走向法庭还是走上街头：超越维权困境的一条行动路径

制度外抗争与制度内法律维权有着显著不同的结果和制度逻辑。现有文献中的“依法抗争”或“以法抗争”可以通过制度外或者制度边缘的集体行动获得政府及时的反应，但却有着多重困境：机会困境、风险困境、组织困境、制度困境。制度内法律维权可以很大程度上破解这些困境，但也有着该模式下独特的结果困境：费时费力而又缺乏即时直接的回报困扰或者阻碍制度内法律维权者去为了获得长期的有益于整个群体的普遍性制度化后果采取行动。但本研究中的业主维权行动在一定程度上破解了这一困境。他们的制度内维权行动让法律在实践中最大可能地运转了起来，从而超越了传统维权的困境。独特的政治机会结构和制度内维权本身所具有的特征，促进一些群体走向法庭，而非走上街头。

To the Courts or to the Streets:The Dilemma of Rights Defending Movement

There are different processes and consequences between defending civil rights via non institutional means and institutional legal channels. “Rightful Resistance” is intensely debated in existing literature. Many works discuss various paradoxical attributes of collective actions outside the system，for instance，opportunity paradox，risk paradox，organization paradox and institution paradox. This study intends to show that protecting civil rights through litigation and legal activism can overcome these paradoxes，even though action sought within the system has its own constraints. The most common constraint is that legal fees are high and outcomes are time consuming and unpredictable，thus it discourages its adoption. Street protests generate direct political pressure on local governments and force them to react with quick temporary measures to meet the demands. Legal actions require high costs but not always deliver results. However， the choice of outside or within the system action is not just determined on the base of cost benefit calculation， it is a matter of political opportunity structure as well. The homeowner activists in this case study opt for the court， not the streets. Their decision can be explained by factors such as the political administrative structure of the locality， a responsive local media， Internet network，and the higher educational level of the homeowners.