Status Of Forces Agreement (Sofa) What Is It And How Has It Been Utilized

A SOFA should clarify the conditions under which the foreign army can operate. As a rule, purely military and operational matters, such as the location of bases and access to facilities, are covered by separate agreements. A SOFA focuses more on legal issues related to military persons and property. This may include issues such as entry and exit into the country, tax obligations, postal services or the conditions of employment of nationals of the host country, but the most controversial issues are civil and criminal justice on bases and personnel. For civil cases, SOFAs provide for how civilian damages caused by the armed forces are identified and paid. Criminal problems vary, but the typical provision in U.S. SOFAs is that U.S. courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed either by a soldier against another soldier or by a soldier as part of his or her military duty, but the host country retains jurisdiction over other crimes. [4] The deadly attacks on Afghan civilians, allegedly perpetrated by a U.S. military, raised questions about the status of the U.S.-Afghanistan Forces Agreement (SOFA), which would determine whether Afghan law would apply in these circumstances.

In the case of Afghanistan, the sofa, in force since 2003, provides that military and civilian personnel of the United States Department of Defense must be accorded a status equivalent to that of administrative and technical personnel of the United States Embassy, in accordance with the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. As a result, U.S. employees are immune to criminal prosecution by Afghan authorities and immunized. The political issue of soFAs is complicated by the fact that many host countries have mixed feelings towards foreign bases on their soil and that calls to renegotiate sofa are often combined with calls for foreign troops to be completely removed. While the United States and host countries generally agree on what a crime is, many U.S. observers believe that the host country`s justice systems give defendants much weaker protection than the United States and that the courts of the host country may be subject to popular pressure to render a guilty verdict; In addition, U.S. soldiers who have been sent abroad should not be forced to give up the rights conferred on them by the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, observers from the host country, who have no local equivalent to the Bill of Rights, often believe that it is an unequivocal excuse to demand special treatment and that they resemble the extraterritorial agreements demanded by Western countries during colonialism.

A host country where such a mindset is prevalent, South Korea, itself has strength in Kyrgyzstan and has negotiated a SOFA that grants its soldiers full immunity from prosecution by Kyrgyz authorities for any crime, far beyond the privileges that many South Koreans have challenged in their country`s SOFA with the United States. [11] While the U.S. military has the largest foreign presence and therefore represents the largest number of SOFAs, the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Germany[2] Italy, Russia, Spain, and many other nations also deploy armed forces abroad and negotiate SOFAs with their host countries. . . .


About the Author

The Author has not yet added any info about himself