Jurisdiction has always been omnipresent in the international legal system. Lassa Oppenheim describes jurisdiction essentially “as the right of the state to regulate the conduct or consequences of events.” Competence is multifaceted and one area that has been the source of controversy among many scholars is that of universal jurisdiction. The definition of universal jurisdiction has been problematic, to say the least. Roger O'Keefe in his article referred to universal jurisdiction as "the assertion of criminal jurisdiction by a State in the absence of any other generally recognized head of prescriptive jurisdiction." Originally, the grounds for invoking universal jurisdiction were limited to piracy. More recently, the justifications have been broadened to encompass heinous crimes and violations of prohibitions benefiting from jus cogens status. Even if the crime does not affect the forum state, crimes with a hostis humani generis element are accepted as sufficient to invoke universal jurisdiction. The foundations on which universal jurisdiction rested were in fact “fragile”, these foundations made its application inconsistent and left question marks over the legality of the principle. Throughout the following paragraphs, I will examine these foundations and the principle that has been built around them, study the main questions, namely the legality of its application and the prerequisites for the application of universal jurisdiction and the problems that arise from it. After that, I will also examine how academics, politicians, governments, and intergovernmental organizations are trying to correct the problems. The long-standing reasoning for such a purview is said to be piracy, an issue that has and still affects many people today. Piracy has long been a problem... middle of document ...... endorsing and encouraging "wide dissemination" of the principles. The fourteen principles seek to address the issues discussed above as well as to resolve issues that may arise in the near future. The project realized that what the law is and what it should be were two different things, and they sought to narrow the gap. By studying the principles and the accompanying commentary, you can see how divergent universal jurisdiction can be and easily understand how the notion has become almost ridiculous. Hopefully, countries will continue to interact on the issue and the principles mentioned above will gain further momentum. place. In doing so, this topic will align around the world. Its use can then perfect injustices and remedy human rights violations, which should be the fundamental reasoning behind this form of jurisdiction..