Sofa Agreements

The Senate`s reservations to the NATO SOFA contain four conditions: (1) The criminal justice provisions of Article VII of the Agreement do not constitute a precedent for future agreements; 2. If a serving member is to be brought to justice by the authorities of a host State, the commanding officer of the United States armed forces in that State shall review the laws of the host State with reference to the procedural safeguards of the United States. Constitution; 3. If the commanding officer considers that there is a risk that the public servant will not be protected because of the absence or denial of the constitutional rights that the accused would obtain in the United States, the commanding officer requires the receiving State to relinquish jurisdiction; and (4) a U.S. representative is appointed to attend the trial of a soldier tried by the host state and to protect the soldier`s constitutional rights.8 On December 16, 2010, as part of its annual Afghanistan-Pakistan review, the Obama administration stated that it continued to work for a long-term partnership with Afghanistan as a member of the NATO coalition.62 whether the United States intends to conclude strategic and security agreements such as those used in Iraq during the announced transition period. SOFAs are often part, along with other types of military agreements, of a comprehensive security agreement with a given country. A sofa itself is not a safety device; Rather, it defines the rights and privileges of U.S. personnel who are in a country to support the largest security agreement. SOFAs may, on the basis of powers, be enshrined in previous treaties and congressional actions or as executive agreements only. The United States is currently a party to more than 100 agreements that can be considered SAAs. A list of current agreements at the end of this report is arranged in the tables by source of underlying authority, if any, for each of the SOFAs.

While NATO`s SOFA offers voluminous language for establishing jurisdiction, the United States is associated with many SOFAs that appear to have a very fundamental rule for determining jurisdiction. . . .