Justiciability of the basic necessity of housing: applying the 'violations approach' in enforcing state-induced forced slum evictions in Bangladesh

S. M. Atia Naznin

Research output: Contribution to conferenceAbstractResearch

Abstract

Systematic state-led forced slum evictions remain a persistent challenge in Bangladesh. The primary reason behind this is that housing is not a right, rather a basic necessity under the constitution of Bangladesh. Moreover, it is categorised as a fundamental principle of state policy and expressly termed as non-justiciable. Such a context is inconsistent with the state’s international human rights obligation that guarantees the right to housing and prohibits forced evictions. However, since the late ’90s, the Bangladesh Supreme Court has been liberally adjudicating forced slum evictions. Present paper argues that amidst others, such as the constitutional commitment to social justice or the rise of social rights litigation, principally, the welcoming judicial attitude to apply the growing consensus in international law in conceptualising states’ obligations from a ‘violations approach’ has been the catalyst behind the progress. Accordingly, first, it investigates the scope of this approach which unlike the ‘progressive realisation’ approach invokes negative and immediate obligations for any act which is retrogressive, discriminatory, and violates the minimum core content of the right to housing. Second, it examines the Court’s capacity to adopt this development of international law into the dualist legal system of Bangladesh. Last, by analysing relevant judgements, this paper reveals the judicial craftsmanship that acknowledges the justiciability of the violation of the basic necessity of housing due to forced slum evictions by interpreting the later as the manifestation of retrogression and discrimination to violate the former that constitutes an integral component of the right to life.

Fingerprint

slum
Bangladesh
housing
obligation
international law
social rights
legal system
social justice
Supreme Court
guarantee
constitution
human rights
discrimination
commitment

Cite this

Naznin, S. M. A. (2017). Justiciability of the basic necessity of housing: applying the 'violations approach' in enforcing state-induced forced slum evictions in Bangladesh. 8-9. Abstract from ANZSIL Postgraduate Workshop , Canberra , Australia.
@conference{0d48344ff58b4c5fbf0b0f5675c203cd,
title = "Justiciability of the basic necessity of housing: applying the 'violations approach' in enforcing state-induced forced slum evictions in Bangladesh",
abstract = "Systematic state-led forced slum evictions remain a persistent challenge in Bangladesh. The primary reason behind this is that housing is not a right, rather a basic necessity under the constitution of Bangladesh. Moreover, it is categorised as a fundamental principle of state policy and expressly termed as non-justiciable. Such a context is inconsistent with the state’s international human rights obligation that guarantees the right to housing and prohibits forced evictions. However, since the late ’90s, the Bangladesh Supreme Court has been liberally adjudicating forced slum evictions. Present paper argues that amidst others, such as the constitutional commitment to social justice or the rise of social rights litigation, principally, the welcoming judicial attitude to apply the growing consensus in international law in conceptualising states’ obligations from a ‘violations approach’ has been the catalyst behind the progress. Accordingly, first, it investigates the scope of this approach which unlike the ‘progressive realisation’ approach invokes negative and immediate obligations for any act which is retrogressive, discriminatory, and violates the minimum core content of the right to housing. Second, it examines the Court’s capacity to adopt this development of international law into the dualist legal system of Bangladesh. Last, by analysing relevant judgements, this paper reveals the judicial craftsmanship that acknowledges the justiciability of the violation of the basic necessity of housing due to forced slum evictions by interpreting the later as the manifestation of retrogression and discrimination to violate the former that constitutes an integral component of the right to life.",
author = "Naznin, {S. M. Atia}",
year = "2017",
month = "6",
day = "28",
language = "English",
pages = "8--9",
note = "ANZSIL Postgraduate Workshop ; Conference date: 28-06-2017 Through 28-06-2017",
url = "http://www.anzsil.org.au/resources/Documents/ANZSIL{\%}20Postgraduate{\%}20Workshop{\%}202017{\%}20Booklet.pdf",

}

Naznin, SMA 2017, 'Justiciability of the basic necessity of housing: applying the 'violations approach' in enforcing state-induced forced slum evictions in Bangladesh' ANZSIL Postgraduate Workshop , Canberra , Australia, 28/06/17 - 28/06/17, pp. 8-9.

Justiciability of the basic necessity of housing : applying the 'violations approach' in enforcing state-induced forced slum evictions in Bangladesh. / Naznin, S. M. Atia.

2017. 8-9 Abstract from ANZSIL Postgraduate Workshop , Canberra , Australia.

Research output: Contribution to conferenceAbstractResearch

TY - CONF

T1 - Justiciability of the basic necessity of housing

T2 - applying the 'violations approach' in enforcing state-induced forced slum evictions in Bangladesh

AU - Naznin, S. M. Atia

PY - 2017/6/28

Y1 - 2017/6/28

N2 - Systematic state-led forced slum evictions remain a persistent challenge in Bangladesh. The primary reason behind this is that housing is not a right, rather a basic necessity under the constitution of Bangladesh. Moreover, it is categorised as a fundamental principle of state policy and expressly termed as non-justiciable. Such a context is inconsistent with the state’s international human rights obligation that guarantees the right to housing and prohibits forced evictions. However, since the late ’90s, the Bangladesh Supreme Court has been liberally adjudicating forced slum evictions. Present paper argues that amidst others, such as the constitutional commitment to social justice or the rise of social rights litigation, principally, the welcoming judicial attitude to apply the growing consensus in international law in conceptualising states’ obligations from a ‘violations approach’ has been the catalyst behind the progress. Accordingly, first, it investigates the scope of this approach which unlike the ‘progressive realisation’ approach invokes negative and immediate obligations for any act which is retrogressive, discriminatory, and violates the minimum core content of the right to housing. Second, it examines the Court’s capacity to adopt this development of international law into the dualist legal system of Bangladesh. Last, by analysing relevant judgements, this paper reveals the judicial craftsmanship that acknowledges the justiciability of the violation of the basic necessity of housing due to forced slum evictions by interpreting the later as the manifestation of retrogression and discrimination to violate the former that constitutes an integral component of the right to life.

AB - Systematic state-led forced slum evictions remain a persistent challenge in Bangladesh. The primary reason behind this is that housing is not a right, rather a basic necessity under the constitution of Bangladesh. Moreover, it is categorised as a fundamental principle of state policy and expressly termed as non-justiciable. Such a context is inconsistent with the state’s international human rights obligation that guarantees the right to housing and prohibits forced evictions. However, since the late ’90s, the Bangladesh Supreme Court has been liberally adjudicating forced slum evictions. Present paper argues that amidst others, such as the constitutional commitment to social justice or the rise of social rights litigation, principally, the welcoming judicial attitude to apply the growing consensus in international law in conceptualising states’ obligations from a ‘violations approach’ has been the catalyst behind the progress. Accordingly, first, it investigates the scope of this approach which unlike the ‘progressive realisation’ approach invokes negative and immediate obligations for any act which is retrogressive, discriminatory, and violates the minimum core content of the right to housing. Second, it examines the Court’s capacity to adopt this development of international law into the dualist legal system of Bangladesh. Last, by analysing relevant judgements, this paper reveals the judicial craftsmanship that acknowledges the justiciability of the violation of the basic necessity of housing due to forced slum evictions by interpreting the later as the manifestation of retrogression and discrimination to violate the former that constitutes an integral component of the right to life.

UR - http://www.anzsil.org.au/resources//2017%20Conference/ANZSIL%20Postgraduate%20Workshop%202017%20Booklet.pdf

M3 - Abstract

SP - 8

EP - 9

ER -