The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has delivered a groundbreaking decision with far-reaching implications for gender equality and social justice across the Americas. Its Advisory Opinion 31/25, issued on 7 August in response to a request from Argentina, recognises the right to care as an autonomous human right.

This was the culmination of a highly participatory process that included a high number of written submissions from civil society, as well as academics, governments and international organisations, and a series of public hearings held in Costa Rica in March 2024. For the first time, an international tribunal has elevated care – long relegated to the private sphere and unrecognised in policy and economic systems – to the level of a universal and enforceable entitlement.

The opinion defines care broadly, covering all tasks necessary for the reproduction and sustenance of life, from the provision of food and health to emotional support. It locates the right to care within a framework of equality and non-discrimination, emphasising the principle of shared responsibility between families, communities, markets and states. The court identified three interdependent dimensions of this right – the right to provide care, the right to receive care, and the right to self-care – and established a set of norms that demand profound changes in law, policy and social attitudes.

Implications of the advisory opinion

The court’s opinion is exceptional both substantially and symbolically. Advisory opinions aren’t binding, but they carry considerable legal and political weight, guiding the work of national courts, parliaments, governments and bureaucracies.

The court interpreted the American Convention on Human Rights, the foundational text of the Inter-American human rights system, as encompassing the right to care and provided detailed standards for its implementation. It made clear that states must respect, protect and guarantee this right through laws, public policies and resources. It also stated that care is indivisible from other fundamental rights such as education, health, social security and work, and that its absence perpetuates systemic inequalities.

Central to the opinion is the recognition that unpaid care work is unequally distributed. In Latin America, women do between 69 and 86 per cent of all unpaid domestic and care work, often hampering their careers, education and personal development. The court made clear this imbalance is a source of structural gender inequality and instructed states to adopt measures to redistribute responsibilities more fairly. Policies states should adopt include mandatory and paid paternity leave equal to maternity leave, workplace flexibility for carers and the recognition of care work as labour deserving of social protection and remuneration.

The court linked the right to self-care with access to sexual and reproductive health services. It also highlighted that children, older people and people with disabilities are entitled to dignified, safe and appropriate care anchored in autonomy and freedom from violence.

The implications of the court’s opinion are that care should be the foundation of human dignity and social life. It sets a regional standard that could influence constitutional reforms, strategic litigation, budgetary priorities and the development of international law within and beyond the Americas.

Feminism and the politics of care

The decision reflects the influence of feminist scholarship, from the ethics of care to feminist economics. For decades, feminist activists have insisted that care work, overwhelmingly performed by women, is central to sustaining life and economies but remains invisible and undervalued. They argue that the economy depends on the labour of care, whether remunerated or not, and ignoring its value distorts economic indicators and undermines social wellbeing.

The court’s recognition of care as a right validates these points. It affirms that unpaid care work isn’t a natural extension of women’s roles but a form of labour with immense social and economic value. By framing care as a matter of rights and justice, the opinion dismantles the patriarchal logic that has historically confined it to the private sphere.

The court also echoed feminist struggles for bodily autonomy by explicitly connecting self-care with the right to sexual and reproductive health. Its opinion recognised that for people to exercise genuine control over their wellbeing, they must be able to make free and informed decisions about pregnancy, childbirth, motherhood and bodily autonomy. It stressed that all people – including women, transgender people and non-binary people who can become pregnant – should be free from imposed mandates of motherhood or care.

The court’s focus on intersectionality represents another victory for feminist movements. The opinion acknowledged that care burdens aren’t evenly distributed among women: Indigenous, Afro-descendant, migrant and low-income women face disproportionate responsibilities and multiple layers of discrimination. By taking these realities into account, the opinion aligns with the emphasis feminist movements place on the intersections of gender, race, class and migration status in shaping inequality.

The transformative potential of this ruling extends beyond gender equality. By recognising care as a universal human need, the opinion situates it as a cornerstone of sustainable development, linking social justice to economic resilience. Investments in care infrastructure create jobs, reduce inequality and support the participation of women in the workplace. They strengthen communities by ensuring everyone – including children, older people and people with disabilities – can live with dignity and autonomy.

Civil society’s role

Advisory Opinion 31/25 was shaped by civil society advocacy. Feminist and human rights organisations across Latin America campaigned to bring the issue before the court and provided crucial expertise during the process. Groups such as ELA-Equipo Latinoamericano de Justicia y Género, Dejusticia, the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Women in Informal Employment-Globalizing and Organizing were among the many that submitted arguments and evidence. They argued that care should be recognised as a right in itself, and their interventions shaped the framing and substance of the court’s reasoning.

Civil society’s influence was also palpable in the court’s intersectional approach: it was civil society organisations that documented the lived experiences of women caring for incarcerated relatives, migrant women working care jobs in precarious conditions and communities lacking basic public services such as water and sanitation that make unpaid care work even more burdensome. This helped the court ground its opinion in social realities rather than abstract principles.

Through advocacy and litigation, civil society has helped turn feminist and human rights demands into enforceable legal standards. The next task will be to pressure governments to comply, monitor implementation and use the advisory opinion in national courts to secure real change.

Towards a care-centred future

The court’s opinion offers a blueprint for building societies where care isn’t an invisible burden but a shared and supported responsibility. As next steps, states should pass laws to recognise the right to care, mainstream it across education, labour, health and social security laws, and develop comprehensive public care systems. Governments should design and implement universal care systems, integrate time-use surveys into national accounts and build robust care infrastructure such as childcare centres, facilities to care for older people and community support services. Local governments should design community-based networks that bring services closer to where people live, and employers should adapt workplaces to recognise caregiving responsibilities. Changes in attitudes are also essential, with campaigns needed to challenge gender stereotypes and engage men and boys in care.

Feminist organisations celebrated the opinion as a long-overdue response to the invisibility of care. But they also noted limitations, particularly the court’s decision not to designate the state as the primary guarantor of the right – an ambiguity that risks diluting responsibility and allowing governments to offload duties onto families, perpetuating inequalities.

This means the struggle now shifts to ensuring that states strongly take responsibility for implementation. Feminist movements will use the opinion as a tool for advocacy, litigation and policy reform. Already, organisations are preparing strategic cases and launching campaigns to ensure states pass laws, allocate budgets and build the required infrastructure.

The task is to ensure that the right to care, having been declared, is now delivered, through budgets, services and protections that reach those most in need. The court’s opinion shows the way, but now it all hinges on implementation, with the struggle shifting from the courtroom to the political arena, where civil society, communities and governments must work together to make care the foundation of fairer and more sustainable societies.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org