1. Introduction The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights commits the States parties to "take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of [their] available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures".1 This "progressive realization" clause is typically seen as a weakness -- as an indication that economic, social and cultural rights are still undervalued in the international human rights regime in comparison to the more "classical" civil and political rights. But it can also be seen as a strength. With this provision, how States mobilize resources and how they define their spending priorities become human rights issues. Such decisions cannot be left to the arbitrary and capricious choices of States : they can and must be subject to a searching inquiry by courts and other bodies in charge of enforcing the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Taxation policies are human rights policies.2 They are so for three reasons. First, taxation allows States to mobilize resources in order to invest in health, education, housing, social protection, electricity and water provision, or transport infrastructure, all of which are indispensable for the enjoyment of the rights of the Covenant, both because of the needs they respond to directly3 and because these services alleviate the burden that women shoulder. If they did not have the ability to mobilize domestic revenues through taxation, States would have to cut down on the provision of these services, and women would be particularly affected since -- in the current division of gender roles that remains dominant in most regions of the world -- it is still they who take care of the infants, children and the elderly, and fetch the firewood or water to meet the household needs.4 Second, taxation allows States to redistribute wealth from the richest parts of the population to the poorest. The impacts on the reduction of inequalities and, therefore, on the effective enjoyment of human rights, can therefore be significant. Third, finally, the shaping of taxation policies are central to democratic self-determination. From the perspective of human rights, to which the principles of participation and accountability are central, how the decisions were reached in order to mobilize resources and in making spending decisions shall matter as much as what decisions were made. Taxation, of course, is not the only tool at the disposal of States to finance public policies in support of the realization of economic, social and cultural rights, and it is not the only tool through which inequality can be reduced. Indeed, other important sources of domestic revenues include trade tariffs (on imports and on exports), the royalty fees obtained from companies (both domestic and foreign) exploiting natural resources, as well as fees that may be imposed on the users of public services such as schools or hospitals. States may also borrow to finance their policies,5 and they may obtain resources from the 1 G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N.GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 49, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 U.N.T.S. 3, entered into force Jan. 3, 1976 (Art. 2 (1)) (emphasis added). 2 Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, to the 29th session of the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/29/31) (26 May 2015), para. 53. 3 It may be worth recally that the "adequate house", in the view of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, is one that, in particular, ensures access to "safe drinking water, energy for cooking, heating and lighting, sanitation and washing facilities" and is "in a location which allows access to employment options, health-care services, schools, child-care centres and other social facilities [in particular since] the temporal and financial costs of getting to and from the place of work can place excessive demands upon the budgets of poor households" (General Comment 4, The right to adequate housing (Sixth session, 1991), U.N. Doc. E/1992/23, annex III at 114 (1991), para. 8, (b) and (f)). 4 See Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Magdalena Sepulveda Carmona, presented at the sixty-eighth session of the General Assembly, A/68/293 (9 August 2013). 5 Although this may come at the risk of increasing their annual public deficit and, ultimately, their public debt, it may be justified particularly in times of economic downturn and insofar as the debt finances policies that may be seen as investments rather than merely as a stop-gap to meet current expenditures. Rathin Roy and Antoine Heuty (eds), Fiscal Space: Policy options for financing human development (Earthscan and UNDP, New York, 2009). 5 CRIDHO Working Paper 2017/1