Sofa Agreement in English

THE VAWS generally do not authorize specific military operations or missions of U.S. forces. Although LACAs generally do not provide the power to fight, the inherent right to self-defense is neither compromised nor diminished. U.S. personnel always have the right to defend themselves when threatened or attacked, and a SOFA does not take it right away.32 Within sofa, there is often language that defines the scope of the agreement. For example, the SOFA with belize explicitly applies to the United States. Personnel „who may be temporarily in Belize for military exercises and training, anti-drug activities, United States security assistance programs or other agreed upon purposes.“ 33 The United States had previously entered into two separate agreements with Belize on military training and the provision of defence items.34 The SOFA itself does not authorize specific operations, exercises or activities, but contains provisions relating to the legal status and protection of U.S. personnel while in Belize. Under the terms of the agreement, U.S. personnel will enjoy legal protection as if they were administrative and technical staff of the U.S.

Embassy.35 Applicable treaties, a list of treaties, and other U.S. international treaties in force. Prepared by the Department of State for the purpose of providing information on treaties and other international treaties to which the United States is a party and which are recorded in the Department of State`s records as amended on November 1, 2007. Available from When discussing THE TACs, it should be noted that there are at least 10 agreements that are currently classified documents. The agreements are secret for reasons of national security. They are not addressed in this report. In 1993, countries concluded a SOFA.104 The agreement was extended on 19 September 1994; 28 April 1995; and 29 November, 1 December and 8 December 1995. Countries concluded an agreement on the treatment of U.S. forces visiting the Philippines in 1998.105 This agreement was amended on April 11 and 12, 2006. The difference between this agreement and the SOFA originally concluded in 1993 is that this agreement applies to U.S.

forces visiting the Philippines and not stationed there. The countries have also concluded an agreement on the treatment of personnel of the Republic of the Philippines visiting the United States (Counterpart Agreement).106 The Treaty on Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States of America and Japan80 was concluded in 1960 and amended on 26 December 1990.81 Article VI of the Treaty provides that the United States „shall be deemed to have use by its country, Air and Naval Forces of Facilities and Territories in Japan“ to „contribute to the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East.“ 82 Article VI also provides that the use of facilities and the status of the United States armed forces are to be governed by a separate agreement, (83) similar to the Security Treaty previously concluded in 1952. Two establishment plans shall be drawn up for each institution or activity, one for local workers and the other for United States personnel, depending on the current situation and taking into account the provisions of this Agreement. The schedule of local work personnel and any subsequent changes will be sent to the Spanish Ministry of Defense for approval. The schedule for U.S. personnel and any subsequent changes are sent to the Spanish Ministry of Defense for information. In any event, the proportionality represented by each establishment plan should be maintained without the respective percentage of participation exceeding three per cent. Any change in this proportionality must be approved in the Standing Committee. ISAF has its own status of forces with the Government of Afghanistan in the form of an annex to a military-technical agreement entitled „Status-of-Force Agreements“. The agreement provides that all ISAF members and auxiliary staff shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their respective national elements in criminal or disciplinary matters and that such personnel shall be exempt from arrest or detention by the Afghan authorities and shall not be surrendered to any international tribunal or other institution or State without the express consent of the contributing nation. In 2003, NATO took command of ISAF in Afghanistan. If your Government agrees with the foregoing, I have the honour to propose that this note and Your Excellency`s response thereto constitute an agreement between our two Governments.

In addition, some peculiarities of the agreement create zones of perceived privilege for American soldiers. .

Kommentare sind hier leider nicht gestattet