WINTFR 201 € WINTER 2015Stt State Qhligationx hiann The minimum core model requires states to ensure minimum level compliance with a right, not progressively as has been the case with economic and social rights, but immediately. 40 Nonetheless, the CESCR Committee cautions state parties "to move as expeditiously and effectively as possible towards that goal.",4' More problematic is how to define or identify the minimum or basic level of a right in a particular country. Chapman pinpointed that the CESCR Committee, "lacks concrete standards for evaluating the performance of governments and their compliance with the Covenant," and therefore "it should come as no surprise that the Committee itself does not use progressive realization as 42 the standard by which it reviews the performance of states parties. What is more, courts and human rights bodies may easily employ the minimum core model to identify the minimum levels of negative obligations, whereas43 its applicability is questionable in relation to positive obligations. In applying this principle, the minimum core approach particularly applies to the obligations to respect and protect economic and social rights, and to a lesser extent, to the obligations to fulfill these rights, which involves financial resources of the state. However, the phrase, "maximum available resources" does not refer only to financial capabilities of a state, but also to those of the international community on44 the basis of obligations of, "international assistance and co-operation." Positive obligations under economic and social rights are most often connected with financial resources. 45 Therefore, insisting on the immediate realization of the core of economic and social rights in every situation may impose an unjustified burden on states, which have been facing systematic and long-term public resource shortages. It may even cause the state not to be able to meet the bare minimum requirements, which under other circumstances could have been fulfilled. For instance, a state which cannot ensure basic health care, housing or education to the majority of the population cannot expect to provide an individual with life-saving drugs, social flat, or even some years of free education.4 6 For this reason, it is more convincing and appropriate to employ and interpret the minimum core model together with the "reasonableness test" drafted by the South-African Constitutional Court in Grootboom case 47 and subsequent cases.4 8 The Court eloquently stated in Grootboom that: 40 CESCR, General Comment No. 15, para. 37. 41CESCR, General Comment 3, para. 9. R. Chapman, A Violations Approach 'for Monitoring the InternationalCovenant on Q., 23, 32 (1996). 43 SANDRA LIENBERG, CONSTITUTIONAL CONVERSATIONS, 303, (2008). 4General Comment No. 3, para. 13. See Sepulvelda, supra note 28 at 370-77. 45Robertson, supra note 27 at 694. 46 See e.g., Carol Steinberg, Can reasonablenessprotect the poor? A review of South Africa's socio-economic rightsjurisprudence, 123 SALJ 264, 268-271 (2006); see also Government of the Republic ofSouth Africa v. Grootboom 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC) at 33 (S.Afr.). 47Id. 48See e.g., Mazibuko v. City of Johannesburg, 2000 (4) SA I (CC), Para. 93-97 (S.Aft.). The Court stated that "what is clear from the conduct of the City is that it has progressively sought to increase access to water for larger households who are prejudiced by the 6 kilolitre limit. It has 42 Audrey Economic,Social and Cultural Rights, 18 HUM. RTS.