Department of Defense Policy 5525.1 contains guidelines and information specific to SOFA.14 The Department of Defense`s policy is to « protect as much as possible the rights of U.S. personnel who may be subject to criminal prosecution in foreign courts and detention in foreign prisons. » 15 The Directive responds to the Senate`s reservations to the NATO SOFA by stating that similar reservations must be applied to future LASCs, even if, subject to their ratification, they apply only to NATO Member States where they are applicable. Specifically, the policy states that « the same procedures to protect the interests of U.S. personnel under foreign jurisdiction » will be applied where possible in overseas territories where U.S. sections provide historical perspective on the inclusion of a SOFA as part of comprehensive U.S. bilateral security agreements with Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. Agreements may include a stand-alone SOFA or other arrangements, including protective measures typically associated with a SOFA. The United States is a party to the Inter-American Treaty of Mutual Assistance (Rio Treaty),139 for which the U.S. Senate recommended its ratification on December 8, 1947.
The United States then entered into military assistance agreements with Guatemala,140 Haiti,141 and Honduras.142 The agreements cite commitments under the Rio Treaty and deal with the status of U.S. personnel in each of the countries. The United States extended the status protection contained in military aid agreements by subsequently concluding SOFA AGREEMENTS with each of the countries. In all three cases, military aid agreements were cited as the basis for the new agreement. The last group of SOFA that is discussed are agreements that have been concluded as single executive agreements with no particular activity or practice. These agreements contain a broad language of applicability. Some of the agreements apply to U.S. personnel who are « present » in a country, others apply to U.S. personnel who are « temporarily » in a country. In addition to time constraints, most agreements include language that attempts to define the scope of activities. The activities described may be as broad as « formal duties » or specific to a particular category of activities (i.e., humanitarian, exercises and/or training). The deadly attacks on Afghan civilians, allegedly carried out by a U.S.
soldier, raised questions about the U.S.-Afghanistan Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which would govern whether Afghan law would be applicable in these circumstances. THEACs are multilateral or bilateral agreements that generally establish the framework within which U.S. military personnel operate in a foreign country and how domestic laws of foreign jurisdiction apply to U.S. personnel in that country. Status of U.S. Forces Agreement in Australia (14 U.S.T. 506), cited ANZUS Pact (3 U.S.T. (3420) On 17 November 2008, after months of negotiations, the United States Ambassador Ryan Crocker of Iraq and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari signed two documents: (1) the Strategic Framework Agreement on The Relationship of Friendship and Cooperation between the United States and the Republic of Iraq (Strategic Framework Agreement) and (2) the Agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq on the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of their activities during their temporary presence in Iraq (security agreement). 119 To a certain extent, the agreements concluded differ from the long-term safety arrangements initially provided for in the Declaration of Principles. Perhaps most importantly, the agreements reached require the withdrawal of U.S.
forces from Iraq by December 31, 2011. 1954: Agreement on the Stationing of U.S. Forces in the Netherlands The following graphs provide a list of current agreements based on the underlying source of authority, if any, for each of the LAACs. In each category, the agreements are sorted alphabetically by partner country. The categories are defined as follows: Presence in Rwanda as part of the military airlift of Rwandan forces in support of operations in Darfur and future mutually agreed activities In 1954, the United States and the Republic of Korea concluded a mutual defence treaty.86 Under the treaty, countries agree to seek the peaceful settlement of international disputes. consult whenever the political independence or security of either party is threatened by an armed attack from outside and one of the parties acts to counter the common danger in accordance with its respective constitutional processes.87 Article IV of the Treaty grants the United States « the right to decide on […] to dispose of it. . .
