，在过去的两年中已导致了3 万5千户家庭从河岸的公共土地上被驱逐出去。联合国适足住房权特别起草人，Miloon Kothari 先生说，在2003-20006期间的贫民窟清除行动导致大约30万人被驱逐。这些大型驱逐行动作为 市政府在运动员和观察家没参加运动会之前而进行的德里“无贫民窟”一部分，已经受到了批 评。没有预先通知而对贫民窟进行的驱逐和清理有时会伴随着暴力行为。只有被驱逐者把他们 居住了8年的贫民窟地契交上去，才能从政府那里得到住房解决方法。当前大多数被驱逐者住 在一个重新安置的露营地里，在这里他们还要交房租租借，但使用权没有任何保证。重新安置 的露营地离公共设施都很远，像是学校，离德里市中心40多千米-要坐3趟公车。一位住在这里 的居民抱怨说，住在这里的孩子在入学申请上受到歧视。在认识到准备联邦运动会中所伴随的 和贫民窟清理相关的现有问题，政府2006年五月下旬通过了德里法令（特别规定）。这一法令 对所有“未授权的开发”行动推迟一年执行，这样使得所有政治问题能充分得到研究和辩论。 In preparation for the 1998 Asian Games in Bangkok, Thailand, city officials banned the homeless, beggars, and other ‘undesirables’ from sleeping or doing business at Sanam Luang and squatters caught sleeping there were fined up to 500 baht.90 Such clean-up processes are not a recent aspect of the Asian Games: as early as 1962 in Jakarta, Indonesia, preparations for this event were accompanied by forced evictions. At that time, hundreds of homes in the Senayan district of central Jakarta were bulldozed to clear the way for the Senayan Sports Complex, the largest in southeast Asia at the time.91 泰国曼谷在准备1998年亚运会时，城市官方禁止无家可归者、乞讨者还有其他不受欢迎的人在 SANAM LUANG 睡觉或做生意，并且如果抓到有租住者在此睡觉就罚款500铢。这样的清扫行 动并不是最近的亚运会才有：早在1962年印尼雅加达，为了这一盛事做准备就有强制驱逐发生。 那时，雅加达中心的 SENAYAN 区数以百计的家庭受到威胁，只是为了给当时整个东南亚最 大的 SENAYAN 综合体育馆让路。 Even the America’s Cup, a sporting event largely conducted at sea rather than on land, has had an impact upon the housing rights of some. In the host city of Fremantle, Australia, there was a noted loss of low income housing, which particularly affected tenants of boarding houses.92 These impacts occurred despite the fact that there was both a social impact assessment and a housing impact study carried out prior to the event. A post-impact assessment was also completed.93 It can be assumed that one of the reasons that these assessments recorded, but failed to prevent, the eventual loss of housing was that adequate preventative measures were never implemented. 甚至是美洲杯，一项体育活动更多是在海上而非陆地上举行的，也对住房权利有所影响。在主 办城市澳大利亚的 Fremantle，已造成低收入住房的流失，尤其是对寄宿住房租客的影响。除 去对社会影响的评估和在活动前已做的住房影响研究，这些效应依然发生。出版的效应评估也 很完善。如果只是假设其中一个评估发生，但没有阻止，最终那些充分预防住房损失的办法也 不会实现。
90
Poona Antaseeda, ‘Asian Games – Beggars Face Crackdown as Asiad Nears’, Bangkok Post (25 Nov. 1998). Andreas Harsono, ‘Jakarta’s Dispossessed; The Big City or Bust; land ownership problem in Jakarta’, Indonesia UNESCO Courier (1 June 1999). 92 Cox, ‘Showing off or Showing Up the City?’ (1996). 93 Ibid. 18 91
The staging of the Winter Olympic Games can also affect the enjoyment of housing rights. At the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary, Canada, over 2,000 people were displaced (some temporarily),94 including approximately 740 tenants who were displaced from two apartment complex towers and one townhouse, as weak tenancy laws allowed for the exorbitant rent increases that led to the evictions.95 The tenants received financial incentives to relocate, and after their relocation, the units were rented to Olympic visitors.96 Fears are also held about the evictions of low income tenants in Vancouver in the lead up to the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, despite impressive promises to promote affordable housing in the world’s first ‘socially sustainable’ Games (see further Chapter IV Section 3). 97 Hundreds of poor and elderly residents have already been displaced from downtown Vancouver as developers work to convert buildings that previously housed the indigent and elderly into boutique hotels and tourist accommodation.98 Landlords are evicting tenants in order to renovate their properties and place them back on the market for double the rental rates.99 The shrinking stock of low cost housing has been evident in both the public and private housing market in Vancouver, with drastic consequences for the thousands of indigent people already on waiting lists for affordable accommodation. It has also been reported that the Vancouver authorities are discussing a proposal to increase law enforcement against aggressive panhandling and open drug use100 – the kind of legislation that has been used elsewhere, such as in Atlanta, to target the homeless. 冬奥会的举办也会影响住房权利的实现。1988年加拿大卡尔加里冬奥会中，被转移的人超过 2000，包括大约740个从两个公寓联合住所和一座别墅中转移出的租客，因为脆弱的租赁法允 许租金过高增长从而导致驱逐。租客们的再次安置有经济资助，并且在他们重新安置后，这些 单位租给奥运游客们。2010年在温哥华举行的冬奥会也存在有驱逐低收入租客的担心。因为开 发者要把先前老旧住房变成流行旅馆和观光住所，数以百计的贫困年纪大的居民从温哥华市区 被转移出去。因为要刷新家具并把他们的房屋市场租价加倍，房东们已在驱逐租客们了。温哥 华公共和私人房屋市场也已出现廉价住房储备的缩水。据报道，温哥华政府正在讨论一项提议 来增强对沿街乞讨和毒品公开使用的法律制裁-这种法令已在其他地方使用过，如亚特兰大， 目标是针对无家可归者。
“Thousands of people have lost their homes since this city was awarded the Olympic Games. There’s simply no place for these people to go. People in the Downtown Eastside die on the street.”101Kim Kerr, Downtown Eastside Residents Association, Vancouver
自从城市被宣布为奥运会主办城，数以千计的人们 t 流离失所。他们好像无处可去。在 城区东面，有人死在街头。” Kim Kerr,，温哥华城市东区居民委员会
“
2. BEST PRACTICES IN MEGA-EVENT BIDDING AND PLANNING 大型活动申办和规划的最好演练 94
Helen Jefferson Lenskyj, ‘Making the world safe for global capital: The Sydney 2000 Olympics and Beyond’, in J. Bale and M. Christensen (eds.), Post Olympism? Questioning Sport in the Twenty-first Century (London: Berg Publishers 2004) pp. 135-45. 95 Olds, ‘Canada: Hallmark Events, Evictions, and Housing Rights’ (1998). 96 Ibid. 97 Matthew Burrows, ‘Green fears SRO evictions’, straight.com (5 Oct. 2006), available at http://www.straight.com/node/34501; Jeremy Hainsworth, ‘Vancouver group accuses Olympics organizers of dislodging poor to make way for Games’, MSNBC, Associated Press Sports (31 Oct, 2006); Vision Vancouver, ‘Vision Takes Action on Homelessness’, CityNotes (5 Oct. 2006). 98 Hainsworth, ‘Vancouver group accuses’ (2006). 99 Darah Hansen, ‘Evictions put squeeze on middle class’, Vancouver Sun (10 Oct. 2006). 100 ‘2010 Olympic development driving up homelessness in Vancouver’, Games Monitor (14 Dec. 2006). 101 Hainsworth, ‘Vancouver group accuses’ (2006). 19
Among the many examples of people forcibly evicted or discriminated against in the process of preparing for a mega-event, there are also examples of best practices regarding the protection of housing rights during the bidding and preparation processes. These all emerged from Host Cities’ own initiatives and were, unfortunately, not driven by any requirement from mega-events organizers. 在众多强制驱逐人们或在准备大型活动中遭受歧视的例子中，也有在申办和准备过程中保护住 房权利的实践例子。这需要主办城市自觉参与进来，而不是让大型活动组织提出要求。 For example, preparations for the 2006 Commonwealth Games, held in Melbourne, Australia, were in stark contrast to those currently underway for the 2010 Commonwealth Games in India (described above). Cooperation between civil society in Melbourne and the Victorian State Government saw better protections for homeless and low income earners. This began when an affiliation of community and legal organizations set up ‘The Monitoring 2006 project’ with the aim of ensuring that the local population, in particular the marginalized residents of Melbourne (such as the homeless), were not discriminated against during the preparation and hosting of the Commonwealth Games.102 The Victorian State Government worked with the Council of Homeless Persons to create the Victorian Protocol for People Who are Homeless in Public Places, which provides guidelines for respecting the rights of homeless people, focusing on respect, participation, and the provision of information and safety.103 In addition, the Victorian Government provided AUS$60,000 to reserve 600 cheap, but safe, accommodations during the period of the Games so that homeless people would not be priced out of the market for a room.104 Collaborations such as this, between community service, interest groups and the local governmental authorities, provide one example of the ways in which the homeless and urban poor can be better protected in the planning and preparation of mega-events. 例如，为准备在澳大利亚墨尔本举办的2006年联邦运动会，和现在正在印度进行的2010年联邦 运动会的准备工作成为鲜明对比。墨尔本市政府和维多利亚州政府之间的合作为无家可归者和 低收入者提供了更好的保护。为了保护当地居民，社区和法律组织联合起来建立了“2006监督 方案”，尤其是对墨尔本的边缘居民来说，在准备和举行联邦运动会期间不能遭受到歧视。维 多利亚州政府和无家可归者委员会共同制定了维多利亚州在公共场地无家可归者的草案，为尊 重无家可归者的权利提供了指导方针，注重尊重，参与和信息及安全的提供。另外，在运动会 期间，维多利亚政府提供了6万澳元来保留600个便宜安全住宿，使得无家可归者不会因为市场 过高的价格而挡在屋外。在社区服务、利益团体和当地政府之间的诸如合作，为规划和准备大 型活动中能给无家可归者和城市贫民提供更好保护上提供了一个良好例子。 In other instances, pre-event social impact assessments (SIAs), followed by monitoring (including by the community) and government sponsored post-event impact evaluations or audits, have either helped reduce or at least record the effects that mega-events have had upon the local population.105 For example, in preparation for the 2000 Sydney Olympics, a SIA showed potential negative effects, such as harassment of the homeless and loss of low income housing through conversion of boarding houses and rising rents.106 This forewarning prompted agreements regarding the way in which homeless people should be protected during the Olympic Games, and provided impetus to community organisations and government to monitor the impacts upon housing affordability.
102
‘Melbourne Competes for World’s Most “Compassionate” City. Homeless Services United by the Moment’, available at www.urbanseed.org/journal/mt/news/archives/ comm%20Press%20Release.pdf [accessed Aug. 2005]. 103 David Wright-Howie, ‘Public Space, Homelessness, and the Commonwealth Games: Developing Reference Points’, available at www.chp.org.au/public_library/ items/2006/02/00086-upload-00001.doc 104 Shaun Phillips and Michael Warner, ‘Beds Secured for Homeless’, Herald Sun (14 Feb. 2006). 105 Cox, ‘Showing off or Showing Up the City?’ (1996). 106 Ibid. 20
在其他方面，有监督和政府资助的活动后期影响评估的引导，活动前期的社会影响评估（SIA） 或多或少能帮助减少，至少记录下大型活动对当地居民的影响。例如，在准备2000年悉尼奥运 会时，一份 SIA 显示出潜在的负面影响，比如转换寄宿住房和提高房租会对无家可归者的折 磨和低收入住房的流失。这一预先警告提出有关在奥运会期间应当对无家可归者保护的协议， 并给社区组织和政府提供了监督住房承受力的动力。
The effective post-event use of purpose-built infrastructure is another important means of mitigating the potential negative impacts and promoting local housing strategies. For example, when Calgary hosted the Winter Olympics in 1988, the community gained long term benefits from the sporting facilities that were built.107 In instances where new accommodation is built for the purpose of the event, post-event use for public, social or affordable housing is a positive step. For the 2010 Winter Olympics, Vancouver has promised a ‘socially sustainable’ event with commitments to ensuring no one is made homeless or evicted because of the Games. Further examples of best practices in Olympic bidding and planning are detailed below in Chapter IV Section 3. 活动后期对特地建造的基础设施的有效利用是减轻潜在负面影响和促进当地房屋策略的另一 重要方法。例如，在1988年卡尔加里举办冬奥会时，社区从建设的体育设施上获取了长期利益。 至于为活动新建的住所，活动后用于公共、社会或供给住房是积极的一步。而至于2010年的冬 奥会，温哥华承诺是一次“社会可持续”活动，保证没人因这次比赛成为无家可归或被驱逐。更 多有关奥运申请和规划中的好例子详见第四部分第三节。
3. THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO MEGA-EVENTS 可供大型活动应用的人权法律框架 This section analyses the relevant international legal framework that applies to the housing impacts of mega-events. Housing has been recognised as a fundamental human right and this recognition creates legally enforceable entitlements and rights for those who have been negatively affected by the staging of mega-events. An analysis of housing rights under international human rights law highlights that the housing impacts of mega-events identified above raise serious concerns and require immediate action to provide remedies to the victims. 这一部分分析了可用于大型活动对住房影响的相关法律框架。住房被认为是基本的人权，并且 这一公认建立了法律实施权利和那些被大型活动的举办而带来负面影响人们的权利。一项在国 际人权法下的住房权利分析汇集了大型活动对住房的影响确定了以上的严重问题并需要立马 采取行动来给受害者提供赔偿。 Why is it important to measure the housing impact of mega-events against the yardstick of human rights and, in particular, the right to adequate housing? Why not use existing national laws dealing with tenants’ rights, property rights and related housing issues? What are the advantages of using the human rights framework? 为什么评估大型活动中违反人权准则的住房影响是这么重要呢？尤其是适足住房权。为什么不 使用现行的国家法律来处理租客权利，财产权和相关的住房问题？使用人权框架的好处是什 么？
107
Ibid. 21
First, international rules can act as a point of reference for national laws and can help harmonize national regulations. In addition, national standards might simply be lacking when it comes to protecting peoples’ housing rights. Besides this protection framework, human rights can also provide a common universal standard. Human rights law is the only existing internationally agreed expression of the minimum conditions that everyone should enjoy if they are to live with dignity as human beings. As such, it can provide clear guidance to all stakeholders involved in the planning and hosting of mega-events on how to mitigate the housing impact, regardless of the host city and local culture. Human rights law also offers guidance as to concrete and practical measures that can be taken to address housing rights issues and establishes requirements regarding the rights of communities and individuals to participate in decisions affecting them. This dimension is of paramount importance in relation to the staging of mega-events, as problems of participation and transparency are recurrent. 第一，国际法令可作为国家法律的引用点，并能帮助协调国内规章。另外，在保护人民住房权 利上，国家标准可能还不足。除了这一保护框架之外，人权也可以提供一个全球普遍的标准。 人权法令是唯一现存的状况最少的国际认同措辞，每一个作为人类尊严生存的人都必须享有 的。因此，它可以对主办大型活动的所有利益相关者，不论主办城市和地方文化，在如何减少 住房影响上提供明确的指导。人权法也能提供具体实际的方法来处理住房权利问题和满足相关 社区权利和受影响个人参与到决策中来的需求。这一尺度对大型活动的举办极为重要，因为参 与和透明问题是会不断出现的。 3.1 The right to adequate housing 适足住房权 The right to adequate housing is enshrined in several international human rights instruments and has long been regarded as essential to ensuring the well-being and dignity of the human person.108 Housing rights have been included in the most authoritative international statements regarding human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) enshrines in Article 25 a specific right for everyone to adequate housing: 适足住房权被记入进一些国际人权法案中，长期以来被认作是保证安宁和人类尊严的基本。最 具权威的人权国际法令中都包含有住房权。国际人权宣言（UDHR）在25条中写入了每个人适 足住房的特别权利：
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well- being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
“每个人都享有健康安宁生活的权利-作为他本人和他的家庭，包括食物，穿衣，住房和医 疗护理，以及必要的社会服务，在其不能自控的失业、疾病、残疾、守寡、年迈或其他生 活逆境时受保护的权利。”
108
These instruments include, among others, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the San Salvador Protocol, the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Fourth Geneva Convention. 在其他中这些方法包括国际人权宣言（UDHR），国际公民及政治权利条约 （ICCPR），消灭所有形式的种族歧视条约（CERD），儿童权利条约（crc)，消灭对妇女歧视的条约（CEDAW），
圣萨尔瓦多草案，非洲人类及人民权力宪章，美国人权条约，欧洲社会宪章，欧洲保护人权及基本自由公约和日 内瓦第四公约。 22
In a partial recapitulation of this clause, Article 11 of the ICESCR which is now legally binding on more than 155 countries, states: 对于这一条款的特别摘要重述，ICESCR 第11条，现在已在超过155个国家应用的，指出： “The Government parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and for his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The Governments Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.” “代表缔约的国家政党认同每个人享有的自身和其家庭正当生活标准的权利，包括有充足 的食物，穿衣和住房，以及生活条件的持续改善。国家政党将采取恰当的步骤来保证这一 权利的实现，并对这一影响到国际合作的基本重要性广泛认同。 Noteworthy in these provisions is the extent to which housing rights are bundled together with livelihood, as well as the recognition that a decent and dignified life is dependent on, among other things, adequate housing. These considerations have been elaborated by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR), which is responsible for monitoring Governments’ compliance with the ICESCR. This body has helped to clarify, through General Comments,109 the content of the right to adequate housing. 需要特别指出的是住房权利是和生机在一起的，同样还有对良好生活所要依赖的认同。这些事 项在联合国经济、社会、文化权利中有所描写，这有助于监督国家对 ICESCR 遵照执行。这一 主题通过概要注解有助于阐明适足住房权的内容。 General Comment No. 4, adopted in 1991, focuses on the right to adequate housing. The Comment interprets the right to adequate housing as “the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity”.110 The General Comment affirms the right to adequate housing as an entitlement to something more than just bricks and mortar. Adequate housing, according to the General Comment, means adequate privacy, protection against forced evictions, harassment and other threats, space, security, lightening, ventilation, basic infrastructure, all at an affordable cost and within reasonable distance from job opportunities and social services. Paragraph 8 of the General Comment sets out seven dimensions of ‘adequacy’ to be taken into account when assessing efforts to give effect to the right. These are:
1991年采用的概要注解4聚焦的是适足住房权。这一注解说明了适足住房权是“生活得安全、和 平和体面的权利”。概要注解肯定了适足住房权不仅仅只有砖瓦水泥的权利。按照概要注解， 适足住房意味着充分地隐私权，反对强制驱逐、折磨和其他威胁的保护，空间，安全，照明， 通风，基本基础设施，可承受的花费和到工作及社会服务合理的距离。概要注解的第8段提出， 当努力实现这一权利时，要从7个方面来考虑“充分”。他们是：
109
‘General Comments’ are documents produced by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR) to set out its interpretation of the content of the human rights provisions found in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comments are also produced by other UN human rights treaty bodies.“一般 性意见”是由联合国经济社会文化权利委员会制定的有关对ICESCR人权内容的解释。一般性意见也由其他联合 国人权条约主体制定。 110 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 4 on the Right to Adequate Housing, (1991) and UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 7 on the Right to Adequate Housing and Forced Evictions, (1997). The full text of both General Comments are reproduced in Annex 2. 23
1. Legal security of tenure: From rental housing to full freehold, whichever tenure is considered most
appropriate for a particular context must guarantee “legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats”. 111 Importantly, the Comment concludes that forced evictions are prima facie incompatible with the requirements of the ICESCR. Legal security of tenure in the context of mega-events protects residents against the trauma of forced eviction and displacement. It is one of the cornerstones of the right to adequate housing. 使用权的法律保障。使用权的形式包罗万象，包括租用(公共和私人)住宿设施、合作住房、 租赁、房主自住住房、应急住房和非正规住区，包括占有土地和财产。不论使用的形式属 何种，所有人都应有一定程序的使用保障，以保证得到法律保护，免遭强迫驱逐、骚扰和 其他威胁。缔约国则应立即采取措施，与受影响的个人和群体进行真诚的磋商，以便给予 目前缺少此类保护的个人与家庭使用权的法律保护； 2. Availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure: These include “sustainable access to natural
and common resources, safe drinking water, energy for cooking, heating and lighting, sanitation and washing facilities, means of food storage, refuse disposal, site drainage and emergency services.” When people are evicted from their homes in preparation for mega-events and relocated to places where they have no access to these services, their right to adequate housing is not being protected. 服务、材料、设备和基础设施的提供。一幢合适的住房必须拥有卫生、安全、舒适和营养必 需之设备。所有享有适足住房权的人都应能持久地取得自然和共同资源、安全饮用水、烹调、 取暖和照明能源、卫生设备、洗涤设备、食物储藏设施、垃圾处理、排水设施和应急服务.
3. Affordability: Housing costs should not deny a rights-bearer the resources necessary to meet other
basic needs. Affordability ensures that residents have access to an adequate home regardless of how poor they are, or how much the price of housing has escalated because of the real estate speculation that inevitably accompanies mega-events. 力所能及。与住房有关的个人或家庭费用应保持在一定水平上，而不至于使其他基本需要的 获得与满足受到威胁或损害。各缔约国应采取步骤以确保与住房有关的费用之百分比大致与 收入水平相称。各缔约国应为那些无力获得便宜住房的人设立住房补助并确定恰当反映住房 需要的提供住房资金的形式和水平。按照力所能及的原则，应采取适当的措施保护租户免受 不合理的租金水平或提高租金之影响。在以天然材料为建房主要材料来源的社会内，各缔约 国应采取步骤，保证供应此类材料。 4. Habitability: Housing must be sufficiently spacious, safe and healthy. Habitability protects a person’s
physical and psychological health from environmental threats, including those associated with overcrowded and/or poorly constructed housing. When residents are evicted as part of the modernization of a city in preparation for a mega-event, they may be forced to reside in housing that does not satisfy these criteria. 乐舍安居。适足的住房必须是适合于居住的，即向居住者提供足够的空间和保护他们免受严 寒、潮湿、炎热、刮风下雨或其他对健康的威胁、建筑危险和传病媒介。居住者的身体安全 也应得到保障。委员会鼓励各缔约国全面实施卫生组织制订的《住房保健原则》5, 这些原则 认为，就流行病学分析而言，住房作为环境因素往往与疾病状况相关联，即：住房和生活 条件不适和不足总是与高死亡率和高发病率相关联。
111
UNCESCR, General Comment No. 4. 24
5. Accessibility: housing must be accessible. Disadvantaged groups must be assisted in accessing
housing and land. In the lead-up to mega-events, it is often particularly vulnerable groups whose housing rights are most affected. In many instances, laws and policies (including those designed as part of the mega-event preparation process) do little to address the housing needs of the most disadvantaged, instead focusing on already advantaged social groups. 住房机会。须向一切有资格享有适足住房的人提供适足的住房。必须使处境不利的群体充分 和持久地得到适足住房的资源。如老年人、儿童、残废人、晚期患者、人体免疫缺陷病毒阳 性反应的人，身患痼疾者、精神病患者、自然灾害受害者、易受灾地区人民及其他群体等处 境不利群组在住房方面应确保给予一定的优先考虑。住房法律和政策应充分考虑这些群组的 特殊住房需要。在许多缔约国内，提高社会中无地或贫穷阶层得到土地的机会应是其中心政 策目标。必须制定明确的政府职责，实现人人有权得到和平尊严地生活的安全之地，包括有 资格得到土地。 6. Location: housing must be situated so as to allow access to job opportunities, healthcare services,
schools, child-care centres and other social facilities. When communities are evicted from their homes, as happens around the time of hosting mega-events, they are often relocated to remote locations far from livelihood opportunities, lacking facilities or to polluted areas, near garbage dumps or other sources of pollution. 居住地点。适足的住房应处于便利就业选择、保健服务、就学、托儿中心和其他社会设施之 地点。在大城市和农村地区都是如此，因为上下班的时间和经济费用对贫穷家庭的预算是一 个极大的负担。同样，住房不应建在威胁居民健康权利的污染地区，也不应建在直接邻近污 染的发源之处。 7. Cultural Adequacy: housing must be constructed so as to enable the expression of cultural identity. Forced
relocation programmes where ethnic minorities are made to ‘integrate’ without due respect for their cultural needs violate this requirement. 适当的文化环境。住房的建造方式、所用的建筑材料和支持住房的政策必须能恰当地体现住 房的文化特征和多样化。促进住房领域的发展和现代化的活动应保证不舍弃住房的文化方 维，尤其是还应确保适当的现代技术设施。 There are many other features of the enjoyment of the right to housing, including protection against all forms of discrimination, freedom of movement, the right to privacy and respect for the home. According to international human rights law, particular attention must also be paid to vulnerable and marginalised groups which are particularly susceptible to violations of their rights to live in security, peace and dignity, such as women, children, ethnic minorities, the disabled and mentally ill. When preparing for mega-events, each of these elements should be taken into consideration. In particular, when it comes to the treatment of minorities and vulnerable groups (including those without security of tenure), attention must be paid to the prohibition on discrimination. Article 26 of the ICCPR establishes a free-standing right to enforce this prohibition, including in relation to the right to housing. The prohibition on discrimination includes, amongst other aspects, bans on direct and indirect discrimination, and harassment, and guarantees equal and effective protection against discrimination on grounds such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The ban on discrimination is included in all major international human rights treaties. It is interpreted to require both equality of treatment and equality of outcome. States have a broad range of positive duties to ensure equality. In the context of the ICESCR, the ban on discrimination further means that States Parties must achieve progressive implementation of the rights included in the Covenant, without differentiation on arbitrary grounds.
25
在享受住房权利上还有很多其他特点，包括保护不受到任何形式的歧视，移动的自由，隐私权 和家庭尊重权。依照国际人权法，尤其要注意的是边缘和易受攻击群体，他们安全，和平和尊 重的生活权利很容易受到侵害，如妇女、儿童、少数民族、残疾和智障人士。在准备大型活动 时，这些群体中的每一个都要纳入考虑中。尤其是，对待少数民族和易受攻击群体时，必须注 意的是禁止歧视。ICCPR 的26条确定了加强这一禁止的独立权，其中包括与住房权利相关。在 其他方面，禁止歧视包括禁止直接和间接的歧视，折磨，并保证公平和针对种族、肤色、性别、 语言、宗教、政治不同见解、国家或社会血统、财产、出身或其他地位上歧视的有效保护。禁 止歧视包括所有主要的国际人权条例。这需要平等的对待和平等结果两方面。保证平等的积极 责任有很多。在 ICESCR 的文章中，禁止歧视更多意味着缔约的国家政党必须在这一权利的实 现上积极作为，不带任何区别对待。
26
3.2 The protection from forced evictions 对强制驱逐的保护
“Instances of forced evictions also occur in the name of development. They might be carried out in connection with conflicts over land rights, development and infrastructure projects, such as the construction of dams or other large-scale energy projects, with land acquisition measures associated with urban renewal, housing renovation, city beautification programmes, (...) or the holding of major sporting events like the Olympic Games.” “强制驱逐的例子也会以发展的名义下发生。这可能会与土地权冲突、发展和基础设施项
目有关，例如大坝或其他大型能源项目的建设，城市再建相关的土地取得测量，住房改 革，城市美化项目，或主办如奥运会的大型体育活动。” UNCESCR, General Comment No. 7 The practice of forced evictions is of particular relevance to the staging and hosting of mega-events. While forced evictions are carried out in a variety of circumstances and for various reasons, the organisation and hosting of mega-events very often leads to forced evictions. Human rights standards and laws forbid forced evictions, and make no exception for those occurring in the context of the organisation of a mega-event. 强制驱逐的实践在举行并主办大型活动时尤其如是。在各种情况各种原因执行的强制驱逐中， 组织和主办大型活动常导致强制驱逐。人权准则和法律禁止强制驱逐，在大型活动组织的文章 中也不例外。 The term ‘forced eviction’ refers to the permanent or temporary removal against their will of people from the homes or lands which they occupy, without the provision of and access to appropriate forms of legal or other protection.112 According to the UNCESCR, forced evictions “are prima facie incompatible with the requirements of the [International] Covenant [on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights]”. 113 The international community, through the Commission on Human Rights, has repeatedly condemned the practice of forced evictions, considered as a gross violation of human rights, in particular the right to adequate housing.114 Moreover, in recent years, many governments have been held accountable by UN bodies, international human rights courts and national judiciaries, for directly carrying out or tolerating forced evictions. “强迫驱逐”这一词语更多是说违背人们意愿把他们从原先居住的家里或土地上永远或暂时转 移，没有任何规定和使用的适当法律形式或其他保护。按照 UNCESCR，强制驱逐“是和国际 经济、社会和文化权利缔约相矛盾的第一表现。通过人权委托，国际团体再三被控告有强制 驱逐行为，被认为是违反人权，尤其是适足住房权。此外，最近几年，很多政府对联合国主 体，国际人权法庭和国家司法负责，直接执行或容忍强制驱逐。
112
UNCESCR, General Comment No. 7, (1997). UNCESCR, General Comment No. 4, para. 18, and UNCESCR, General Comment No. 7, para. 1. 114 UN Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 2004/28 on the Prohibition of Forced Evictions, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2004/127, adopted 16 Apr. 2004 by a recorded vote of 45 votes to 1 with 7 abstentions, and Resolution 1993/77 on the Prohibition of Forced Evictions, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/1993/77 adopted unanimously on 10 Mar. 1993. 27 113
Evictions can only take place in the most exceptional circumstances, after all feasible alternatives have been considered and in accordance with the relevant principles of international law.115 Even then, the following procedural protections must be followed:116 在所有可行的选择办法考虑后并按照国际法律相关的原则，驱逐只能在最异常的情况发生。即 使那样，以后程序上的保护也必须遵守： (1)
(2) (3)
(4) (5) (6) (7)
(8)
genuine consultation with those affected; 和那些被影响的人进行真正的磋商； adequate and reasonable notice for all affected persons prior to the scheduled date of eviction;117 在确定的驱逐日期之间负责、充分地通知到所有将被影响的人； information on the proposed evictions and, where applicable, on the alternative purpose for which the land or housing is to be used to be made available in reasonable time to all those affected; 提议的驱逐信息，土地或住房基于可选择的目的切实用在所有被影响的人身上； presence of government officials or their representatives during the eviction 在驱逐期间，要有政府官员或代表出席 proper identification of all persons carrying out the eviction; 执行驱逐正确将所有人一视同仁； evictions should not take place in particularly bad weather or at night; 尤其不能在天气不好或夜晚中进行驱逐； provision of legal remedies or procedures and legal aid to people affected by eviction orders and persons who are in need;118 and 提供法律补救或手续以及向被驱逐影响的人提供所需的法律救助； adequate resettlement. 充分的再次居住。
Whether evicted people are owners or tenants, they have the right to adequate compensation for the loss of any good or property and must be provided with adequate resettlement. This implies relocation within a reasonable distance from the original site, with access to essential services such as water, electricity, job opportunities, schools, hospitals and transport facilities in the area selected.119 不管被驱逐的人是房东或是租客，他们都有权利为他们损失的任何物品或财产得到充分地赔 偿，并且必须为他们提供充分的再次居住场所。这意味着在距原居住区合理距离之内的再次安 置，能使用到基本服务如水，电，工作机会，学校，医院和区域内可选的交通设施。 Finally, even if the evictions are otherwise deemed lawful under this test, they must not render persons homeless. Where those affected are unable to provide for themselves, the State must take all appropriate measures, to the maximum of its available resources, to ensure that adequate alternative housing, resettlement or access to productive land, as the case may be, is available.120
115
UNCESCR, General Comment No. 4, (1991), para 18. UNCESCR, General Comment No. 7, (1997), para. 15. 117 The UN Comprehensive Human Rights Guidelines on Development-Based Displacement prescribe 90 days prior notice: The Practice of Force Evictions: Comprehensive Human Rights Guidelines on Development-Based Displacement, adopted by the Expert Seminar on the Practice of Forced Evictions, Geneva, 11-13 June 1997, UN Doc. E/CN.4/ SU B.2/1997/7. 118 Provision, where possible, of legal aid to persons who are in need of it to seek redress from the courts. 119 Respectively, Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Dominican Republic, 19 Dec. 1994, UN Doc. E/C.12/1994/15, para. 319 and Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: the Philippines, UN Doc. E/C.12/1995/7, para. 131. 120 UNCESCR General Comment No. 4; UNCESCR General Comment No. 7. 28 116
最后，就算驱逐在这一试验下以不同法律执行，也必须不能使人们无家可归。在这些被影响的 人不能自理的地方政府必须采取所有适当方案，尽一切可用资源，保证充分可选择的住房，可 能提供再次安置或使用生产土地能使用到。 The impact of forced evictions on families and communities, and particularly the poor, is severe and deeply traumatic. Property is often damaged and destroyed, productive assets are lost or rendered useless, social networks are broken up, livelihood strategies are compromised, and access to essential facilities and services is lost. In extreme cases, violence, including rape, physical assault and murder, is used to force people to comply with the eviction. A recent study has highlighted that the impact of forced evictions on children can be similar to war in terms of the developmental consequences.121 强制驱逐对家庭和社区的影响，尤其是对穷人的影响，是很严重和剧烈的伤害。财产常常受到 损害和破坏，生产资产丢失或被损坏无用，社会网络被破坏，谋生手段受到危及，基本设施和 服务的使用权消失。在一些极端例子里，暴行包括强奸，身体袭击和谋杀，被用来强迫人们接 受驱逐。最近一项研究汇编了强制驱逐对孩子的影响在某种程度上可以和战争相似。 Forcible evictions can also result in, or be accompanied by, direct violations of other fundamental human rights; in particular rights to work, food, health, water and education. The rights that may be affected include:122 强制驱逐也可以导致，或伴有，对其他基本人权的直接违反；尤其是工作、食品、健康、饮水 和教育的权利。可能受到影响的权利包括： • The right to non-interference with privacy, family and home; 不受干扰的隐私权、家庭和住宅权利； • The right to be protected against the arbitrary deprivation of property; 保护不受财产独断剥削的权利； • The right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions – many forced evictions occur without warning, forcing people to abandon their homes, lands and worldly possessions; 享受和平拥有财产权-很多强制驱逐没有预警就发生了，强迫人们放弃他们的住宅、土地和 事件财产； • The right to respect for the home; 尊重住宅的权利； • The right to freedom of movement and to choose one’s residence; 自由搬移和选择居住地的权利； • The right to education – often children cannot attend school due to relocation; 教育的权利-通常孩子们因为再次安置而不能上学； • The right to water – evicted people often find it far more difficult to access potable water;123 饮水权利-被驱逐的人们常常发现很难得到适于引用的水； • The right to life – violence during the forced eviction can sometimes result in death; 生活权利-在强制驱逐期间的暴行有时会导致死亡 • The right to security of the person – implementing authorities rarely provide evicted persons with adequate homes or any form of compensation, thus rendering them vulnerable to homelessness and further acts of violence; and
121
Sheridan Bartlett, Urban Children and the Physical Environment, City University of New York and the International Institute for Environment and Development (London), available at: http://www.araburban.org/childcity/Papers/English/Sheridan%20Barlett.pdf 122 These rights are detailed in the ICES CR, ICCPR, UNCESCR General Comment No. 4 and UNCESCR General Comment No. 7. 123 See further, UNCESCR General Comment No. 15 on the Right to Water. 29
个人安全权利-执行政府很少为受驱逐人民提供充分地住宅或其他任何形式的赔偿，因此使 他们易受攻击成为无家可归者以及遭受将来的暴行； • The right to effective remedies for human rights violations.124 对违反人权有效补偿的权利。 “The human cost and trauma of forced eviction on individuals, families and communities cannot be over- emphasised. Forced eviction most often affects those who are already disadvantaged, including: the poor, women, indigenous groups, ethnic, religious and racial minorities, occupied peoples and others lacking security of tenure. Forced evictions take away people’s livelihoods, their land, their belonging to a community, and the dignity of a place to live in peace without the fear of losing their home.”
“人类成本和强制驱逐对个人、家庭和社区的伤害不会得到过分强调。通常强制驱逐影响
那些已处于不利地位的人们，包括：穷人、妇女、本土群体、少数民族、少数宗教和种 族，被占人们和其他缺乏安全的租客。强制驱逐带走了人们的生计，土地，社区所有， 和不用害怕失去他们家庭和平生活居住地的尊严。” COHRE, Global Survey on Forced Evictions, December 2006
While evictions and relocations may occur in cases of urban renewal or large-scale redevelopments, these should be considered as a last resort, rather than as an inevitable consequence of such renewal or redevelopment. In addition, the manner in which evictions and relocations are planned and implemented should be in accordance with agreed human rights norms and procedural safeguards. These apply to any forced evictions occurring within the context of mega-events. In these situations it is important that communities and individuals have a right to be protected against “arbitrary or unlawful interference” with their homes. Paragraph 20 of General Comment No. 7 specifically refers to urban renewal or ‘beautiful city’ initiatives, such as those which often accompany mega-events, and requires that these initiatives guarantee protection from eviction, or at least guarantee “re-housing based on mutual consent”. 125 In General Comment No. 7 the UNCESCR explains how it requires States to describe the:
在城市再建或大型再发展中万一发生了驱逐和再安置，这些最起码应该纳入考虑，而不是作为 这类再建或再发展的必然结果。另外，规划及执行的驱逐和重置的方式应该和公认的人权标准 和程序上的安全措施和符合。这适用于在大型活动前后所发生的所有强制驱逐。在这些情况下， 社区和个人拥有保护他们住宅不受“独裁或非法干涉”的权利就很重要。概要注解第7条20段特 别指出城市再建或“美化城市”行动，如常伴随大型活动的那些，需要保证对驱逐的保护，至少 保证“相互同意基础上的再建住房”。UNCESCR 概要注解的第7条解释了需要政府如何去做：
124
See further, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, adopted by the General Assembly, Resolution 60/147. 125 UNCESCR General Comment No. 7, para. 20. 30
“measures taken during, inter alia, urban renewal programmes, redevelopment projects, site upgrading, preparation for international events (Olympics and other sporting competitions, exhibitions, conferences, etc.) ‘beautiful city’ campaigns, etc. which guarantee protection from eviction or guarantee rehousing based on mutual consent, by any persons living on or near to affected sites.”126 在城市再建项目、再发展项目、浓缩区域和准备大型活动、“选美”比赛期间采取的方法， 要保证任何居住在或临近受影响区的人，在驱逐上的保护或保证在双方同意基础上的再建 住宅。 In addition to the General Comment No.7, there are other key documents that provide guidance in implementing the general prohibition of forced evictions. The Guidelines on Development–Based Displacement, developed by a group of experts and submitted by the UN Secretary-General to the Commission on Human Rights in 1997, provide further details about requirements for adequate resettlement and compensation.127 In 2006 the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing, Mr Miloon Kothari, produced the Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement 128 as a further development of the 1997 guidelines. These Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement, which reflect and develop existing standards, provide further guidance to governments on the measures and procedures to be adopted in order to ensure that such evictions do not consistute forced evictions due to their contravention of existing international human rights standards. 除去概要注解第7条，还有其他主要的文件提供一般禁止强制驱逐的指导方案。基于发展的转 移指导方针，由联合国秘书处和人权委员会在1997年组织专家编写的，提供了更多有关充分再 居住和赔偿需要的细节。2006年，联合国适足住房权特别起草报告人 Miloon Kothari 先生，发 表了基于发展的驱逐和转移的基本准则和指导方针，作为1997年指导的进一步发展。这些基于 发展的驱逐和转移的基本准则和指导方针，反应并发展了现存标准，提供给政府更多可采用实 行的指导，这样能确保这些驱逐不会因为违反现存的国际人权标准而成为强制驱逐。 The Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement are particularly directed to “evictions that are planned or conducted under the pretext of serving the ‘public good’, such as those linked to development and infrastructure projects ...; land-acquisition measures associated with urban renewal, slum upgrades, housing renovation, city beautification, or other land-use programmes ...; ... unbridled land speculation; [and] major international business or sporting events.”129 基于发展的驱逐和转移的基本准则和指导方针尤其指向“就 本准则 而言 ，基于发展 的搬迁 包括 ：往往 是有 计 划的 或者 以“公 共利 益 ”为 借 口 进 行 的搬 迁 ，如 与发展 和基础 设 施 项 目 (包括 大 坝 、大 规 模 的工 业 和 能 源 项目或者 采 矿 和 其 他采 掘业 )有关 的搬 迁 ；与 城市 改 造 、贫 民 窟改 善 、房 屋修 缮 、美 化城
"
市或其 他土地 利 用方 案 (包括 农 用 )等 有关 的土地 征 用 措施 ；财 产 、房地 产 和土 地 争 端 ；无 限 制的 土地 投 机； 大 型 国际 商 业 活 动 或 运动 会 ；”。 The Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement, amongst other things:130 基于发展的驱逐和转移的基本准则和指导方针中其他一些方面： 126
UNCESCR, General Comment No. 7, quoting UNCESCR, Guidelines on State Reporting on the ICESCR, UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/8, annex IV. 127 ‘The Practice Of Forced Evictions: Comprehensive Human Rights Guidelines on Development-Based Displacement’, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/7, 2 July 1997. 139 Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/41. 128 UNCESCR, General Comment No. 7, quoting UNCESCR, Guidelines on State Reporting on the ICESCR, UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/8, annex IV. 129 Ibid, para. 8. 130 Ibid. 31
• • • • • • • • • • •
set out the need for States to conduct comprehensive impact assessments in advance of evictions that take into account their differential impact on women, children and other vulnerable groups; 在驱逐之前，宣布政府所执行的全面效应评估，从而把对妇女、孩子和其他易受攻击群 体的影响也算在内； call for States to take intervening measures to ensure that market forces do not increase the vulnerability of low-income and marginalized groups to forced eviction; 号召政府采取行动保证市场压力不会增加低收入人群的易受攻击性和边缘群体的强制 驱逐； affirm the obligation of States to recognize the fundamental human rights of evicted persons to return, resettlement and fair and just compensation; 确认政府的职责，认可被驱逐人们基本人权的回归，重新安置和应得公平的赔偿； affirm the requirement that all affected persons be notified in writing and sufficiently in advance with a view towards minimizing the adverse impacts of evictions; 书面确定被影响人们的需求和最小化驱逐不利影响的意见； enumerate detailed steps to be taken by States to protect human rights prior to, during and after evictions; and 列举出政府采取的详细措施来保护驱逐前中后期的人权 establish stringent criteria for initiating and carrying out evictions in exceptional circumstances. 例外时对开始和进行的驱逐设置严格的规定。
In some circumstances, those responsible for evictions use the argument that development will actually result in an enhancement of the right to adequate housing. When it comes to large settlements of people living in sub-standard housing, the need to regulate development-based evictions and displacement seeks to move the focus away from ‘slum redevelopment’ or ‘slum clearance’ and onto ‘slum upgrading’, which is now widely acknowledged as one of the more effective means of improving the housing conditions of the poor.131 Slum upgrading is considered a way of helping to realise the right to adequate housing and other human rights, and a method of providing protection from forced evictions through enhanced security of tenure. The important factor is the way in which such upgrades are conducted – i.e. the need to ensure compliance with standards such as those set out in the Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement. 某些情况下，对驱逐有效的会使用辩论，这样开发实际上将会导致适足住房权的增强。当出现 大批人居住在不合格的房屋时，就需要调整基于发展的驱逐和转移寻求把焦点从“贫民窟再建” 或“贫民窟清理”上转移到“压缩贫民窟”上，如今这一做法被公认更有效改善穷人住房情况的方 法之一。压缩贫民窟被认为是一种帮助实现适足住房权和其他人权的方法，也是通过提高租客 安全而为强制驱逐者提供保护的办法。重要的是执行这一压缩的方式-例如需要保证遵守基于发 展的驱逐和转移的基本原则及指导方针中所建立的标准。 3.3 The rights to participation and information 参与和信息权 The right to participation is part of international human rights law. With regard to the right to adequate housing, UNCESCR General Comment No. 4 states: 参与权是国际人权法的一部分。关于适足住房权，UNCESCR 概要注解中第4条指出：
131
See further, COHRE, Human Rights and Slum-Upgrading: General Introduction and Compilation of Case Studies (Geneva: COHRE, 2005). 32
“While the most appropriate means of achieving the full realization of the right to adequate housing will inevitably vary significantly from one Government party to another ... [this duty] will almost invariably require the adoption of a national housing strategy .... Both for reasons of relevance and effectiveness, as well as in order to ensure respect for other human rights, such a strategy should reflect extensive genuine consultation with, and participation by, all of those affected, including the homeless, the inadequately housed and their representatives.”132 “ 在采用充分实现适足住房权利之最适当的措施方面，一缔约国与另一缔约国之间必定会 有很大差别，《公约》明确要求各缔约国采取为实现这一目的所必需的任何步骤。这几乎 必然要求采取一项如《全球住房战略》第32段所述的：“确定发展住房条件之目标，确定 实现这些目标可利用之资源及利用这些资源最有成本效益之方法和建立实施必要措施的 责任制和时间框架”的全国住房战略。为了具有针对性和有效性，并且确保对其他人权的 尊重，这样的一项战略应体现包括无家可归者，居住简陋者和他们的代表在内的所有受影 响者的广泛真诚的磋商和参与.” The requirement for participation is even more strongly emphasised in relation to the threat of forced evictions. In this respect, the UNCESCR General Comment No. 7 states: 参与需要性强调更多的是和强制驱逐威胁有关。在这方面，UNCESCR 概要注解第7条指出： “Governments 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.”133 “执政党在执行驱逐之前，尤其是对那些受影响的大型群体，要确保所有可行办法都与受 影响的人们磋商过，尽量避免，或至少最小化，使用强制手段。” Citizens and residents also have a right to information. The rights to participation and information are important in the context of mega-events. When local communities are affected by the transformation of their cities, it is vital that they are fully and genuinely involved in the process. In the context of the Olympic Games for example, local residents are asked to ‘share the spirit’134 and engage with enthusiasm in efforts to prepare the city to be the focus of world attention. It is difficult to do this when you are unsure whether your house will be demolished in the reconstruction process, whether you will be evicted in order to make way for a new sports stadium, or whether your rent will increase so much that you will be forced to move to the outskirts of town far away from your workplace. 市民和居民也有信息权。在大型活动背景下参与和信息权也很重要。当地方社区受到城市改造 的影响时，至关重要的是他们要真正完全的参与到其中的过程。例如在奥运会这一背景下，当 地居民被要求要有“共享精神”并积极参与准备工作从而使城市能成为世界的焦点。但当你不能 确定自己的家是否将会在改造过程被破坏、会不会因为要给新的运动场馆让路而被强制驱逐、 或是你的房租上涨太厉害以至于不得不搬到离上班地方很远的郊外时，你就很难做到这些要 求。
132
UNCESCR, General Comment No. 4, para. 12. UNCESCR, General Comment No. 7, para. 14. 134 This was the slogan of the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000. 133
33
Mega-events affect the broader community which hosts the visiting participants. They are, by definition, public events, and thus elements of public involvement and consultation should be incorporated into the planning and hosting processes. Redevelopment strategies, including those related to mega-events, should reflect genuine consultation with, and participation by, all sectors of society, including the homeless, other vulnerable people and their representatives, as well as community organisations. Disappointingly, the lack of community involvement in the planning and decision-making processes regarding the housing impacts of mega-events appears to be a recurring theme. 大型活动对主办城市中有游客拜访的社区影响更大。准确来说，他们是公共活动，因此公共参 与和磋商的因素要与规划和主办过程组合为一体。再开发政策，包括那些和大型活动相关的， 应当反应出与所有社会成员真诚磋商及参与后的结果，这其中包括有无家可归者，其他易受攻 击人群及他们的代表，还有社区组织。令人失望的是，有关大型活动对住房影响的规划和决策 过程中，缺少社区参与似乎成为一个不变的现象。 3.4 Housing rights obligations for Governments and non-State entities 政府和非政府实体对住房权利的责任 3.4.1 Who bears the responsibility for promoting and protecting housing rights? 是谁担负起促进和保护住房权利的责任？ The primary responsibility for the protection and promotion of human rights rests upon governments. Under international human rights law, States have an obligation to protect the housing rights of a population. Governments must ensure that any possible violations of these rights by non-state actors, such as landlords, property developers or corporations are prevented. Where such infringements do occur, the relevant public authorities should act to prevent any further deprivations and provide affected persons access to legal remedies to redress for any damage. 保护和促进人权的首要责任取决于政府。在国际人权法下，政府有责任保护人民的住房权利。 政府必须确保禁止任何非政府因素，如房东、物权开发商或企业违背这些权利。一旦这些侵害 发生，相关的政府部门应该采取措施阻止进一步损失并为受影响人们提供法律赔偿的途径从而 使任何损害得到赔偿。 However, there are increasing expectations from the international community that other actors, such as corporations (which are frequently official sponsors of mega-events),, respect international human rights norms and standards. Today, the impact of non-state actors in the area of housing rights is undeniable. This is especially evident in the process of preparing to host mega-events, where private or semi-private actors are involved in the hosting of events that have a significant impact on the population’s housing rights. In addition, many non-state actors themselves have acknowledged that their increased power and influence calls for increased responsibilities including respect for universal values, international human rights norms, environmental standards and the broader concept of sustainable development. The corporate sponsors of mega-events, as well mega-events organising associations such as the IOC and FIFA, are no exception to this trend. 但是，国际社区日益增长的还有其他方面的期望，例如法人（通常是大型活动的官方赞助商）， 应该尊重国际人权的规范和标准。今天，非政府成员对住房权利的影响是不可否认的。特别是 在准备大型活动中的过程中，有私人和公私合营成员参与活动主办的地方对人们的住房权利有 很大影响。另外，很多非政府成员他们自身也获取了日益增长的权力和影响，提倡承担更多责 任，这包括有对国际评价、国际人权规范、环境标准的尊重，以及可持续发展更广的含义。大 型活动的赞助商，还有大型活动的组织协会如国际奥委会和国际足联，对这一趋势都无异议。 34
As discussed below in Chapter III Section 5, non-state actors, including sponsors of mega-events, and entities associated with the construction and preparation of a city for a mega-event, have human rights responsibilities and must therefore act to respect and protect housing rights. 如下面第三章第5部分，非政府成员，包括大型活动的赞助商，与大型活动准备和建筑相关的 企业，也有人权责任，因此必须采取行动尊重并保护住房权利。 3.4.1 What is the nature and scope of the right to adequate housing? 适足住房权的本质和范围是什么？ The right to adequate housing envisages non-violent displacement only after exploration of all other feasible alternatives, and viable challenge by the individuals affected; it requires that harm be minimised; and that local housing conditions be continuously improved. 只有在探索过所有其他可行方法并在受影响当事人实验后，适足住房权才能要求非暴力转移。 这需要把伤害最小化，并持续改善当地住房情况。 The right to adequate housing can be protected through the adoption and implementation of housing strategies that incorporate consideration of the various components of the right as set out above and in General Comment No. 4. These strategies must be implemented at all times, and cannot be disregarded during the process of preparing for a mega-event. They should be developed in an inclusive manner, enabling community participation. For example, governments must take steps to ensure effective coordination between relevant ministries and regional and local authorities in order to reconcile related policies. This is particularly important in the context of mega-events – entities responsible for managing sporting or cultural events must coordinate these processes with the authorities responsible for housing and social protection. 依照上面提到各种因素和概要通过采用执行注解第4条得出综合考虑的住房策略，适足住房权 可得到保护。这些策略必须从一而终的执行，不可以在准备大型活动的过程中被忽视。开发这 些策略应当有社区参与。例如，政府必须采取行动确保相关部门和地方地区政府之间的有效合 作，从而使相关项目和谐发展。这在大型活动背景中尤其重要-负责管理体育或文化活动的实 体必须和负责住房及社会保障的部门协调合作。 Mega-events often attract large investments. Human rights law requires that rights such as the right to adequate housing are realised through the equitable and effective use of, and access to, available resources. All stakeholders should be conscious of how the resources invested in the hosting of a mega-event are being used so as to ensure that the right to adequate housing is protected and fulfilled to the maximum extent possible. 大型活动常常会吸引大批资本投资。人权法需要通过公平有效的使用可用资源使这些如适足住 房权得以实现。所有利益相关者应该意识到在主办大型活动中如何用到投资的资源从而确保适 足住房权受到保护并尽最大可能实现。
35
Article 2(1) of the ICESCR establishes that rights such as the right to adequate housing are progressively realizable, however this does not imply that the efforts needed to ensure the full realisation of these rights can be indefinitely postponed, or even suspended, during the preparations for a mega-event. Further, it does not allow for regression in the realisation of the right to adequate housing, even in the context of the need to prioritise resources for a mega-event such as the Olympic Games. Rather, the concept of progressively realising the right to adequate housing must be understood in the light of other parts of the ICESCR which contain an obligation to work towards the “continuous improvement of living conditions”. 135 146 Further, there are numerous aspects of the right to adequate housing which are immediately realisable, for example, protection against discrimination. ICESCR 文章2（1）确立了如适足住房权这些权利的愈加可行性，尽管这并不意味着确保这些 权利全部实现的努力可以在准备大型活动时不定期推后，甚至暂停。此外，不允许在实现适足 住房权中的倒退，甚至是在当大型活动有优先权，如奥运会的时候。更确切些，逐渐实现适足 住房权的概念必须按照 ICESCR 其他包含“持续改善生活情况”的部分来理解。此外，适足住房 权的诸多方面要立即实现，如针对歧视的保护。 The key aspects of the right to adequate housing can be categorised as the obligations to respect, protect and fulfil. 适足住房权的主要方面可列为尊重，保护和实现的义务。 The duty to respect the right to adequate housing means that governments and stakeholders should refrain from any action that would prevent people from realising this right whenever they themselves are able to do so. Respecting this right will often only require governments and stakeholders to abstain from certain practices, such as forced evictions. Nothing should be done to worsen, or further diminish the housing situation. Notably, this means a prohibition on forcibly evicting people and on arbitrarily and unlawfully destroying their homes. The duty to respect also encompasses obligations to respect the right to organise and assemble, as this forms part of the obligation not to restrict the full enjoyment of the right to participation. The duty to respect is immediately realisable. 尊重适足住房权的责任意味着政府和利益相关者应当避免任何可能阻止人们随时实现这一权 利的行为。关系到这一权利，通常只需要政府和利益相关者放弃一些作为，如强制驱逐。不应 再做使之恶化的事情，或是进一步减少住房。特别是禁止强制驱逐人民和任意非法地破坏他们 的住宅。尊重相关义务和权利的责任要组织集合起来，使之形成不受限充分享有参与义务的一 部分。这一责任的考虑也应立马实现。 In order to satisfy the duty to protect the right to adequate housing, governments and stakeholders must prevent violations of these rights by third parties such as landlords, property developers, and other private-sector individuals or entities. This also requires governments and stakeholders to ensure that no further deprivations occur if violations have been allowed to happen, and obliges the government to guarantee access to legal remedies for such violations. For example, governments must act to prevent developers or others from violently evicting people from Olympic Games sites. 按照实现保护适足住房权的责任，政府和利益相关者必须阻止第三方对这一权利的违背，如房 东，物权开发者和其他私人部门，个人或实体。这也需要政府和利益相关者确保，如果允许已 有违背的发生，就不会再有进一步剥削的发生，并且责成政府保证能获取有关这些侵害法律赔 偿的途径。例如，政府必须采取措施阻止开发商或其他人强制把人们从奥运区域驱逐出去。
135
See Article 11(1) of the ICES CR. 36
In order to protect against forced evictions conducted by third parties, immediate measures must be taken to confer legal security of tenure upon all persons. This protects against the threat of forced eviction at the hands of private bodies. In addition, residents should be protected, by legislation and other effective measures, from discrimination, harassment, withdrawal of services or other threats. Governments should take steps to ensure that housing-related costs for individuals, families and households are commensurate with income levels. For example, rent-control policies could be introduced throughout the period leading up to and during mega-events in order to ensure affordability of housing for the most vulnerable. The creation of judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative or political enforcement mechanisms capable of providing redress to victims of infringements of the right to adequate housing must be ensured. Housing rights must not be left unaddressed, especially in the context of mega-events, and as they are the responsibility of all stakeholders they cannot be delegated away or contracted out to private agencies or other actors. 根据对由第三方执行的强制驱逐的保护，即时的方法必须授予所有租客法律安全。这在私人主 体的情况下能保护不受到强制驱逐的威胁。另外，居民应受到法律和其他有效措施保护而不被 歧视、折磨、停止公共服务和遭受其他威胁。政府应该采取行动确保个人、家庭和家族在住房 上的花费与其低收入相符。例如，控制房租的政策可以在大型活动前中期引入，从而确保对易 受攻击群体能住得起房。司法、准司法、行政或政治执行机构的设立必须要保证能给适足住房 权受到侵害的人的做出赔偿。住房权利绝不可以置之不提，尤其是在大型活动的情况下，并且 由于这是利益相关者的责任-不能委派给私人机构和其他部门执行。 The duty to fulfill the right to adequate housing entails positive obligations, for example the provision of housing subsidies or social housing and the provision of public services. This consists of a requirement to take immediate steps to fulfil the right to adequate housing, using the maximum available resources to progressively realise housing rights, without discrimination on any grounds. The hosting of mega-events can be seen as an important opportunity to take steps towards fulfilling the realisation of the right to adequate housing. The construction of new housing, for example to house athletes during the Olympic Games, is potentially an opportunity to increase the stock of public and low-cost housing, if the infra-structural legacy of the mega-event is used for this purpose. 履行适足住房权的责任需要承担积极的义务，例如提供住房补贴或廉租房和公共设施。组成这 一需要应立即采取行动来履行适足住房权，尽可能使用可用资源来实现更多住房权利，不带有 任何歧视。主办大型活动可以看作是一个履行实现适足住房权的重要机会。新住房的建设，例 如奥运会中运动员村，只要大型活动基础建设政策的目的如此，也会成为增加公共低收入住房 储备的潜在机会。
4. CONCLUSIONS ON MEGA-EVENTS AND HOUSING RIGHTS 对大型活动和住房权利的总结 Mega-events are an opportunity for a city to promote its image, boost its investment attractiveness, and place itself on the world map as a tourist destination. Mega-events act as catalysts for development, and are usually characterized by urban regeneration and gentrification. However, the benefits of this process are rarely shared equally – the poor, homeless and other minorities bear the brunt of the negative side effects, and opportunities for using mega-events as a method of promoting a positive housing legacy are usually neglected. 大型活动是一个城市提升其形象，推进其投资吸引力和成为世界旅游地图一份子的机会。大型 活动是发展的催化剂，并常常是城市改造和将日渐破败的市区改造为中产阶级居住区的表现。 但是，这一过程的收益却很少能公平划分给-穷人，无家可归者和其他首先受到负面影响冲击 的少数人，还有作为大型活动中促进积极住房政策的方法却常常被忽视。 37
The housing impacts created by mega-events can take different forms. They can be direct or indirect, visible in the short-term or displaying longer-term effects. In most cases they affect the most marginalised and vulnerable sectors of society. For these groups, mega-events are often mean increased precariousness, vulnerability and impoverishment. The main dimensions of the housing impacts of mega-events include the following features: 大型活动对住房造成的影响有很多不同的形式。他们可以是直接的或间接的，短时间可见或长 期存在的。在大多数例子里他们影响到社会中大多数处于边缘和易受攻击的群体。对这些群体 来说，大型活动常常意味着更多的不稳定，攻击和贫穷。大型活动对住房影响的主要范围包括 下列情况： •
Displacement and forced evictions of communities and/or individuals in order to pave the way for the construction of mega-event related infrastructure;
转移并强制驱逐社区和个人，从而为大型活动相关的基础设施建设让道； •
Displacement and forced evictions of communities and/or individuals related to redevelopment and gentrification processes that are linked to or brought about by the staging of the mega-events;
转移并强制驱逐城市改造和举办大型活动带来的有关将日渐破败的市区改造为中产阶级 居住区所牵涉到的社区和个人； •
Displacement and forced evictions (particularly of tenants) related to significant increases in housing costs related to the hosting of the mega-event;
因为主办大型活动造成住房成本明显升高而带来的转移和强制驱逐（尤其是对租客）； •
Escalation of housing costs having a significant impact on the local population’s access to affordable housing;
增加房租给当地居民获取可得住房带来的严重影响； •
Reduction in the supply of social and low-cost housing in the pre and post mega-event phases, as well as during the event itself;
在大型活动前中后期，减少社会低收入住房； •
‘Cleaning operations’ to remove homeless people from sitebefore and during the mega-event, as well as the criminalisation of homelessness;
在大型活动期间，从区域内“实施清理”移走无家可归者，或是把他们当成罪犯； •
Introduction of other ‘special’ legislative or policy measures to facilitate the preparations for or staging of the mega-event: for example, measures allowing for expropriation of private property, or targeting homeless or minorities, increases in police powers, restrictions of freedoms such as assembly and movement;
使用其他“特殊”法令或政策推进举办或准备大型活动，例如，允许征收个人财产，或是针 对无家可归者或弱势群体，增加警力，限制集会和搬移的自由；
38
•
Discriminatory and disproportionate effects on marginalised groups including the poor, low-income earners, those with insecure tenure, the homeless, ethnic minorities, indigenous peoples, the elderly, the disabled, street vendors, sex workers, migrants and other vulnerable groups;
对处在边缘群体的歧视和不平衡影响，包括贫民，低收入者，无保障租客，无家可归者， 少数民族，本土民族，年迈者，残疾者，街头卖主，性工作者，移民和其他易受攻击群体； •
Limited transparency and participation of residents and civil society in decision-making affecting housing issues.
限制透明度和居民的参与及决定影响住房问题的公民社会。
For decades, cultural, sporting and political mega-events have generated negative housing impacts. Thousands of people have been displaced and forcibly evicted from the sites of event facilities, for example: 300,000 people were evicted in New Delhi for the 2010 Commonwealth Games; 18,000 people were evicted from the Shanghai 2010 World Expo site and 42 families were violently evicted in Lapu-Lapu City for the 2006 ASEAN Summit. Displacements and forced evictions due to urban redevelopment prompted by mega-event and gentrification are also common, for example: 400,000 people were relocated in Shanghai in preparation for the 2010 World Expo; 1,000 homes were destroyed in shantytowns in Abuja for the 2002 Miss World Beauty Pageant; 200-308 people were displaced from Dallas for the 1994 FIFA World Cup; 180,000 people (30,000 families) were evicted in Santo Domingo for the 1992 500th Columbus Anniversary; 5,000 people were evicted in Bangkok for the 1991 Miss Universe Beauty Pageant; 2,000 people were evicted from slums in Bangkok for the 1991 IMF/World Bank Conference; 1,200 slum dwelling families were evicted in Seoul for the 1985 IMF/World Bank Conference; 400 families were evicted in Manila for the 1976 IMF/World Bank Conference; and hundreds of homes were demolished in Jakarta for the 1962 Asian Games.
几十年来，文化、体育和政治盛事都对住房有负面影响。数以千计的人民从活动场地上被转移 和强行驱逐，例如，新德里为了2010年联邦运动会驱逐了30万人；2010年上海世博会园区驱逐 了1万8千人，2006年东盟峰会 Lapu-Lapu 市强制驱逐了42户家庭。因为开发大型活动带来的城 市改造和将日渐破败的市区改造为中产阶级居住区使得转移和强制驱逐也很常见，例如：为准 备2010年世博会上海重置了40万人；2002年世界小姐大赛，Abuja 捣毁了1000个无家可归者的棚 屋；1994年世界杯，达拉斯转移了200-308个人；1992年为纪念哥伦布500周年，圣多明各驱逐 了18万人；1991年环球小姐大赛，曼谷从贫民窟驱逐了5000人；1991年国际货币基金组织/世界 银行大会，曼谷从贫民窟驱逐了2000人；1985年汉城国际货币基金组织/世界银行大会驱逐了 1200个贫民窟居民；1976年国际货币基金组织/世界银行大会马尼拉驱逐了400户家庭；1962年 亚运会，雅加达粉碎了数百户家庭。
39
Secondary evictions are also common, as the cost of housing escalates and the city’s stock of social and low-cost housing diminishes, for example: 1,400-3,000 were people evicted in Brisbane as a consequence of the 1988 Expo; 1,000-2,000 units of low income housing were lost in Vancouver as a consequence of the 1986 World’s Fair; much low-cost housing was lost in Fremantle due to the 1985 America’s Cup; and 1,500 tenants were evicted in Knoxville as a result of the 1982 World’s Fair. 由于房屋花费升高和城市社会低收入住宅储备的消失，次要驱逐也很常见。例如：因为1988年 世博会布里斯班驱逐了1400-3000个人；因为1 986年世界博览会，温哥华损失了1000-2000个低收 入房屋单位；因为1985年美洲杯，Fremantle 损失了很多低收入住房；因为1982年世博会，诺克斯 维尔驱逐了1500名租客。 Discrimination and harassment of the vulnerable is another common feature: Roma were particularly subjected to harassment and eviction in Patras during the 2006 Cultural Capital of Europe celebrations; 28 homeless persons’ tents were removed by nearly 800 private security guards and police officers in Osaka for the 2006 World Rose Convention; homeless were rounded up and institutionalised in Abuja for the 2002 Miss World Beauty Pageant; 300 homeless persons were ‘cleaned up’ from Osaka for the 2002 FIFA World Cup; homeless, beggars and other ‘undesirables’ were banned from sleeping and doing business in Bangkok for the 1998 Asian Games; and 20 homeless were displaced in Chicago for the 1994 World Cup. 对易受攻击群体的歧视和折磨是另一个常见情况：2006年欧洲文化庆典期间佩特雷的吉普赛人 尤其受到折磨和驱逐；2006年世界玫瑰大会，大阪动用了800名私人保安和警察移除了28名无 家可归人的帐篷；2002年世界小姐大会，Abuja 围捕并关押了无家可归者；2002年世界杯，大 阪“清理”了300个无家可归的人；1998年亚运会，曼谷禁止无家可归人、乞讨者和其他“不受欢 迎”人在市区睡觉和做生意；1994年世界杯芝加哥转移了20个无家可归者。 These negative impacts are more than just an unfortunate side-effect of hosting a mega-event – they are a violation of international human rights law, namely the right to adequate housing. The processes of bidding for, preparing and staging a mega-event are also often marred by violations of the rights to participation and information. Housing rights are protected under numerous international instruments, including the UDHR, the ICESCR, regional human rights treaties, and resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights, to name just a few sources of this legal protection. Preventing violations of the right to adequate housing, including forced evictions, and protecting and promoting the full realisation of housing rights are the responsibility of numerous stakeholders: governments, host cities, event organisers, corporate sponsors, other entities involved in the organisation of a mega-event, and even individual participants. 这些负面影响不仅仅只是主办大型活动时不愿看的一面-这是对国际人权法的违背，也是对适 足住房权的违背。申办、准备和举办大型活动的过程中也常常会违反参与及信息权。住房权利 受众多国际法令的保护，包括 UDHR,ICESCR，地区人权条约人权委员会决议，和其他以这一 名义命名的法律保护。阻止对适足住房权的违背，包括强制驱逐，保护并促进住房权利的全面 实现是众多利益相关者的责任：政府，主办城市，活动组织者，合作赞助商，其他参与大型活 动组织的实体，甚至是个人的参与。
40