“占领伦敦”:土地产权与公共性之争

“Occupy London”: Property Rights and the Politics of “Publicness”

文章以"占领伦敦"为线索,聚焦其中围绕土地产权的各方权利冲突,以及公共权力与公众之间对"公共"话语的争夺。文章利用参与式观察与访谈获取数据,结合对相关诉讼案件辩词、土地交易协议及历史档案的分析,指出是私有土地产权的排他性权利与政府作为公权力的城市管理权共同导致了帕特诺斯特广场被封锁及圣保罗营地被清除的遭遇。占领者营地的社会组织与空间实践则充分显示出他们与城市政府对城市"公共性"的不同理解与追求。对"占领伦敦"的细致分析既帮助我们了解英国的土地产权架构及政府的城市规划权、土地强制征收权等管治权力,也促进了对公共空间固有困境的思考,这些都将为进一步探讨中国城市的土地制度、公共空间与公共性提供参考与启发。

This paper focuses on the conflicts in land ownership and politics around ＂publicness＂ that Occupy London reflects. With the data obtained from participant observation and interviews, combined with the records of the case of City of London-v-Samede and others, land transaction and archives, this paper argues that, it is the exclusive rights of private property and governmental power of the Corporation of the City of London that resulted in the injunction preventing the protesters entering into Paternoster Square and the eviction of them from the St. Pauls Camp. The organisation and practice of the Occupy camp reveals an alternative possibility of the city ＂publicness＂, which is different from the one that the authority claims. The analysis on the Occupy London can help understand English landownership system and the planning power and compulsory purchase power of the state. It also promotes the thinking about the dilemma of public space, which in turn facilitates the discussion in Chinese context.