CIVICUS discusses the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (IACtHR) recognition of the right to care with Jeffrey Vogt, international labour law expert and chair of the International Lawyers Assisting Workers Network (ILAW Network).

In early August, the IACtHR recognised care as a fundamental human right. Its Advisory Opinion 31/25 defined three aspects of this right: providing care, receiving care and self-care. The decision urges states to create universal care systems, redistribute care responsibilities more fairly and integrate care into national policies. The opinion validates longstanding feminist arguments that care work, often invisible and undervalued, has immense social and economic worth. It provides a legal framework for building more equitable societies where care is a shared responsibility. The test now lies in implementation: civil society, communities and governments should collaborate to transform legal recognition into laws, policies and practices.

Why is the court’s recognition of the right to care significant?

This is the first time care has been fully articulated as an independent human right, rather than merely a policy choice. The court also highlighted that gender equality is inseparable from care justice.

For the ILAW Network, the court’s focus on the rights of care workers was crucial. The decision establishes that inter-American human rights law applies to all forms of care work, paid and unpaid and formal and informal, including domestic and home-based work. It recognised the precarious conditions of paid care work and affirmed that care workers are entitled to the same labour rights as all other workers: fair wages, job security, safe working conditions, reasonable working hours, weekly rest and annual leave.

The court also underscored the importance of the right to freedom of association and to collectively bargain to ‘enable workers to level the playing field with their employers and demand fair and equitable working conditions’, while emphasising states’ obligations to prevent occupational risks and ensure access to labour justice.

On unpaid work, the court said states must guarantee minimum protections so caregiving does not undermine human rights. These protections include eliminating discrimination, limiting working hours, granting rest periods and progressively extending social security coverage to unpaid caregivers. The decision also demands policies such as paid leave, flexible working arrangements and investment in childcare and care for older people to enable caregivers to engage in paid work outside the home.

What new state obligations does the opinion create?

The decision places care at the centre of human rights, social justice and sustainable development. It requires states to adopt approaches that address the structural inequalities that disproportionately burden women and marginalised groups with unpaid care responsibilities.

States are now expected to introduce measures such as paternity leave and flexible working arrangements, invest in care infrastructure and recognise unpaid care work in social protection systems. Many will need to develop comprehensive national care systems that integrate public services, labour regulation, social protection and infrastructure investment.

This could transform gender relations while also boosting economic growth.

How could this affect daily life for care providers and recipients?

For care providers – most of whom are women – recognition of the right to care could mean fairer wages, stronger protections and recognition of their work as essential and skilled. Unpaid caregivers could gain access to social security benefits, training and respite services.

For care recipients – including children, older people and people with disabilities – the ruling affirms that access to quality care is a right, not charity. This means states must guarantee adequate and accessible services.

Women and other vulnerable and marginalised groups stand to benefit the most. Redistribution of care responsibilities could expand opportunities for women’s education, employment and political participation. Migrant workers and those in informal economies may also gain stronger claims to inclusive services, helping break cycles of poverty and exclusion.

What obstacles stand in the way, and how can civil society drive change?

The biggest challenge is political will. States must stop treating care as an expenditure and start treating it as an investment in equality, human development and social cohesion.

Significant financial resources will be required to extend rights and protections, and the reality is many states already struggle to enforce labour and social protection laws for formal workers. Care workers, often women, migrants or racial and ethnic minorities, are even more likely to be excluded.

While fiscal constraints are real, however, the obligation to progressively realise care-related rights remains. States must allocate resources and prioritise this issue in their budgets.

Cultural barriers also loom large. Entrenched gender stereotypes in society and state institutions normalise women’s disproportionate responsibility for care. It will need public awareness campaigns, education reforms and workplace policies designed to promote shared responsibility to overcome these barriers.

This is where civil society becomes crucial. Civil society organisations (CSOs), including trade unions, will be vital in ensuring the advisory opinion translates into lasting change. They must advocate for it to be incorporated into national laws and policies. Women’s movements, unions, disability rights advocates and older people’s organisations can ensure reforms reflect lived realities and care workers are part of policymaking.

Equally important, CSOs should raise awareness through popular education so care providers, care recipients and public institutions know their rights and responsibilities. This educational work is essential because public understanding of the decision will be crucial to overcoming resistance.

CSOs must also monitor implementation and hold governments accountable. New laws and policies will need to be enforced, and unions and CSOs can use advocacy and litigation to ensure compliance. Through strategic cases they can help build jurisprudence around the right to care.

Perhaps most fundamentally, CSOs can help shift culture by challenging gender stereotypes and promoting care as a shared social responsibility. After all, it is essential to build broad public recognition to sustain investment in care systems. To ensure reforms are legitimate and sustainable, civil society and social dialogue must remain central to this process.