2008] The Minimum Core of Economic and Social Rights 123 I suggest that the third argument, along global redistributive lines, holds the most relevance for contemporary debates. A lthough the legal support for the Committee’s recent assertion that the minimum core gives rise to “national responsibilities for all States, and inte rnational responsibilities for developed States, as well as others that are ‘in a position to assist’” 49 requires more analysis, one can see why a minimum l egal standard would be a prerequisite. The Committee’s system of liability makes states, whi ch are in a position t o assist in the protection of the minimum core, liable for not doing so, based on the cogency of a legal minimum. States which are not able to deliver the minimum core to their citizens may re sist sanction if they have sought international support which has not been forthcoming.50 Legal support for this inquiry rests on the obliga tion to provide “international assistance and cooperation”51 in the collective realization of economic and social rights under the Covenant. Alternativel y, legality stems from the core’s status (which is itself highly cont estable) as cust omary international law, and even as treatyoverriding jus cogens. A minimalist definition of economic and social rights is needed to mediate the le gal, as well as politi cal and philosophical, 52 challenges of holding states accountab le for the socioeco nomic deprivations experienced by citizens in other states. B. The Constitutional Predecessor and Its Potential The minimum core concept does not ha ve the same purchase in efforts to interpret the e conomic and s ocial rights protected in a variety of constitutional contexts.53 Of national courts, the South African Constitutional Court has come closest to defining th e minimum core of economic and social rights.54 The role that the co ncept may play i n setting out a minimum sphere 49. Statement: Poverty and the Covenant, supra note 5, ¶ 16. 50. E.g., General Comment No. 12, supra note 33, ¶ 17. 51. Covenant, supra note 19, art. 2(1). See also the refe rence to international cooperation in Article 11 (the right to ad equate standard of living and, in particular, the righ t to food and to be free from hunger); Article 15(4) (coopera tion in the scientific and cultural fields); and Articles 22-23 (the role of the specialized agencies and other forms of international action). See also U.N. Charter arts. 55, 56; SIGRUN I. SKOGLY, BEYOND NATIONAL BORDERS: STATES’ HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 83-98 (2006); Alston & Quinn, supra note 27, at 186-92. 52. See Joshua Cohen & Charles Sabel, Extra Rempublicam Nulla Justitia?, 34 P HIL. & PUB. AFF. 147 (2006) (replying to the statism of Thomas Nagel, The Problem of Global Justice , 33 PHIL. & PUB. AFF. 113 (2005)). 53. The constitutional protection of econom ic and social rights occurred in Western Europe following the end of World W ar II. See, e.g., DONALD SASSOON, ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOCIALISM 117-67 (1996) (describing the adoption of democratic and social rights in the immediate post-war years). Economic and social rights are also a feature of many post-colonial constitutions in Africa, as well as the African Union. See RACHEL MURRAY, HUMAN RIGHTS IN AFRICA: FROM THE OAU TO THE AFRICAN UNION 245-64 (2004). Some Latin American constitutions also include protection s of econo mic and social rights. See MARY ANN GLENDON, The Forgotten Crucible: The Latin American Influenc e on the Universal Human Rights Idea , 16 H ARV. HUM. RTS J. 27, 35 (2003). Controversially, post-communist constitutions include such protections as well. See WOJCIECH SADURSKI, RIGHTS BEFORE COURTS: A STUDY OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS IN POSTCOMMUNIST STATES OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE 176-78 (2005). Not all of these constitutions contain legally enforceable economic and social rights. See Ellen Wiles, Aspirational Principles or Enforceable Right s? The Future for Soc io-Economic Rights in National Law, 22 AM. U. INT’L L. REV. 35 (2006) (referencing different constitutional texts). 54. The Court has placed the m inimum core under the m ore general purview of reasonableness review. Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign 2002 (5) SA 721 (CC) at 722 (S. Afr.) (declining to determine a minimum core standard for the right to health and noting the Court’s