Universal civil jurisdiction enables national courts to hear and issue rulings regarding serious international crimes (such as torture or slavery), without requiring any connection (such as nationality or the crime occurring within the territory) between the case and the country where the proceedings are requested. Rooted in international custom and treaties, this jurisdiction allows victims of the most severe international crimes to seek compensation from any national court in the world. However, the practical implementation of this jurisdiction faces numerous structural, legal, and political obstacles.

This descriptive-analytical research seeks to answer the question: What obstacles does the development of universal civil jurisdiction face within the international legal system? Identifying these obstacles is evidently the first step in clarifying the ambiguities surrounding the development of this concept, understanding the reasons for its slower progress compared to universal criminal jurisdiction, and outlining its future prospects within the framework of international law. The research findings indicate that the most significant obstacles include the requirement of a sufficient territorial connection, considerations related to state secrets, political considerations often influenced by the interests of multinational corporations, and the reluctance of domestic courts to resort to customary international law. To overcome these challenges, the study proposes the adoption of binding international and regional instruments recognizing this principle and aiding the reform of domestic laws, the establishment of specialized regional or subject-specific tribunals, and the application of the principle of necessity to guarantee the right of access to justice and promote its enhancement at the international level.