In a historic decision, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) responding to a request from Argentina, recognised the right to care as an autonomous and enforceable human right, identifying three interdependent dimensions of care: (i) the right to be cared for, (ii) the right to care for others, and (iii) the right to self-care. This is the first time an international court has recognised care as a human right and directly linked it to multiple other human rights.

Globally, women perform 76.2% of unpaid care work and in Latin America, they spend three times more time on such work than men. The primary reason behind this disproportionate burden is the gender-based division of labour rooted in social and cultural norms, which compels women and girls to care for others ‘naturally’ and without expectation of compensation or recognition. This form of labour, which is indispensable to social wealth and reproduction, is largely invisible and hinders women’s full participation in the market as equals with autonomy. The court recognised this disparity as a source of structural gender inequality that needs urgent state action, through legal and policy measures.

This blog examines the judgment through a feminist lens, looking at women’s long history of performing invisible labour through care work.

The Advisory Opinion

The Court granted the right to care the designation of an autonomous human right derived from the American Convention on Human Rights. It drew on multiple human rights standards relating to equality and non-discrimination, health, social security, education and fair and equitable working conditions, as enshrined in universal and regional human rights instruments as well as ILO Conventions. The opinion has successfully brought care out of the private sphere and affirmed it as labour with immense social and economic value. This reasoning has been shaped by submissions and advocacy from feminist and human rights organisations across the region who have tirelessly worked for this recognition, which is groundbreaking on multiple counts.

Firstly, the Court categorised care as a basic universal need essential for human life and societal functioning, ensuring minimum conditions for dignity- especially for people in situations of vulnerability, dependence or limitation. Further, it held that the foundation and scope of the right are closely linked to the principles of social and family co-responsibility and solidarity. This affirmation reshapes care as a collective responsibility between families, communities, businesses and governments, rather than a burden only borne by women.

Secondly, the decision took an intersectional approach, recognising multiple factors such as poverty, migration, age and gender that influence the inequitable distribution of unpaid care work and perpetuate discrimination. In this regard, the Court stipulated that national laws and policies on care work must prevent disparities in its performance and receipt, particularly between men and women. This recognition of intersectional discrimination addresses a key gap in care policy and legal reform, which often universalise women’s experiences and neglect interlinked social identities that compound inequalities

Lastly, whilst establishing the interdependence of the rights to health and care, the Court acknowledged the close relationship between reproductive and sexual health and the right to self-care. It held that States must provide access to accurate and timely information and services on reproductive health to all people who can become pregnant- including women, transgender people and non-binary people; thus enabling people to make free and informed decisions about motherhood and care.

The decision is the first of its kind and could mark a turning point, particularly for women and care workers in the Americas- who have performed far too much labour with too little reward or recognition. Even as an advisory opinion, it carries significant persuasive value and is likely to inspire strategic litigation and policy development in the region. However, it remains to be seen how much concrete change the decision brings about, through ground realities such as decent wages, social-protection schemes, improved working conditions.

Overall, the opinion is a marked step forward for dismantling the sexual division of labour and recognising the essential value of care work. The real impact, however, will depend on whether States use this recognition to transform structural inequalities within care work.