This is the fifth installment of the joint ICONnect/IberICOnnect symposium on the IACtHR Advisory Opinions on the climate emergency and the right to care. For the introduction, see here.
Victoria Flores Beltrán, Lawyer (University of Buenos Aires), master’s candidate in Economic Sociology (EIDAES-UNSAM). Professor of labor law and labor and gender studies. Member of the Advisory Council of the Department of Labor Law and Social Security (University of Buenos Aires). Secretary of the Association of Specialists in Labor Relations. Former fellow of the University of Bologna, the ILO International Training Centre in Turin, and the University of Castilla-La Mancha (Argentine Section).
On August 7, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued Advisory Opinion No. 31/25, which acknowledges the autonomous human right to care. This pivotal decision stemmed from a request made by the State of Argentina in 2023, submitted through the Ministry of Women, Genders, and Diversity, along with the Secretariat of Human Rights. It embodies a significant collaboration among the State, civil society, academia, and international human rights protection bodies.
In this vein, Advisory Opinion AO No. 31/25 on “The human right to care and its interrelation with other rights” represents a milestone, not only because it recognizes this right, but also its three dimensions: the right to care, to be cared for, and to self-care. Thus, for the regional Court, “care also constitutes a basic, unavoidable, and universal necessity, on which both the existence of human life and the functioning of life in society depend…” (para. 48). Furthermore, it affirmed that it constitutes an essential component of other human rights and that it fulfills an “instrumental function” for their full exercise. In other words, the protection and effective exercise of certain rights depend on the recognition of care as a human right.
To analyze the first query from the Argentine State—regarding whether a human right to care exists—the IACtHR reviewed various international instruments recognizing aspects related to care and also noted that its unequal distribution, which leads to a “structural overload” of these tasks on women, has been a matter of particular concern. Concerning whether it is an autonomous right, the Court examined aspects of care connected to the rights to a dignified life, personal integrity, health, the rights of the child, the right to a family, the rights to work and social security, personal liberty, honor and dignity, equality, and the prohibition of discrimination. Therefore, it affirmed that treating care only as a dimension of other rights is insufficient.
Therefore, based on the application of the pro persona principle and a systemic and evolutive interpretation of the Convention, it understood that an autonomous human right to care exists, derived from a joint reading of Articles 4 (right to life); 5 (to personal integrity); 7 (to personal liberty); 11 (protection of honor and dignity); 17 (protection of the family); 19 (rights of the child); 24 (equality before the law); 26 (progressive development of economic, social, and cultural rights) and 1.1 (obligation to respect rights), of the American Convention of Human Rights (ACHR). Consequently, the Court considered that “the autonomous right to care includes the right of every person to have the necessary time, spaces, and resources to provide, receive, or procure conditions that ensure their integral well-being and allow them to freely develop their life project, in accordance with their capacities and life stage” (para. 113).
Similarly, it outlined a series of principles that will serve to define this right and determine its scope. These include the principles of solidarity, equality, and non-discrimination, and social and family co-responsibility. The principle of social and family co-responsibility emphasizes that care is the responsibility of the individual, the family, the community, civil society, businesses, and the State. The principle of solidarity recognizes the need for support among the different members and actors of society, and the principle of equality and non-discrimination implies “a mandate to avoid inequality in the performance and reception of care work, particularly between men and women” (para. 132).
Work and Care
With respect strictly to the right to work, the way in which care tasks are distributed—as an essential activity for the reproduction of life, social reproduction, and the reproduction of the workforce—persists as a barrier for working people, particularly for women. Indeed, the familiarization of care and its unequal distribution within households remains an obstacle that people overcome in various ways. Thus, the State, the market, and the community are central to providing support that guarantees care and helps to mitigate differential insertions into the labor market. Likewise, it is common for families to outsource care to mostly precarious workers who carry out paid care tasks, which constitutes one of the main economic activities for women, and whose invisibility and devaluation explain, in conjunction with other factors, the wage inequality between men and women. In this regard, the Court recalled that these workers enjoy the same rights as any other working person, including the right to job stability, reduced working hours, rest periods, and to work free from violence, among others.
At this point, the IACtHR builds on the standards it developed in the judgment of the case “Employees of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antonio de Jesús v. Brazil” and in Advisory Opinion No. 27/21, on the Rights to Freedom of Association, Collective Bargaining, and Strike, and their relationship with other rights, with a gender perspective. In both documents, it analyzed the obligations of States regarding equality and non-discrimination, provided for in Articles 24 and 1.1 of the Convention. Thus, it reinforced the obligation of States to adopt affirmative action measures to reverse the situation of structural or systemic inequality of women, who, due to negative stereotypes, mostly assume the burden of unpaid care tasks and suffer obstacles in the exercise of their rights.
In that vein, the IACtHR asserted that the right to care implies that it be done in dignified conditions, whether performed on a paid or unpaid basis. It also affirmed that care tasks carried out with consistent permanence and intensity, whether paid or not, constitute a form of work protected by the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), the Protocol of San Salvador, and the American Declaration. The Court specified that reconciling work and care requires concrete measures: progressive reduction of the workday and overtime hours, shared and non-transferable parental leave, and flexible work arrangements—such as teleworking or schedule adjustments—that are always voluntary and incorporate a gender perspective to prevent precarization (paras. 235–236, 253, 255). It also recommended guaranteeing adequate lactation spaces and establishing services or financial support for childcare in the workplace (para. 238).
Conclusions
AO No. 31/25 advances the recognition of rights but also introduces a certain sense of “order” to a complex issue like care. As Laura Pautassi points out, it shifts from multiple interpretations to establishing care as a norm, transforming its various meanings into regulations, collective agreements, and public policies to guarantee it and, consequently, the rights it encompasses.
The unequal distribution of care work hinders the enjoyment of labor rights, especially for women. Recognizing the social and economic value of this work — which, as noted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, represents between 17% and 23% of the GDP in countries that measure its value — and highlighting its essential contribution to its visibility, involves addressing other challenges in labor law, particularly amid a growing trend toward the de-laborization of employment relationships, both legal and de facto. In this context, the broad concept of work introduced by the Inter-American Court and its reference to ILO Recommendation No. 204 go beyond debates on care, although they encompass them. Thus, it calls for reflection on the guarantees needed for an increasingly fragmented world of work and on the dialogue with social security systems, especially concerning unpaid care work. In summary, AO No. 31/25 presents an opportunity and paves the challenging path for its associated standards to become reality, ensuring rights and a better quality of life.
Suggested citation: Victoria Flores Beltrán, The autonomous right to care: Commentary on AO No. 31/25 and the right to work, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Nov. 25, 2025, at: https://www.iconnectblog.com/symposium-on-the-inter-american-court-advisory-opinions-regarding-the-climate-emergency-and-the-right-to-care-part-5-the-autonomous-right-to-care-commentary-on-ao-no-31-25-and-the-right-to-work/