Universal civil jurisdiction in international law

Abstract

Universal jurisdiction in international law allows states to exercise jurisdiction over particularly egregious conduct regardless of connection to the crime or its perpetrators. Universal civil jurisdiction (UCJ) is similar except that it applies civil, rather than criminal, jurisdiction, but to similar conduct. This article assesses the recognition of universal civil jurisdiction and finds that it is dubious at best. There is considerable evidence against the recognition of universal civil jurisdiction in international law: several states have explicitly and vehemently voiced their opposition to instances of exercise of UCJ. There is very limited evidence in favour of the recognition of UCJ in international law: rigorous analysis of over one hundred international and municipal decisions and instruments commonly cited in favour of UCJ reveals that few of these instruments actually provide such support. On balance, therefore, UCJ is not recognised in international law, or, at best, finds very limited recognition in international law.