The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Status of Armed Forces Agreement is the treaty that defines the conditions under which the forces of a NATO member state may operate and live in another NATO member state. Staff of the British Ministry of Defence (GBR) are entitled to the rights and obligations of the NATO Status of Forces, to which all NATO Member States have adhered. This page explains the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Status of Armed Forces and Status of Identification Agreement. An agreement on visiting forces is similar to a status-of-troop agreement, except that the former only covers forces that are temporarily in a country and are not stationed there. A SOFA aims to clarify the conditions under which the foreign army is allowed to operate. As a general rule, purely military operational issues such as the location of bases and access to facilities are covered by separate agreements. A SOFA is more concerned with legal issues associated with military individuals and assets. 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 jurisdiction over bases and personnel. For civil cases, the LAASs provide for the manner in which civil damage caused by the armed forces is determined and paid. Criminal law issues vary, but the typical provision of U.S. LAFSs is that the U.S. courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed either by a soldier against another soldier or by a soldier in the course of his or her military service, but the host country retains jurisdiction over other crimes.
[4] While the US military has the largest presence abroad and therefore represents the largest number of LACAs, the UK, France, Australia, Germany[2], Italy, Russia, Spain and many other countries also deploy armed forces abroad and negotiate PEACs with their host countries. In the past, the Soviet Union had SOFA with most of its satellite states. Although most PEACs in the U.S. are public, some remain classified. [3] The political issue of the SOFA is complicated by the fact that many host countries have mixed feelings towards foreign bases on their soil and that requests for renegotiation of the SOFA are often combined with requests for the complete withdrawal of foreign troops. Questions of different national customs may arise – while the United States and host countries generally agree on what constitutes a crime, many U.S. observers believe that the judicial systems of host countries offer much weaker protection to defendants than the United States, and that courts in the host country may face pressure from the population to render a guilty verdict; Moreover, U.S. soldiers who have been ordered to send abroad should not be forced to give up the rights granted to them under the Bill of Rights.
On the other hand, observers in host countries that have no local equivalent to the Bill of Rights often feel that it is an irrelevant excuse to demand special treatment and that it is similar to the extraterritorial agreements demanded by Western countries during colonialism. A host country where such a mood is prevalent, South Korea, has armed forces in Kyrgyzstan itself and has negotiated a SOFA that gives its soldiers complete immunity from prosecution by Kyrgyz authorities for any crime that goes far beyond the privileges that many South Koreans in their country`s SOFA reject with the United States. [11] A Status of Armed Forces Agreement (SOFA) is an agreement between a host country and a foreign country that deploys armed forces to that country. SOFAS are often included with other types of military agreements as part of a comprehensive security agreement. A SOFA does not constitute a security agreement; it establishes the rights and privileges of foreign personnel residing in a host country in order to support the broader security arrangement. [1] In international law, the status of troops differs from that of a military occupation. Most crimes committed by soldiers against local civilians occur off-duty and are subject to local jurisdiction in accordance with the respective SOFA. The details of the SOFA can still cause problems. In Japan, for example, SOFA provides that members of the service are not handed over to local authorities until they have been charged in court. [9] In a number of cases, local authorities have complained that this hinders their ability to interview suspects and investigate the crime. U.S.
officials say Japanese police use forced interrogation tactics and are more concerned with achieving a high conviction rate than seeking «justice.» U.S. authorities also point to the difference in the investigative powers of the police as well as in the judicial system. No lawyer can be present in investigative interviews in Japan, although a translator is provided, and no equivalent to America`s Miranda rights is mentioned. Another problem is the lack of a jury trial in Japan, before 2009, all trials were decided by a judge or panel of judges. Currently, Japan uses a system of lay judges in some criminal trials. For these reasons, the US authorities insist that military personnel be brought before military courts and reject article 98 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. [10] is a member of the force, civilian component or member of the NATO Sending State (GBR) within the meaning of Article I of the NATO Status of Armed Forces Agreement. In many host countries, especially those with a strong foreign military presence like South Korea and Japan, SOFA can become an important political issue after crimes allegedly committed by soldiers. This is especially true if the incidents involve crimes such as robbery, murder, manslaughter, or sex crimes, especially if the charges are defined differently in the two countries. For example, in 2002, in South Korea, an AVLB military bridge-building vehicle en route to the base camp after an exercise that accidentally killed two girls.
Under SOFA, a U.S. military court convicted the soldiers involved. The committee concluded that the act was an accident and acquitted the soldiers of negligent homicide, without invoking criminal intent or negligence. The U.S. military claimed responsibility for the incident and paid civilian damages. This has led to widespread outrage in South Korea, demands that soldiers be retried by a South Korean court, the spread of various conspiracy theories, and a backlash against the local expat community. [5] Since 2011, U.S. military authorities have allowed South Korea to charge and prosecute U.S. soldiers in South Korean courts. After three brutal rapes and arson in 2011, convictions were handed down by South Korean courts.
The soldiers are or will soon be detained in South Korean facilities. [6] [7] Shortly after the rapes and other cases, the military curfew was reintroduced throughout the peninsula. [8]. In accordance with Article 5.4.7 of the European Commission`s document C(2019) 7131 (Practical Manual for Border Guards), the European Commission legally recognises «documents issued in accordance with Article III(2) of the NATO Status of Armed Forces Agreement between the parties to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Status of their Armed Forces». The issuance of a NATO Status of Troops Card to a member of the Force, the civilian component or his or her dependants shall be carried out in accordance with Article III, as well as the inclusion of a NATO Status Certificate (sometimes referred to as a «status stamp») in the holder`s passport. An example of a NATO Status of Forces Agreement identification card is presented below. We`re sorry, but your page may have been moved or deleted. We apologize for the inconvenience, but please search again on the «Top Page» or «Sitemap». Thank you for your understanding.
Also, please use «Site Search» at the top right. All content on the page has been updated to reflect the latest update. Should the privileges granted by Article III of the NATO Status of Armed Forces Agreement be granted with regard to passport and visa regimes and immigration control on entry into or exit from NATO? Member States and on the registration and control of aliens. The content of the page has been updated and a photo of an exemplary IDENTITY card for the status of NATO forces has been added. In accordance with the status of NATO forces and by reason of their residence in the NATO Member State, the holder of these documents is not subject to any restrictions that may be imposed on other third parties. Nationals of Member States with regard to the duration of their stay within the European Union and should be treated accordingly. .
