A/HRC/31/61 49. Some critics have argued that having legislation favourable to the offshoring of private wealth is part of a jurisdiction’s right to self-determination or sovereignty. The Independent Expert shares the view of the commission established by the Government of Norway to investigate capital flight from developing countries, that States do not have an unlimited license to pursue their own self-interest at any cost; indeed, the primary constraint on State sovereignty is that domestic policies should not undermine the sovereignty of another State. “Legislation that exclusively or primarily will have effects in other States, such as the financial regulations common to secrecy jurisdictions, is therefore not the exercise of sovereignty, but an encroachment on the sovereignty of others”.47 C. Use of funds 50. It is important to emphasize that, since curtailing tax abuse would surely increase the fiscal space of Governments, these greater tax revenues must be spent with due respect for international human rights obligations. While human rights law gives States a lot of discretion to follow their own economic policies, there are certain limits. For example, States have to ensure that all persons enjoy at least minimum essential levels of satisfaction of each social, economic and cultural right. Furthermore, they have to devote maximum available resources to the progressive realization of social, economic and cultural rights. In addition, all rights need to be realized in a non-discriminatory manner. Human rights obligations in the economic and social sphere therefore demand some prioritization of public spending, including that public resources are used to ensure that marginalized groups enjoy the rights enumerated in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights and other human rights treaties, without discrimination. 51. This reasoning holds not only for the use of additional tax revenues. While illicit financial outflows may pose constraints on States to realize economic, social and cultural rights, that does not excuse budget allocations based on existing public revenues that would be in contradiction to the above mentioned principles. 52. Furthermore, it is the view of the Independent Expert that respect for and adherence to the human rights principles of transparency, accountability and participation is a critical factor in ensuring the prudent use of public funds. D. Responsibilities of non-State actors 53. As the Independent Expert discussed in his interim study, tax abuse, and illicit financial flows more generally, is not a human rights concern for States alone. While States have the primary duty to respect, protect and fulfil human rights, Principle 13 (a) of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights requires that business “[a]void causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur”.48 54. The present study has already discussed how many transnational corporations employ aggressive tax planning strategies that amount to tax abuse. When it comes to tax evasion, financial institutions are also a key actor — including some of the world’s largest and best-known banks. For the period 1998-2014, one author identified 845 cases in which 47 48 14 See Commission on Capital Flight from Poor Countries, Tax Havens and Development, p. 145 (Government of Norway, Oslo, 2009). See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Guiding principles on business and human rights” (New York and Geneva, 2011).