Limitations The present study seeks to clarify the scope and content of the obligation to mobilise resources for human rights realisation as it has been interpreted by treaty bodies and special procedures. However, in practice, only some of the treaty bodies and special procedures have paid attention to the topic. While analysis of resource mobilisation has increased in recent years, it is still marginal to the work of human rights monitoring bodies. The CESCR, and a few special procedures mandate-holders, have made the greatest progress in this respect by dedicating full or partial thematic reports to aspects of the issue. Thus, it is not surprising that most of the references included here are based on the handful of reports that are most relevant to the topic. That said, a great many more reports and documents were analysed for this study; a complete list appears in the Annexes. The documents examined were identified as the most relevant among those issued by human rights monitoring bodies over the past ten years. However, many special procedures and treaty bodies have referred to resource mobilisation only occasionally. Some older documents were included in the analysis due to their relevance or because they reflect the consistency of the approach over the years. A challenge has been analysing this wide, heterogeneous array of documents that refer to the obligation to mobilise resources, and present it in a systematic way, seeking to define and elaborate on its scope and content. This is difficult at times. Documents are not always consistent; they are often adopted under great time constraints by experts who work without a salary, have other full-time jobs and are supported by a Secretariat (the OHCHR) that is itself under continuous resource constraints. The staff supporting these independent experts are subject to high turnover and thus there is little ‘institutional memory’. Moreover, despite great efforts to improve coordination among treaty bodies and special procedures, consistency remains a challenge. Under these circumstances, one cannot expect that treaty body and special procedures mandate-holders – nor even Secretariat staff – are fully aware of other bodies’ latest General Comments or reports. Yet, as this study will demonstrate, a relatively coherent picture of the obligation to mobilise resources has emerged. And because the study focuses on the interpretation that special procedures and treaty bodies offer, it does not aim to provide a comprehensive view of the issue of resource mobilisation for human rights realisation. The work of treaty bodies and special procedures reveals both gaps (ie, unaddressed areas or topics) and areas that have been under-examined. Moreover, it is highly possible that academic writers’ and practitioners’ work on the topic provides a much more progressive, coherent and comprehensive picture. In trying to be faithful to special procedures’ and treaty bodies’ interpretations, the study does not intend to limit or restrict the scope and content of human rights and related obligations. On the contrary, it seeks to shed light on areas that may require further attention by human rights monitoring bodies in the future. December 2017   The Obligation to Mobilise Resources: Bridging Human Rights, Sustainable Development Goals, and Economic and Fiscal Policies 25