Chapter 1 | Page 10 resources, and organisational and social resources, all of which can be employed to achieve desired policy goals.29 Although these broad definitions provide insights into what resources are applicable for the purpose of ESC rights in general, given the ambiguous nature of the concept of ‘maximum available resources’ in human rights practice, further conceptual clarity can be valuable for both policy and advocacy purposes. Accordingly, this thesis takes up the challenge of further refining and incorporating these dimensions into the definition of resources to enhance their applicability to human rights practice. 1.2.3 What resources are ‘available’ to the State? Given the ESCR Committee’s concept of resources as encompassing those to which States have ‘access’, the scope of resources can extend beyond government revenue from tax and non-tax income to include such forms as international assistance and co-operation as well as private sector investments by domestic and foreign entities. Equally, as noted above, given that resources could be of many types and forms, including financial, natural, technological, human, environmental, organisational, legal, and social resources, States should consider mobilising such resources from the wider society, including the private sector. Such broader characterisations of ‘resources at the disposition of the State’ extends potential resources beyond the traditional budgetary definition. While this approach enlarges the scope of resources that the State can potentially mobilise for the purpose of advancing ESC rights, it may also introduce a number of practical difficulties. For instance, while the concept of ‘maximum available resources’ is presented as part of the State’s legal obligation in the context of ESC rights, the definition of availability of resources must be bound by the legal authority and power of the State and understood within its lawful jurisdictional authority in relation to 29 For example see, Robertson, above n 19; Skogly, above n 14.