This paper explores the untapped potential of civil universal jurisdiction as a legal framework for pursuing reparations for victims of chemical weapons, especially in the context of the Iran-Iraq War. It revisits the central question of whether this principle can successfully overcome entrenched legal and political barriers that have long denied victims access to justice. While international law strongly prohibits the use of chemical weapons, it offers limited mechanisms for ensuring victims receive reparations. By focusing on victims in Iran and Kurdish regions, who continue to endure the long-term consequences of Iraq’s chemical attacks, the study underscores the urgent need for bold and innovative legal solutions to address the gaps in accountability and compensation.

Civil universal jurisdiction, traditionally rooted in the criminal law context, allows national courts to adjudicate violations of international law without regard to where the crime occurred or the nationality of involved parties. This paper posits that extending this principle to address civil claims creates a vital avenue for victims, particularly when domestic judicial systems are constrained or international bodies are ineffective due to political pressures, the principle of state immunity, or limitations in enforcement. By expanding the scope of this legal tool, victims of chemical weapons could find the justice and reparations that existing frameworks have failed to provide.

The research follows an analytical-descriptive methodology, relying on a combination of doctrinal legal analysis and a review of relevant international instruments, legal precedents, and case law. Through this study, the paper evaluates the historical evolution of international prohibitions on chemical weapons, from the 1925 Geneva Protocol to the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and reveals significant gaps in reparative mechanisms within these frameworks. For instance, the CWC confines its focus primarily to disarmament and compliance, offering no provisions for victims to seek compensation for the harms they have suffered. This failure leaves victims with no recourse but to attempt reparations through domestic or international systems, both of which are often inaccessible or inadequate.

To illustrate the feasibility of this approach, the paper examines precedents where civil universal jurisdiction has been applied successfully, even if in varying contexts. Influential cases such as Filártiga v. Peña-Irala and Al-Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc. demonstrate how foreign national courts have been used to address human rights violations under principles of universal jurisdiction. While these cases do not pertain directly to chemical weapons, they prove the viability of adjudicating grave violations of international law in national courts, particularly when domestic mechanisms have failed. Additionally, the paper takes a deeper look at the case of Frans van Anraat, a Dutch businessman prosecuted for supplying chemical precursors used by Iraq in chemical weapons. Though this was a criminal trial, it highlights the potential for civil claims to be pursued against individuals and entities complicit in the production or distribution of chemical weapons, thereby expanding the opportunities for victims to seek restitution.

A major challenge identified by this study is the pervasive obstacle of state immunity. Many victims are unable to hold states accountable in foreign courts due to the protection granted by sovereign immunity, particularly when state actors are directly implicated in violations of international law. However, the paper argues that such immunity cannot be absolute in cases involving breaches of jus cogens norms, which represent the highest and most universally binding principles of international law. The prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, which qualifies as a jus cogens norm, obligates all states to take action against violators, creating a legitimate basis to challenge and override claims of state immunity. This argument builds on emerging international legal discourse, which increasingly supports the notion that exceptions to sovereign immunity are warranted in cases involving grave violations of international law.

Another critical barrier to the effective implementation of civil universal jurisdiction lies in the enforcement of civil judgments. Even if a national court adjudicates a claim and grants victims civil reparations, the practical enforcement of that decision often faces significant difficulties, especially when the state or actor held liable refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the adjudicating court. This lack of enforceability represents a structural weakness in the international legal system. To address this problem, the paper advocates for the creation of international agreements or conventions aimed specifically at facilitating the recognition and enforcement of judgments in cases involving egregious human rights violations. Drawing parallels to the frameworks used for recognizing foreign arbitral awards, the study proposes that similar mechanisms could be developed to ensure enforceability of judgments in civil claims related to gross violations of international law, such as the use of chemical weapons.

The research also explores the integral role international cooperation and civil society can play in operationalizing civil universal jurisdiction for cases involving chemical weapons. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and human rights advocates, for example, could provide critical legal aid and technical expertise to victims navigating the complex legal processes associated with bringing claims in foreign courts. Furthermore, the states historically complicit in the chemical weapons trade or in supporting repressive regimes could take on a proactive role, enabling their national courts to hear claims brought by victims of chemical weapons attacks. These efforts could be bolstered by the development of dedicated funds or initiatives aimed at supporting victims, particularly those from marginalized or disadvantaged communities, to ensure they have the financial resources needed to pursue legal action.

This paper highlights the broader implications of civil universal jurisdiction for the future of international law. Beyond serving as a pathway for reparations, this principle has a significant deterrence effect, dissuading states and other actors from resorting to chemical weapons or supporting their use. The threat of civil litigation in national courts, accompanied by the possibility of substantial financial and reputational consequences, could deter both state and corporate actors from engaging in conduct that violates international law. Expanding the scope of civil universal jurisdiction, therefore, not only reinforces the prohibition on chemical weapons but also strengthens global norms by holding violators accountable in a tangible and meaningful way.

In conclusion, this paper calls for a re-evaluation of civil universal jurisdiction as an underutilized but promising tool for addressing the rights of victims of chemical weapons. By shifting the emphasis from criminal accountability to reparations, this approach offers an innovative legal pathway for ensuring that the harm suffered by victims is acknowledged and remedied. While challenges remain, particularly regarding state immunity and enforcement, civil universal jurisdiction provides a transformative opportunity to close the gaps left by existing legal mechanisms and deliver justice to those who have been denied it. By bridging the disconnect between the theoretical protections of international law and the lived realities of victims, this principle can pave the way for a more just and equitable international legal order—one that genuinely prioritizes the rights and dignity of victims while reinforcing the global rule of law.