Chapter 6: Final conclusions and recommendations Historically, human rights monitoring bodies, as well as human rights advocates, have hesitated to address resource mobilisation. However, as this report demonstrates, the situation is currently changing. Over the past decade, treaty bodies and special procedures have increasingly defined the obligation to mobilise resources. They have made notable headway determining the scope and content of this obligation, strengthening states’ accountability and helping them comply with their obligations under human rights instruments in addition to political commitments made as part of the 2030 Agenda. Yet, progress has been achieved through the work of a handful of treaty bodies and special procedures, mainly those holding mandates related to economic, social and cultural rights. Those bodies dealing with civil and political rights are, in general – with some notable exceptions – neglecting issues of resource mobilisation, despite the fact that respect for the rule of law is a precondition for strengthening all human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights. • All human rights monitoring bodies should accord due attention to the issue of mobilisation of resources in their work. This is an issue highly relevant to the assessment of whether or not states are complying with their human rights obligations that has yet to be addressed adequately by special procedures and treaty bodies. Despite the progress, further clarification by human rights monitoring bodies on the scope and content of the obligation to mobilise resources and how to assess compliance by states and other actors with this obligation is needed. Under each chapter, the report has included a set of recommendations dealing specifically with some analytical challenges related to resource mobilisation for which special procedures need to develop more sophisticated analytical tools. To this end, human rights monitoring bodies might wish to count on the work of academics and practitioners that has elaborated and deepened the conceptual frameworks related to the obligation to mobilise resources. Human rights monitoring bodies still lag behind academia and activists in their resource mobilisation analyses. This is particularly evident regarding the human rights impact of tax abuses,331 including tax havens;332 the impact of fiscal and monetary policies in the enjoyment 331 See, eg, IBAHRI Task Force, Tax Abuses, Poverty and Human Rights (IBAHRI 2013); Thomas Pogge and Krishen Mehta (eds), Global Tax Fairness (Oxford University Press 2016); Lima Declaration on Tax Justice and Human Rights, signed by more than 100 civil society organisations as a result of an international strategy meeting, ‘Advancing Tax Justice through Human Rights’, held in Lima, Peru in 2015, convened by the Center for Economic and Social Rights, the Global Alliance for Tax Justice, Oxfam, Red Latinoamericana sobre Deuda, Desarrollo y Derechos (LatinDADD), Red de Justicia Fiscal de América Latina y el Caribe and the Tax Justice Network. 332 See, eg, Paul Beckett, Tax Havens and International Human Rights (Taylor & Francis 2017). This is also particularly evident in the links between taxation and gender equality. Civil society organisations have been extremely active in addressing the gender impact of fiscal policies. Eg, in June 2017, several entities held a Women’s Rights and Tax Justice conference in Bogotá. 84 The Obligation to Mobilise Resources: Bridging Human Rights, Sustainable Development Goals, and Economic and Fiscal Policies   December 2017