2017 Measuring Compliance 669 consideration to its capacity to do so in light of its available resources,”49 which, along with the sentiments of some states during the drafting of the ICESCR, represents little more than a moral vision. While it may be possible, eventually, to specify the content of an international obligation,50 grappling with the slipperiness of global social justice is too complex a task to be attempted presently.51 For this reason, it is assumed here that a duty-bearer’s maximum available resources are those that are owned and controlled domestically. Without domestic financial resources, there will be little significant advancement in desirable social outcomes.52 However, the fact that better social outcomes may not be possible without financial resources does not necessarily mean that they are guaranteed if and when more financial resources become available. There are many instances where countries with similar (low) levels of financial resources have, at the same time, significantly different situations of education, hunger, health, and housing. For example, while Switzerland has both a higher income and higher average life expectancy compared with Swaziland, Nicaragua’s income almost equals that of Swaziland, yet Nicaraguans can expect to live more than twenty-five years longer.53 There must be more to maximum available resources than the level of financial resources alone. B. The Rest of Maximum Available Resources Explained An explanation of the level of social welfare-type goods each duty-bearer should be able to provide requires more than a consideration of only the financial resources available to it. The degree of explanation can be, and needs to be, increased by introducing more variables to the equation. One important variable is clearly the number, mix, quality, and distribution of human resources, or so-called human capital. Without a sufficient number of adequately funded and trained teachers, health professionals, and engineers, it is unlikely that countries would be able to meet internationally 49. Id. at 342. 50. The Health Impact Fund, pioneered by Thomas Pogge, could be one such way to operationalize an international obligation with respect to health. Pogge, Human Rights and Global Health, supra note 47. 51. See, e.g., Peter Singer, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, 1 Phil. Pub. Aff. (1972); Thomas Pogge, Realizing Rawls Part III (1989); Darrell Moellendorf, Cosmopolitan Justice (2002); Pogge World Poverty and Human Rights, supra note 47; and for an analysis and critique of Pogge’s approach, see Carol C. Gould, Coercion, Care, and Corporations: Omissions and Commissions in Thomas Pogge’s Political Philosophy, 3 J. Global Ethics (2007). 52. See World Health Organization, Improving Health Outcomes of the Poor, supra note 35. 53. United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Index, Life Expectancy at Birth (Years) (2014).