| Summary/Abstract |
The principle of universal jurisdiction allows a state to exercise jurisdiction over a category of cases when the state has no connection by territory, nationality, or other interest with the parties. While the concept of universal jurisdiction is not new, it has been almost exclusively applied to criminal matters. There has been relatively little focus on the application of universal jurisdiction in the civil sphere as a means for victims to seek judgments and compensation for serious violations of human rights. This article examines the theoretical distinction made by courts in the application of universal jurisdiction to civil cases and explores why the emerging norm of universal jurisdiction has been focused almost exclusively on criminal matters. The article surveys the status of universal civil jurisdiction in US and European courts, examines how jurisdiction is limited by courts, and assesses the arguments for and against a civil basis of universal jurisdiction.
|