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.

中文翻译：

---

将普遍管辖权应用于民事案件：国家将侵犯人权行为货币化的方法的变化

普遍管辖权原则允许一国在与当事人没有领土、国籍或其他利益关系的一类案件中行使管辖权。虽然普遍管辖权的概念并不新鲜，但它几乎只适用于刑事事项。相对较少关注在民事领域适用普遍管辖权，作为受害者就严重侵犯人权行为寻求判决和赔偿的手段。本文考察了法院在将普遍管辖权适用于民事案件时所作的理论区分，并探讨了为什么新兴的普遍管辖权规范几乎只关注刑事事项。文章调查了美国和欧洲法院普遍民事管辖权的现状，