Chapter 2 | Page 85 2.4 ‘MAXIMUM AVAILABLE RESOURCES’: WIGGLE ROOM FOR STATES? The central importance of resources for the realisation of ESC rights is recognised in the formulation of its obligations as being fulfilled ‘progressively’. Use of the term ‘maximum available resources’, however, presents the challenge of clearly establishing the nature of this obligation and what it entails in practice. Robert Robertson eloquently expresses this complexity: It is a difficult phrase-two warring adjectives describing an undefined noun. “Maximum” stands for idealism; “available” stands for reality. “Maximum” is the sword of human rights rhetoric; “available” is the wiggle room for the state.200 Implementation of civil and political rights, as well as of economic, social and cultural rights requires positive action on the part of the State, which necessitates resource allocation.201 Promotion and protection of human rights on the ground necessitate direct policies of the State to establish legal, institutional and administrative mechanisms to ensure that individuals and groups are able to enjoy these rights without interference from the State or from third parties. These mechanisms and systems invariably require resources. Apart from the obligation to use ‘maximum available resources’ in Article 2(1) of the ICESCR, the need for resources in the implementation of human rights obligations is also recognised in other human rights instruments. Similar provisions regarding the use of resources for the realisation of rights are included in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and a number of regional human rights covenants and protocols. For example, Article 4 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) identifies State responsibility within the ‘maximum extent of their available resources’,202 which resonates 200 Robertson, above n 34, 694. 201 Skogly, above n 36. 202 CRC, above n 5, art 4.