What are the implications of human rights for minerals taxation?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article examines the relationship between a state's taxation of mineral revenues and the human rights obligation to use ‘maximum available resources’ to further citizens' welfare. These both have implications for understanding the other but there has been little attention to their interaction.

Contemporary (economic and policy) approaches to mineral taxation revolve around economic rent and providing a ‘neutral’ economic environment that does not influence investment decisions. There is no reference to human rights obligations—these are just part of the state's general responsibilities for which it can legitimately raise taxes. Taxation analysis largely ignores whether the state wants money to ensure there is adequate food for the population, or instead to stage the Miss Universe pageant.

Human rights has relevance for the state's management of resources. The requirement for states to apply ‘maximum available resources’ to fulfil human rights suggests that mineral extraction (and taxation) should occur as fast as possible to be applied for the human rights of the current population A more considered analysis weighs against such a literal interpretation. Nevertheless, the requirement of using ‘maximum available resources’ to fulfil human rights has important implications for mineral taxation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)214-226
Number of pages13
JournalResources Policy
Volume36
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

human rights
taxation
mineral
resource
resources
economic rent
economics
policy approach
rent
Taxation
Human rights
Minerals
taxes
obligation
revenue
money
welfare
food
citizen
responsibility

Cite this

@article{0dec5bfa2ec74a4e982b332541ec20d2,
title = "What are the implications of human rights for minerals taxation?",
abstract = "This article examines the relationship between a state's taxation of mineral revenues and the human rights obligation to use ‘maximum available resources’ to further citizens' welfare. These both have implications for understanding the other but there has been little attention to their interaction.Contemporary (economic and policy) approaches to mineral taxation revolve around economic rent and providing a ‘neutral’ economic environment that does not influence investment decisions. There is no reference to human rights obligations—these are just part of the state's general responsibilities for which it can legitimately raise taxes. Taxation analysis largely ignores whether the state wants money to ensure there is adequate food for the population, or instead to stage the Miss Universe pageant.Human rights has relevance for the state's management of resources. The requirement for states to apply ‘maximum available resources’ to fulfil human rights suggests that mineral extraction (and taxation) should occur as fast as possible to be applied for the human rights of the current population A more considered analysis weighs against such a literal interpretation. Nevertheless, the requirement of using ‘maximum available resources’ to fulfil human rights has important implications for mineral taxation.",
author = "John Southalan",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1016/j.resourpol.2011.04.003",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "214--226",
journal = "Resources Policy",
issn = "0301-4207",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

What are the implications of human rights for minerals taxation? / Southalan, John.

In: Resources Policy, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2011, p. 214-226.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - What are the implications of human rights for minerals taxation?

AU - Southalan, John

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - This article examines the relationship between a state's taxation of mineral revenues and the human rights obligation to use ‘maximum available resources’ to further citizens' welfare. These both have implications for understanding the other but there has been little attention to their interaction.Contemporary (economic and policy) approaches to mineral taxation revolve around economic rent and providing a ‘neutral’ economic environment that does not influence investment decisions. There is no reference to human rights obligations—these are just part of the state's general responsibilities for which it can legitimately raise taxes. Taxation analysis largely ignores whether the state wants money to ensure there is adequate food for the population, or instead to stage the Miss Universe pageant.Human rights has relevance for the state's management of resources. The requirement for states to apply ‘maximum available resources’ to fulfil human rights suggests that mineral extraction (and taxation) should occur as fast as possible to be applied for the human rights of the current population A more considered analysis weighs against such a literal interpretation. Nevertheless, the requirement of using ‘maximum available resources’ to fulfil human rights has important implications for mineral taxation.

AB - This article examines the relationship between a state's taxation of mineral revenues and the human rights obligation to use ‘maximum available resources’ to further citizens' welfare. These both have implications for understanding the other but there has been little attention to their interaction.Contemporary (economic and policy) approaches to mineral taxation revolve around economic rent and providing a ‘neutral’ economic environment that does not influence investment decisions. There is no reference to human rights obligations—these are just part of the state's general responsibilities for which it can legitimately raise taxes. Taxation analysis largely ignores whether the state wants money to ensure there is adequate food for the population, or instead to stage the Miss Universe pageant.Human rights has relevance for the state's management of resources. The requirement for states to apply ‘maximum available resources’ to fulfil human rights suggests that mineral extraction (and taxation) should occur as fast as possible to be applied for the human rights of the current population A more considered analysis weighs against such a literal interpretation. Nevertheless, the requirement of using ‘maximum available resources’ to fulfil human rights has important implications for mineral taxation.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-79961026194&origin=resultslist&sort=plf-f&src=s&st1=

U2 - 10.1016/j.resourpol.2011.04.003

DO - 10.1016/j.resourpol.2011.04.003

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 214

EP - 226

JO - Resources Policy

JF - Resources Policy

SN - 0301-4207

IS - 3

ER -