Visiting forces agreement

Last updated January 05, 2023

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.

Agreements

While the United States military has the largest foreign presence and therefore accounts for most VFAs, other countries having troops temporarily serving abroad negotiate VFAs with states where they serve.

Terms of operation

VFAs are intended to clarify the terms under which foreign military is allowed to operate. Typically, a VFA is mainly concerned with the legal issues associated with military individuals and property. This may include issues like 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 the visiting forces. For civil matters, VFAs provide for how civil damages caused by the forces will be determined and paid. Criminal issues vary, but the typical provision in U.S. VFAs is that U.S. military courts will have jurisdiction over crimes committed either by a servicemember against another servicemember or by a servicemember as part of his or her military duty, but the host nation retains jurisdiction over other crimes.

Host nation concerns

In many host nations, the VFA can become a major political issue following crimes allegedly committed by visiting service members. This is especially true when the incidents involve severe crimes, such as robbery, murder, manslaughter or sex crimes, especially when the charge is defined differently between the two nations. For example, in 2005 in the Philippines, four U.S. Marines were charged with raping a local woman with whom they had been drinking. As the incident had no connection with the military duties of the accused, they were tried under Philippine law in a Philippine court, which convicted one of the accused and acquitted the others.

Political issues

The political issue of VFAs is complicated by the fact that many host countries have mixed feelings about foreign troops on their soil, and demands to renegotiate the VFA are often combined with calls for foreign troops to leave entirely. Issues of different national customs can arise. Many U.S. observers,^{[ who? ]} for example, feel that host country justice systems grant a much weaker set of protections to the accused than the U.S. and that host country courts can be subject to popular pressure to deliver a guilty verdict; furthermore, that American servicemembers ordered to a foreign posting should not be forced to give up the rights they are afforded under the United States 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 the colonial era.^{[ 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 servicemembers from prosecution by Kyrgyz authorities for any crime whatsoever,^[1] something far in excess of the privileges many South Koreans object to in their nation's SOFA with the U.S.^{[ citation needed ]}

To many U.S. observers,^{[ who? ]} the fact that most accused criminals eventually end up being tried in a local court and found guilty proves that the system is working; to some host country observers,^{[ who? ]} it reinforces the perception that the VFA protects the guilty and makes the exceptions more glaring.^{[ citation needed ]}

Related Research Articles

Jurisdiction is the legal term for the legal authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice. In federations like the United States, areas of jurisdiction apply to local, state, and federal levels.

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 regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation to the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage.

In international law, extraterritoriality 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.

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. Under international law a status of forces agreement differs from military occupation.

The Philippines–United States Visiting Forces Agreement, sometimes the PH–US Visiting Forces Agreement, is a bilateral visiting forces agreement between the Philippines and the United States consisting of two separate documents. The first of these documents is commonly referred to as "the VFA" or "VFA-1", and the second as "VFA-2" or "the Counterpart Agreement". A visiting forces agreement is a version of a status of forces agreement that only applies to troops temporarily in a country. The agreements came into force on May 27, 1999, upon ratification by the Senate of the Philippines. The United States government regards these documents to be executive agreements not requiring approval by the United States Senate.

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

Command responsibility is the legal doctrine of hierarchical accountability for war crimes. The legal doctrine of command responsibility stipulates that a superior officer can be held legally responsible for war crimes committed by subordinates.

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 as a permanent international criminal court to "bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide", when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.

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 states parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court are those sovereign states that have ratified, or have otherwise become party to, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute is the treaty that established the International Criminal Court, an international court that has jurisdiction over certain international crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes that are committed by nationals of states parties or within the territory of states parties. States parties are legally obligated to co-operate with the Court when it requires, such as in arresting and transferring indicted persons or providing access to evidence and witnesses. States parties are entitled to participate and vote in proceedings of the Assembly of States Parties, which is the Court's governing body. Such proceedings include the election of such officials as judges and the Prosecutor, the approval of the Court's budget, and the adoption of amendments to the Rome Statute.

The Subic rape case, officially known as People of the Philippines vs. Dominic Duplantis, Keith Silkwood, and Daniel Smith, was a criminal case in the Philippines involving a Filipina and four United States marines. It caught wide media coverage and achieved political and international significance because of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the United States and the Philippines, which had been the subject of protests from the beginning.

The 1995 Okinawa rape incident occurred on September 4, 1995, when three U.S. servicemen, U.S. Navy Seaman Marcus Gill and U.S. Marines Rodrico Harp and Kendrick Ledet, who were all serving at Camp Hansen on Okinawa, rented a van and kidnapped a 12-year-old Okinawan girl named Masami Yoshinaga. 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. The incident led to further debate over the continued presence of U.S. forces in Japan. The offenders were tried and convicted in Japanese court by Japanese law, in accordance with the U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement. The incident later ignited surge of Anti-American sentiment among Okinawans as well as Japanese across the country.

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.

Territorial jurisdiction in United States law refers to a court's power over events and persons within the bounds of a particular geographic territory. If a court does not have territorial jurisdiction over the events or persons within it, then the court cannot bind the defendant to an obligation or adjudicate any rights involving them. Territorial jurisdiction is to be distinguished from subject-matter jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to render a judgment concerning a certain subject matter, or personal jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to render a judgment concerning particular persons, wherever they may be. Personal jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, and proper notice to the defendant are prerequisites for a valid judgment.

The Philippines–Australia Status of Visiting Forces Agreement (SOVFA) is a bilateral visiting forces agreement between the governments of the Republic of the Philippines and the Commonwealth of Australia concerning the status of armed forces from each state while in the territory of the other. A visiting forces agreement is a version of a status of forces agreement that only applies to troops temporarily in a country.

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 presidency of Joseph Estrada, also known as the Estrada administration, spanned 31 months from June 30, 1998, to January 20, 2001. Estrada was elected president of the Philippines in the May 11, 1998 national elections, receiving almost 11 million votes.

The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) is an agreement between the United States and the Philippines intended to bolster the American–Philippine alliance. The agreement allows the United States to rotate troops into the Philippines for extended stays and allows the United States to build and operate facilities on Philippine bases for both American and Philippine forces. The U.S. is not allowed to establish any permanent military bases. The Philippines have personnel access to American ships and planes.

Exercise Balikatan is the most prominent annual military exercise between the Philippines and the United States. The Tagalog word balikatan means "shoulder-to-shoulder". The exercises have been the cornerstone of Philippines–United States military relations since the closure of U.S. bases in the Philippines.

References

Citations

↑ David A. Sadoff (2016). Bringing International Fugitives to Justice: Extradition and its Alternatives. Cambridge University Press. p. 253. ISBN 978-1-316-79081-6.

General references

Voetelink, Joop (16 April 2015), Status of Forces: Criminal Jurisdiction over Military Personnel Abroad, Springer, ISBN 978-94-6265-057-2
Fleck, Dieter; Addy, stuart (2001), The Handbook of the Law of Visiting Forces, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-826894-7

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.

[Sadoff2016-1] David A. Sadoff (2016). Bringing International Fugitives to Justice: Extradition and its Alternatives. Cambridge University Press. p. 253. ISBN 978-1-316-79081-6.

[1]