107:
military individuals and property. This may include issues such as entry and exit into the country, tax liabilities, postal services, or employment terms for host-country nationals, but the most contentious issues are civil and criminal jurisdiction over bases and personnel. For civil matters, SOFAs provide for how civil damages caused by the forces will be determined and paid. Criminal issues vary, but the typical provision in U.S. SOFAs is that U.S. courts will have jurisdiction over crimes committed either by a service member against another service member or by a service member as part of his or her military duty, but the host nation retains jurisdiction over other crimes.
146:
not turned over to the local authorities until they are charged in court. In a number of cases, local officials have complained that this impedes their ability to question suspects and investigate the crime. American officials allege that the
Japanese police use coercive interrogation tactics and are concerned more with attaining a high conviction rate than finding "justice". American authorities also note the difference in police investigation powers, as well as the judiciary. No lawyer can be present in investigation discussions in Japan, though a translator is provided, and no mention made of an equivalent to America's
38:) is an agreement between a host country and a foreign nation stationing military forces in that country. SOFAs are often included, along with other types of military agreements, as part of a comprehensive security arrangement. A SOFA does not constitute a security arrangement; it establishes the rights and privileges of foreign personnel present in a host country in support of the larger security arrangement. Under international law a status of forces agreement differs from
167:
U.S. and host countries generally agree on what constitutes a crime, many U.S. observers feel that host country justice systems grant a much weaker set of protections to the accused than the U.S. and that the host country's courts can be subject to popular pressure to deliver a guilty verdict; furthermore, that
American service members ordered to a foreign posting should not be forced to give up the rights they are afforded under the
129:. The U.S. military accepted responsibility for the incident and paid civil damages. This resulted in widespread outrage in South Korea, demands that the soldiers be retried in a South Korean court, the airing of a wide variety of conspiracy theories, and a backlash against the local expatriate community.
132:
As of 2011, American military authorities were allowing South Korea to charge and prosecute
American soldiers in South Korean courts. Two U.S, soldiers were accused of rapes in separate incidents in October 2011, prompting the imposition of a peninsula-wide curfew for U.S. troops. A U.S. soldier was
141:
district court sentenced a soldier who had been caught on camera committing an exceptionally brutal rape to ten years in prison. That same court had earlier sentenced a Korean man to less than four years in prison for the rape of a female U.S. soldier, but the disparity was explained as being due to
145:
Criminal accusations against off-duty service members are generally considered subject to local jurisdiction, depending on specific provisions of the SOFA. However, details of these provisions can still prompt issues. In Japan, for example, the SOFA includes the requirement that service members are
120:
bridge-laying vehicle on the way to the base camp after a training exercise accidentally killed two girls. Under the SOFA, a United States military court martial tried the soldiers involved. The panel found the act to be an accident and acquitted the service members of negligent homicide, citing no
166:
The political issue of SOFAs is complicated by the fact that many host countries have mixed feelings about foreign bases on their soil, and demands to renegotiate the SOFA are often combined with calls for foreign troops to leave entirely. Issues of different national customs can arise – while the
106:
A SOFA is intended to clarify the terms under which the foreign military is allowed to operate. Typically, purely military operational issues such as the locations of bases and access to facilities are covered by separate agreements. A SOFA is more concerned with the legal issues associated with
115:
In many host nations, especially those with a large foreign military presence such as South Korea and Japan, the SOFA can become a major political issue following crimes allegedly committed by service members. This is especially true when the incidents involve crimes such as robbery, murder,
179:
and has negotiated a SOFA that confers total immunity to its service members from prosecution by Kyrgyz authorities for any crime whatsoever, something far in excess of the privileges many South
Koreans object to in their nation's SOFA with the United States.
440:
587:
Schmitt, Glenn R. "Closing the Gap in
Criminal Jurisdiction over Civilians Accompanying the Armed Forces Abroad – A First Person Account of the Creation of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000,"
701:"AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE VI OF THE TREATY OF MUTUAL COOPERATION AND SECURITY BETWEEN JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, REGARDING FACILITIES AND AREAS AND THE STATUS OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN JAPAN"
171:. On the other hand, host country observers, having no local counterpart to the Bill of Rights, often feel that this is an irrelevant excuse for demanding special treatment, and resembles the
372:
298:
231:
155:
211:
473:
154:
system in some criminal trials. For these reasons
American authorities insist that service members be tried in military tribunals and reject article 98 of the
417:
206:
277:
116:
manslaughter or sex crimes, especially when the charge is defined differently in the two nations. For example, in 2002 in South Korea, a U.S. military
201:
150:. Another issue is the lack of jury trials in Japan, previous to 2009 all trials were decided by a judge or panel of judges. Currently, Japan uses a
175:
agreements demanded by
Western countries during colonialism. One host country where such sentiment is widespread, South Korea, itself has forces in
629:
133:
alleged to have committed arson in a bar inn Seoul in
November 2011, and another soldier was sentenced to three years in prison in June 2012 by a
720:
142:
the level of violence in the rape by the U.S. soldier. On review, the three-year sentence was suspended and the ten year sentence was upheld.
610:
378:
741:
680:
570:
263:
117:
730:
521:
331:
86:, and many other nations also station military forces abroad and negotiate SOFAs with their host countries. In the past, the
642:; Free Association between the United States and the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands
461:
192:
is similar to a status of forces agreement except the former covers only forces temporarily in a country, not based there.
98:
has its own procedure that stems from "a peacetime agreement originally signed in 1951" for SOFAs between member states.
168:
758:
639:
221:
189:
122:
299:"NATO SOFA AGREEMENT: BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY REGARDING THE STATUS OF THEIR FORCES"
283:
51:
724:
737:
226:
216:
172:
126:
39:
715:
640:
Status of Forces
Agreement:Concluded Pursuant to Section 323 of The Compact Of Free Association
606:
700:
684:
399:
658:
313:
151:
91:
17:
690:
493:
670:
654:
Status of Forces
Agreements between Timor-Leste and Australia, New Zealand and Portugal
147:
55:
752:
731:
GIS AND KOREANS: THE MAKING OF THE FIRST ROK-US STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT, 1945–1966
674:
593:
508:
L'impossibilitĂ (giuridica) degli accordi bilaterali per sottrarsi alla giurisdizione
251:
Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA): What Is It, and How Might One Be Utilized In Iraq?
653:
532:
87:
600:
558:
Brakel, Yvonne S. "Developing Better US Status of Forces Protection in Africa."
666:
662:
176:
250:
94:. While most of the United States' SOFAs are public, some remain classified.
138:
63:
54:
has the largest foreign presence and therefore accounts for most SOFAs, the
354:
665:
in May 2006. This reference also includes SOFAs signed in 2002 between
474:"GI convicted of rape in South Korea loses appeal for lighter sentence"
137:
district court after being convicted of rape. Also in November 2011, a
67:
645:
602:
Status of Forces: Criminal Jurisdiction over Military Personnel Abroad
567:
Status of Forces Agreement: What Is It, and How Has it Been Utilized?
75:
59:
644:". Joint Committee on Compact Economic Negotiations. (archived from
333:
News articles on South Korean teenagers run over US military vehicle
577:
441:"Korea rape sentences: Each case has 'unique set of circumstances"
134:
83:
79:
71:
531:(53A), Center for Strategic International Studies, archived from
419:
Korea-based US soldier get 3 years in prison for rape conviction
95:
462:"No outcry over Korea-based soldier's suspended sentence"
578:
The European Union Status of Forces Agreement (EU SOFA)
494:
U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement, 19 January 1960
400:"US soldier's alleged arson attack done at off-limits"
691:
US-Japan Status of forces Agreement, 19 January, 1960
374:
Curfew put in place for all US troops in South Korea
355:"US soldiers accused of raping teens in South Korea"
253:, March 15, 2012, Congressional Research Service.
156:Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
282:, Council on Foreign Relations, archived from
716:NATO Status of Forces Agreement, 19 June 1951
8:
721:White House: Iraq Status of Forces Agreement
522:"A Call for Justice and the US-ROK Alliance"
212:U.S.–South Korea Status of Forces Agreement
632:; A summary of U.S. foreign policy issues
377:, Stars and Stripes, 2011, archived from
510:, Diritto e giustizia online, 12/9/2002.
569:(Congressional Research Service, 2009)
242:
738:"Special measures in effect 2001–2006"
404:The Korea Times"date=November 17, 2011
297:Jordan, Joseph L (20 September 2020).
634:". United States Embassy, April 1996.
207:U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement
27:Form of diplomatic military agreement
7:
742:Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan
657:" signed prior to the deployment of
582:Journal of Conflict and Security Law
202:U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement
708:(Entered into force, June 23, 1960)
584:, Vol. 13, pp. 353–391, 2008.
520:Scott Snyder (December 18, 2002),
25:
681:US-ROK Status of Forces Agreement
599:Voetelink, Joop (16 April 2015).
592:(2002) vol 51#1 pp. 55–134.
279:U.S. Security Agreements and Iraq
673:and between East Timor and the
276:Bruno, Greg (October 2, 2008),
590:Catholic University Law Review
1:
314:"Status of Forces Agreement"
90:had SOFAs with most of its
775:
706:(in English and Japanese).
630:Status of Forces Agreement
497:(Article XVII, Section 5c)
264:Status of Forces Agreement
32:status of forces agreement
18:Status of Forces Agreement
457:Rape sentences reviewed:
422:, Stars and Stripes, 2012
222:Visiting forces agreement
190:visiting forces agreement
184:Visiting forces agreement
560:Armed Forces Law Review
52:United States military
232:Article 98 agreements
301:. jordanucmjlaw.com.
111:Host nation concerns
506:Giampiero Buonomo,
480:. January 19, 2012.
478:Stars & Stripes
466:Stars & Stripes
447:. November 3, 2011.
445:Srars & Stripes
336:, ibiblio.org, 2002
312:Pike, John (2005).
286:on October 27, 2008
227:Extraterritoriality
217:Visiting Forces Act
40:military occupation
759:Military alliances
733:, Bo Ram Yi (2006)
361:. October 8, 2011.
318:GlobalSecurity.org
102:Terms of operation
612:978-94-6265-057-2
565:Mason, R. Chuck.
16:(Redirected from
766:
745:
707:
705:
659:Operation Astute
616:
562:76 (2016): 207+.
547:
546:
545:
543:
537:
526:
517:
511:
504:
498:
490:
484:
481:
469:
468:. June 29, 2010.
455:
449:
448:
437:
431:
430:
429:
427:
414:
408:
407:
396:
390:
389:
388:
386:
381:on 1 August 2020
369:
363:
362:
351:
345:
344:
343:
341:
328:
322:
321:
309:
303:
302:
294:
288:
287:
273:
267:
266:- March 04, 2009
260:
254:
249:R. Chuck Mason,
247:
173:extraterritorial
162:Political issues
92:satellite states
21:
774:
773:
769:
768:
767:
765:
764:
763:
749:
748:
736:
723:(archived from
703:
699:
683:(archived from
623:
613:
598:
555:
553:Further reading
550:
541:
539:
535:
524:
519:
518:
514:
505:
501:
491:
487:
472:
460:
456:
452:
439:
438:
434:
425:
423:
416:
415:
411:
398:
397:
393:
384:
382:
371:
370:
366:
353:
352:
348:
339:
337:
330:
329:
325:
311:
310:
306:
296:
295:
291:
275:
274:
270:
261:
257:
248:
244:
240:
198:
186:
164:
113:
104:
48:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
772:
770:
762:
761:
751:
750:
747:
746:
734:
728:
727:on 2010-05-27)
718:
712:
711:
710:
709:
694:
693:
688:
687:on 2005-06-07)
678:
671:United Nations
649:
648:on 2009-03-27)
635:
628:Backgrounder:
622:
621:External links
619:
618:
617:
611:
596:
585:
574:
563:
554:
551:
549:
548:
538:on 15 May 2008
512:
499:
485:
483:
482:
470:
450:
432:
409:
391:
364:
346:
323:
304:
289:
268:
255:
241:
239:
236:
235:
234:
229:
224:
219:
214:
209:
204:
197:
194:
185:
182:
169:Bill of Rights
163:
160:
148:Miranda rights
112:
109:
103:
100:
56:United Kingdom
47:
44:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
771:
760:
757:
756:
754:
743:
739:
735:
732:
729:
726:
722:
719:
717:
714:
713:
702:
698:
697:
696:
695:
692:
689:
686:
682:
679:
676:
675:United States
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
655:
650:
647:
643:
641:
636:
633:
631:
625:
624:
620:
614:
608:
604:
603:
597:
595:
591:
586:
583:
579:
575:
572:
568:
564:
561:
557:
556:
552:
534:
530:
523:
516:
513:
509:
503:
500:
496:
495:
489:
486:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
458:
454:
451:
446:
442:
436:
433:
421:
420:
413:
410:
405:
401:
395:
392:
380:
376:
375:
368:
365:
360:
356:
350:
347:
335:
334:
327:
324:
319:
315:
308:
305:
300:
293:
290:
285:
281:
280:
272:
269:
265:
259:
256:
252:
246:
243:
237:
233:
230:
228:
225:
223:
220:
218:
215:
213:
210:
208:
205:
203:
200:
199:
195:
193:
191:
183:
181:
178:
174:
170:
161:
159:
157:
153:
149:
143:
140:
136:
130:
128:
124:
119:
110:
108:
101:
99:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
65:
61:
57:
53:
45:
43:
41:
37:
33:
19:
725:the original
685:the original
652:
646:the original
638:
627:
605:. Springer.
601:
589:
581:
566:
559:
540:, retrieved
533:the original
528:
515:
507:
502:
492:
488:
477:
465:
453:
444:
435:
424:, retrieved
418:
412:
403:
394:
383:, retrieved
379:the original
373:
367:
358:
349:
338:, retrieved
332:
326:
317:
307:
292:
284:the original
278:
271:
258:
245:
187:
165:
144:
131:
114:
105:
88:Soviet Union
49:
35:
31:
29:
426:12 February
385:12 February
262:FACT SHEET
667:East Timor
663:East Timor
576:Sari, A. "
238:References
177:Kyrgyzstan
127:negligence
50:While the
46:Agreements
340:22 August
152:lay judge
139:Uijeongbu
121:criminal
64:Australia
753:Category
669:and the
359:NBC News
196:See also
68:Germany
609:
594:online
571:online
529:PacNet
123:intent
76:Russia
60:France
704:(PDF)
542:5 May
536:(PDF)
525:(PDF)
135:Daegu
84:Spain
80:Japan
72:Italy
607:ISBN
544:2008
428:2012
387:2012
342:2008
118:AVLB
96:NATO
36:SOFA
661:in
580:",
125:or
755::
740:.
527:,
476:.
464:.
443:.
402:.
357:.
316:.
188:A
158:.
82:,
78:,
74:,
70:,
66:,
62:,
58:,
42:.
30:A
744:.
677:.
651:"
637:"
626:"
615:.
573:.
406:.
320:.
34:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.