96:
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.
135:
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
27:) 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
156:
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
118:. 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.
121:
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
130:
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
134:
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
109:
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
155:
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
95:
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
104:
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,
168:
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.
429:
576:
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,"
690:"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"
160:. 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
361:
220:
287:
462:
143:
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
406:
266:
105:
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
139:. 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
164:
agreements demanded by
Western countries during colonialism. One host country where such sentiment is widespread, South Korea, itself has forces in
618:
144:
122:
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
709:
200:
131:
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.
367:
669:
559:
195:
252:
190:
719:
510:
320:
599:
75:, and many other nations also station military forces abroad and negotiate SOFAs with their host countries. In the past, the
631:; Free Association between the United States and the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands
450:
181:
is similar to a status of forces agreement except the former covers only forces temporarily in a country, not based there.
730:
87:
has its own procedure that stems from "a peacetime agreement originally signed in 1951" for SOFAs between member states.
106:
628:
288:"NATO SOFA AGREEMENT: BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY REGARDING THE STATUS OF THEIR FORCES"
272:
157:
747:
713:
210:
178:
726:
111:
704:
629:
Status of Forces
Agreement:Concluded Pursuant to Section 323 of The Compact Of Free Association
40:
689:
673:
388:
302:
8:
679:
482:
215:
205:
161:
115:
28:
643:
Status of Forces
Agreements between Timor-Leste and Australia, New Zealand and Portugal
720:
GIS AND KOREANS: THE MAKING OF THE FIRST ROK-US STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT, 1945–1966
595:
582:
497:
L'impossibilitĂ (giuridica) degli accordi bilaterali per sottrarsi alla giurisdizione
240:
Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA): What Is It, and How Might One Be Utilized In Iraq?
642:
647:
521:
589:
140:
80:
547:
Brakel, Yvonne S. "Developing Better US Status of Forces Protection in Africa."
659:
136:
44:
741:
663:
239:
83:. While most of the United States' SOFAs are public, some remain classified.
43:
has the largest foreign presence and therefore accounts for most SOFAs, the
76:
343:
655:
654:
in May 2006. This reference also includes SOFAs signed in 2002 between
651:
463:"GI convicted of rape in South Korea loses appeal for lighter sentence"
165:
126:
district court after being convicted of rape. Also in November 2011, a
634:
591:
Status of Forces: Criminal Jurisdiction over Military Personnel Abroad
556:
Status of Forces Agreement: What Is It, and How Has it Been Utilized?
127:
52:
633:". Joint Committee on Compact Economic Negotiations. (archived from
322:
News articles on South Korean teenagers run over US military vehicle
566:
430:"Korea rape sentences: Each case has 'unique set of circumstances"
520:(53A), Center for Strategic International Studies, archived from
56:
408:
Korea-based US soldier get 3 years in prison for rape conviction
64:
48:
123:
72:
68:
60:
84:
451:"No outcry over Korea-based soldier's suspended sentence"
567:
The European Union Status of Forces Agreement (EU SOFA)
483:
U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement, 19 January 1960
389:"US soldier's alleged arson attack done at off-limits"
680:
US-Japan Status of forces Agreement, 19 January, 1960
363:
Curfew put in place for all US troops in South Korea
344:"US soldiers accused of raping teens in South Korea"
242:, March 15, 2012, Congressional Research Service.
739:
145:Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
271:, Council on Foreign Relations, archived from
705:NATO Status of Forces Agreement, 19 June 1951
710:White House: Iraq Status of Forces Agreement
511:"A Call for Justice and the US-ROK Alliance"
508:
172:
201:U.S.–South Korea Status of Forces Agreement
621:; A summary of U.S. foreign policy issues
587:
366:, Stars and Stripes, 2011, archived from
499:, Diritto e giustizia online, 12/9/2002.
558:(Congressional Research Service, 2009)
99:
740:
727:"Special measures in effect 2001–2006"
393:The Korea Times"date=November 17, 2011
286:Jordan, Joseph L (20 September 2020).
285:
279:
623:". United States Embassy, April 1996.
264:
196:U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement
90:
16:Form of diplomatic military agreement
731:Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan
646:" signed prior to the deployment of
571:Journal of Conflict and Security Law
300:
191:U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement
697:(Entered into force, June 23, 1960)
150:
13:
573:, Vol. 13, pp. 353–391, 2008.
541:
509:Scott Snyder (December 18, 2002),
14:
759:
670:US-ROK Status of Forces Agreement
609:
588:Voetelink, Joop (16 April 2015).
581:(2002) vol 51#1 pp. 55–134.
268:U.S. Security Agreements and Iraq
662:and between East Timor and the
502:
489:
475:
440:
422:
399:
265:Bruno, Greg (October 2, 2008),
579:Catholic University Law Review
381:
354:
336:
313:
294:
258:
245:
232:
1:
226:
34:
303:"Status of Forces Agreement"
7:
184:
79:had SOFAs with most of its
10:
764:
695:(in English and Japanese).
619:Status of Forces Agreement
486:(Article XVII, Section 5c)
253:Status of Forces Agreement
21:status of forces agreement
446:Rape sentences reviewed:
411:, Stars and Stripes, 2012
211:Visiting forces agreement
179:visiting forces agreement
173:Visiting forces agreement
549:Armed Forces Law Review
41:United States military
221:Article 98 agreements
290:. jordanucmjlaw.com.
100:Host nation concerns
495:Giampiero Buonomo,
469:. January 19, 2012.
467:Stars & Stripes
455:Stars & Stripes
436:. November 3, 2011.
434:Srars & Stripes
325:, ibiblio.org, 2002
301:Pike, John (2005).
275:on October 27, 2008
216:Extraterritoriality
206:Visiting Forces Act
29:military occupation
748:Military alliances
722:, Bo Ram Yi (2006)
350:. October 8, 2011.
307:GlobalSecurity.org
91:Terms of operation
601:978-94-6265-057-2
554:Mason, R. Chuck.
755:
734:
696:
694:
648:Operation Astute
605:
551:76 (2016): 207+.
536:
535:
534:
532:
526:
515:
506:
500:
493:
487:
479:
473:
470:
458:
457:. June 29, 2010.
444:
438:
437:
426:
420:
419:
418:
416:
403:
397:
396:
385:
379:
378:
377:
375:
370:on 1 August 2020
358:
352:
351:
340:
334:
333:
332:
330:
317:
311:
310:
298:
292:
291:
283:
277:
276:
262:
256:
255:- March 04, 2009
249:
243:
238:R. Chuck Mason,
236:
162:extraterritorial
151:Political issues
81:satellite states
763:
762:
758:
757:
756:
754:
753:
752:
738:
737:
725:
712:(archived from
692:
688:
672:(archived from
612:
602:
544:
542:Further reading
539:
530:
528:
524:
513:
507:
503:
494:
490:
480:
476:
461:
449:
445:
441:
428:
427:
423:
414:
412:
405:
404:
400:
387:
386:
382:
373:
371:
360:
359:
355:
342:
341:
337:
328:
326:
319:
318:
314:
299:
295:
284:
280:
263:
259:
250:
246:
237:
233:
229:
187:
175:
153:
102:
93:
37:
17:
12:
11:
5:
761:
751:
750:
736:
735:
723:
717:
716:on 2010-05-27)
707:
701:
700:
699:
698:
683:
682:
677:
676:on 2005-06-07)
667:
660:United Nations
638:
637:on 2009-03-27)
624:
617:Backgrounder:
611:
610:External links
608:
607:
606:
600:
585:
574:
563:
552:
543:
540:
538:
537:
527:on 15 May 2008
501:
488:
474:
472:
471:
459:
439:
421:
398:
380:
353:
335:
312:
293:
278:
257:
244:
230:
228:
225:
224:
223:
218:
213:
208:
203:
198:
193:
186:
183:
174:
171:
158:Bill of Rights
152:
149:
137:Miranda rights
101:
98:
92:
89:
45:United Kingdom
36:
33:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
760:
749:
746:
745:
743:
732:
728:
724:
721:
718:
715:
711:
708:
706:
703:
702:
691:
687:
686:
685:
684:
681:
678:
675:
671:
668:
665:
664:United States
661:
657:
653:
649:
645:
644:
639:
636:
632:
630:
625:
622:
620:
614:
613:
603:
597:
593:
592:
586:
584:
580:
575:
572:
568:
564:
561:
557:
553:
550:
546:
545:
523:
519:
512:
505:
498:
492:
485:
484:
478:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
447:
443:
435:
431:
425:
410:
409:
402:
394:
390:
384:
369:
365:
364:
357:
349:
345:
339:
324:
323:
316:
308:
304:
297:
289:
282:
274:
270:
269:
261:
254:
248:
241:
235:
231:
222:
219:
217:
214:
212:
209:
207:
204:
202:
199:
197:
194:
192:
189:
188:
182:
180:
170:
167:
163:
159:
148:
146:
142:
138:
132:
129:
125:
119:
117:
113:
108:
97:
88:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
62:
58:
54:
50:
46:
42:
32:
30:
26:
22:
714:the original
674:the original
641:
635:the original
627:
616:
594:. Springer.
590:
578:
570:
555:
548:
529:, retrieved
522:the original
517:
504:
496:
491:
481:
477:
466:
454:
442:
433:
424:
413:, retrieved
407:
401:
392:
383:
372:, retrieved
368:the original
362:
356:
347:
338:
327:, retrieved
321:
315:
306:
296:
281:
273:the original
267:
260:
247:
234:
176:
154:
133:
120:
103:
94:
77:Soviet Union
38:
24:
20:
18:
415:12 February
374:12 February
251:FACT SHEET
656:East Timor
652:East Timor
565:Sari, A. "
227:References
166:Kyrgyzstan
116:negligence
39:While the
35:Agreements
329:22 August
141:lay judge
128:Uijeongbu
110:criminal
53:Australia
742:Category
658:and the
348:NBC News
185:See also
57:Germany
598:
583:online
560:online
518:PacNet
112:intent
65:Russia
49:France
693:(PDF)
531:5 May
525:(PDF)
514:(PDF)
124:Daegu
73:Spain
69:Japan
61:Italy
596:ISBN
533:2008
417:2012
376:2012
331:2008
107:AVLB
85:NATO
25:SOFA
650:in
569:",
114:or
744::
729:.
516:,
465:.
453:.
432:.
391:.
346:.
305:.
177:A
147:.
71:,
67:,
63:,
59:,
55:,
51:,
47:,
31:.
19:A
733:.
666:.
640:"
626:"
615:"
604:.
562:.
395:.
309:.
23:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.