Status of forces agreement

Last updated

A status of forces agreement (SOFA) 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. [1] Under international law a status of forces agreement differs from military occupation.

Contents

Agreements

While the United States military has the largest foreign presence and therefore accounts for most SOFAs, the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Germany, [2] Italy, Russia, Japan, Spain, and many other nations also station military forces abroad and negotiate SOFAs with their host countries. In the past, the Soviet Union had SOFAs with most of its satellite states. While most of the United States' SOFAs are public, some remain classified. [3] NATO has its own procedure that stems from "a peacetime agreement originally signed in 1951" for SOFAs between member states. [4]

Terms of operation

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 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. [5]

Host nation concerns

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, 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 AVLB 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 criminal intent or negligence. 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. [6]

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. [7] [8] A U.S. soldier was alleged to have committed arson in a bar inn Seoul in November 2011, [9] and another soldier was sentenced to three years in prison in June 2012 by a Daegu district court after being convicted of rape. [10] Also in November 2011, a Uijeongbu 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 the level of violence in the rape by the U.S. soldier. [11] On review, the three-year sentence was suspended and the ten year sentence was upheld. [12]

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 not turned over to the local authorities until they are charged in court. [13] 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".[ citation needed ] American authorities also note the difference in police investigation powers, as well as the judiciary.[ citation needed ] 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 Miranda rights.[ citation needed ] 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 lay judge 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 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. [14]

Political issues

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 U.S. and host countries generally agree on what constitutes a crime, many U.S. observers[ who? ] 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 Bill of Rights.[ citation needed ] On the other hand, host country observers,[ who? ] having no local counterpart to the Bill of Rights, often feel that this is an irrelevant excuse for demanding special treatment, and resembles the extraterritorial agreements demanded by Western countries during colonialism.[ citation needed ] One host country where such sentiment is widespread, South Korea, itself has forces in Kyrgyzstan 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. [15]

Visiting forces agreement

A visiting forces agreement is similar to a status of forces agreement except the former covers only forces temporarily in a country, not based there.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Criminal Court</span> Intergovernmental organization and international tribunal

The International Criminal Court is an intergovernmental organization and international tribunal seated in The Hague, Netherlands. It is the first and only permanent international court with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. The ICC is distinct from the International Court of Justice, an organ of the United Nations that hears disputes between states.

Universal jurisdiction is a legal principle that allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person, regardless of where the alleged crime was committed and irrespective of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other connection to the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage. The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that some international norms are erga omnes, or owed to the entire world community, as well as to the concept of jus cogens—that certain international law obligations are binding on all states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court-martial</span> Judicial action in military forces

A court-martial is a military court or a trial conducted in such a court. A court-martial is empowered to determine the guilt of members of the armed forces subject to military law, and, if the defendant is found guilty, to decide upon punishment. In addition, courts-martial may be used to try prisoners of war for war crimes. The Geneva Conventions require that POWs who are on trial for war crimes be subject to the same procedures as would be the holding military's own forces. Finally, courts-martial can be convened for other purposes, such as dealing with violations of martial law, and can involve civilian defendants.

Military justice is the body of laws and procedures governing members of the armed forces. Many nation-states have separate and distinct bodies of law that govern the conduct of members of their armed forces. Some states use special judicial and other arrangements to enforce those laws, while others use civilian judicial systems. Legal issues unique to military justice include the preservation of good order and discipline, the legality of orders, and appropriate conduct for members of the military. Some states enable their military justice systems to deal with civil offenses committed by their armed forces in some circumstances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Extraterritoriality</span> State of being exempted from the jurisdiction of local law

In international law, extraterritoriality or exterritoriality is the state of being exempted from the jurisdiction of local law, usually as the result of diplomatic negotiations.

Extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) is the legal ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal boundaries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Military Tribunal for the Far East</span> Post–World War II war crimes trials

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), also known as the Tokyo Trial and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, was a military trial convened on 29 April 1946 to try leaders of the Empire of Japan for their crimes against peace, conventional war crimes, and crimes against humanity, leading up to and during the Second World War. The IMTFE was modeled after the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg, Germany, which prosecuted the leaders of Nazi Germany for their war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Forces Japan</span> American military command stationed in Japan

The United States Forces Japan (USFJ) is a subordinate unified command of the United States Indo-Pacific Command. It was activated at Fuchū Air Station in Tokyo, Japan, on 1 July 1957 to replace the Far East Command. USFJ is headquartered at Yokota Air Base in Tokyo and is commanded by the Commander, US Forces Japan who is also commander of the Fifth Air Force. Since then, it is the first sustained presence of a foreign military on Japanese soil in its history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crime in Japan</span>

Crime in Japan has been recorded since at least the 1800s, and has varied over time.

Visiting Forces Act is a title often given to laws governing the status of military personnel while they are visiting areas under the jurisdiction of another country and/or while forces of one country are attached to or serving with forces of another country.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States and the International Criminal Court</span> National relationship with the ICC

The United States is not a state party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which founded the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement</span> 1960 agreement between Japan and the United States

U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement is an agreement between Japan and the United States signed on 19 January 1960 in Washington, the same day as the revised U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. It is a status of forces agreement (SOFA) as stipulated in article VI of that treaty, which referred to "a separate agreement" governing the "use of [...] facilities and areas [granted to the U.S.] as well as the status of United States armed forces in Japan". It replaced the earlier "U.S.-Japan Administrative Agreement" that governed such issues under the original 1951 security treaty. The privileges of USFJ are effectively kept with the "Agreed Minutes To The 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" and other arrangements.

The 1995 Okinawa rape incident occurred on September 4, 1995, when three U.S. servicemen, 22-year-old U.S. Navy Seaman Marcus Gill, 21-year-old U.S. Marines Rodrico Harp, and 20-year-old Kendrick Ledet, all serving at Camp Hansen on Okinawa, rented a van and kidnapped a 12-year-old Okinawan girl. They beat her, duct-taped her eyes and mouth shut, and bound her hands. Gill and Harp then raped her, while Ledet claimed he only pretended to do so due to fear of Gill.

A visiting forces agreement (VFA) is an agreement between a country and a foreign nation having military forces visiting in that country. Visiting forces agreements are similar in intent to status of forces agreements (SOFAs). A VFA typically covers forces visiting temporarily, while a SOFA typically covers forces based in the host nation as well as visiting forces.

On November 2, 2002, U.S. Marine Corps Major Michael Brown attempted an indecent assault on a Filipina bartender in Okinawa, Japan. The bartender accused Brown of attempting to rape her and of throwing her cell phone into a nearby river; Brown denied the rape charges. The victim later recanted and attempted to withdraw the accusation, though prosecutors presented evidence that she had received a cash payment just before doing so.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Yangju highway incident</span> 2002 accidental deaths in South Korea

The Yangju highway incident, also known as the Yangju training accident or Highway 56 Accident, occurred on June 13, 2002, in Yangju, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea. A United States Army armored vehicle-launched bridge, returning to base in Uijeongbu on a public road after training maneuvers in the countryside, struck and killed two 14-year-old South Korean schoolgirls, Shin Hyo-sun (Korean: 신효순) and Shim Mi-seon (심미선).

The United States Armed Forces and its members have violated the law of war after the signing of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the signing of the Geneva Conventions. The United States prosecutes offenders through the War Crimes Act of 1996 as well as through articles in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The United States signed the 1999 Rome Statute but it never ratified the treaty, taking the position that the International Criminal Court (ICC) lacks fundamental checks and balances. The American Service-Members' Protection Act of 2002 further limited US involvement with the ICC. The ICC reserves the right of states to prosecute war crimes, and the ICC can only proceed with prosecution of crimes when states do not have willingness or effective and reliable processes to investigate for themselves. The United States says that it has investigated many of the accusations alleged by the ICC prosecutors as having occurred in Afghanistan, and thus does not accept ICC jurisdiction over its nationals.

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011. The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to combat. U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain their immunity. If U.S. forces committed still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty.

The Judge Advocate General's Corps is the military justice branch or specialty of the United States Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Navy. Officers serving in the JAG Corps are typically called judge advocates.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Command–Rear</span> Military unit

United Nations Command–Rear is a military command headquartered in Japan, and a subordinate element of United Nations Command. UN Command–Rear was established in 1957 as a result of the relocation of UN Command from Japan to South Korea following the Korean War. It is in control of the rear elements the United Nations Command.

References

  1. ↑ R. Chuck Mason, Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA): What Is It, and How Might One Be Utilized In Iraq?, March 15, 2012, Congressional Research Service.
  2. ↑ FACT SHEET Status of Forces Agreement - March 04, 2009
  3. ↑ Bruno, Greg (October 2, 2008), U.S. Security Agreements and Iraq, Council on Foreign Relations, archived from the original on October 27, 2008
  4. ↑ Jordan, Joseph L (20 September 2020). "NATO SOFA AGREEMENT: BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY REGARDING THE STATUS OF THEIR FORCES". jordanucmjlaw.com.
  5. ↑ Pike, John (2005). "Status of Forces Agreement". GlobalSecurity.org.
  6. ↑ News articles on South Korean teenagers run over US military vehicle, ibiblio.org, 2002, retrieved 22 August 2008
  7. ↑ "US soldiers accused of raping teens in South Korea". NBC News. October 8, 2011.
  8. ↑ Curfew put in place for all US troops in South Korea, Stars and Stripes, 2011, archived from the original on 1 August 2020, retrieved 12 February 2012
  9. ↑ "US soldier's alleged arson attack done at off-limits". The Korea Times"date=November 17, 2011.
  10. ↑ Korea-based US soldier get 3 years in prison for rape conviction, Stars and Stripes, 2012, retrieved 12 February 2012
  11. ↑ "Korea rape sentences: Each case has 'unique set of circumstances". Srars & Stripes. November 3, 2011.
  12. ↑ Rape sentences reviewed:
  13. ↑ U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement, 19 January 1960 (Article XVII, Section 5c)
  14. ↑ Giampiero Buonomo, L'impossibilità (giuridica) degli accordi bilaterali per sottrarsi alla giurisdizione, Diritto e giustizia online, 12/9/2002.
  15. ↑ Scott Snyder (December 18, 2002), "A Call for Justice and the US-ROK Alliance" (PDF), PacNet (53A), Center for Strategic International Studies, archived from the original (PDF) on 15 May 2008, retrieved 5 May 2008

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.