Search

On 20 November 2017, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) requested authorization from Pre-Trial Chamber III to proceed with an investigation into the situation in Afghanistan. The request confirms that the Prosecutor intends to investigate, inter alia, members of the United States (US) armed forces and Central Intelligence Agency for allegedly committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan, Romania, Poland and Lithuania as part of the broader 'situation in Afghanistan'. This article examines whether the status of forces agreements (SOFAs) between the US and Afghanistan has any effect on the ICC's jurisdiction in the Afghanistan situation. It argues that the SOFA clauses that give the US exclusive criminal jurisdiction over its service members do not have any bearing on whether the ICC can lawfully exercise its jurisdiction over accused US nationals. This article concedes that Afghanistan's obligations under the SOFAs may be in conflict with its obligations under the ICC Statute, but concludes that it is not the ICC's responsibility to mitigate or resolve this conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on preventing sexual and gender-based violence made by the United Nation (U.N.) Peacekeepers in Central African Republic. Topics include jurisdiction over military personnel and sole responsibility of redressing country's troops misconduct is granted to peacekeepers under the Status of Forces Agreements and Memoranda of Understanding; human rights violations committed by the peacekeepers; and prosecution of the same by the U.N.

The Philippines and Japan have evolved a security partnership in the face of China's maritime expansion in the South and East China Seas. The two countries pursue this security partnership through regular bilateral consultations among Philippine and Japanese heads of states, political leaders, defense ministry officials, and high-ranking military officers; joint naval exercises; and exploratory discussions for arms transfers and negotiations for a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between Japan and the Philippines. Initially, Article 9 of Japan's 1947 Constitution hindered this security partnership. However, a recent reinterpretation of the pacifist constitution now allows Japan a collective self-defense “particularly to export arms to its allies and security partners and to deploy the JSDF overseas when necessary. Now, the challenge for Japan and the Philippines is to ensure the viability of their security partnership in the light of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's efforts to improve his country's relations with China. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article focuses on the national security and foreign relations of the U.S. and Africa, and mentions developing better U.S. status of forces protections in Africa. Topics discussed include preventing the conclusion of a multilateral status of forces agreement (SOFA) within the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP); problems that can arise when sending U.S. forces into countries with which the U.S. has not negotiated a SOFA; and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) model.

Several un Member States that have contributed military members to un peacekeeping operations have failed to hold them accountable for alleged criminal misconduct. The Secretary-General has proposed to secure criminal accountability through naming and shaming troop contributing Countries. Though already a compromise, uncertainty remains as to whether the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, composed of all the troop contributing Countries, will approve of this policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on the Australian authorities to conduct a trail over members of the U.S. forces with respect to offences committed within Australia and punishable by Australian law. Topics discussed include a 'status of forces' agreement ('SOFA') between Australia and the U.S. regarding the presence of U.S. military personnel on Australia; the Australia, New Zealand, United States (ANZUS) security treaty; and difficulties related to the notion of 'in the course of duty.'

Regardless of the controversies caused by the presence of allied forces on the Romanian territory, reality proves beyond any doubt that the Romanian state wishes to build upon such a situation to the benefit of its own security, especially in the current international conjuncture. Such a choice may seem logical and responsible to the great majority of the Romanian people. However, in our opinion, there is still an element that needs to be adjusted: the same people's perception on the status of foreign armed forces on the Romanian territory. The current paper aims to approach some legal issues regarding this matter, to contribute to a better understanding of the regulations that govern this domain and to reveal a principle that needs to be unanimously accepted: the allied forces need to be treated, for better or worse, just like a host nation's military. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Sino-U.S. agreement of May 1943 that granted the U.S. military exclusive criminal jurisdiction over its troops in China was a continuation of extraterritorial rights that the United States supposedly abolished the previous January. In light of the earlier British-U.S. negotiations on the same issue, China was an integral part of a legal regime that during World War II shielded globally deployed U.S. troops from local laws. The Chinese Guomindang (GMD) government's renewal of the 1943 agreement in June 1946 extended the wartime legal privileges of U.S. troops into an era of precarious peace in China and set a precedent for the Status of Forces Agreements between the United States and various allies during the Cold War. The demonstrations after the Shen Chong Incident in late 1946, a largely nationalist movement that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) co-opted, highlighted the inadequacy of public indignation and CCP manipulation in mounting a consistent legal effort to challenge the entrenched extraterritorial privileges of U.S. troops and restore Chinese jurisdiction. The GMD government also lost the opportunity to use the jurisdictional issue to demonstrate its nationalist credentials to an agitated public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the withdrawn of the U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The war has been cost the U.S. 300 million dollars a day. The U.S. forge a status of forces agreement (SOFA) and a bilateral security agreement (BSA) with Afghanistan. In the absence of the SOFA and BSA, the U.S. and NATO forces would have not remained in the country after 2014.

Couched at the intersection of international law and foreign policy, and with an eye toward the Asia-Pacific, this study illuminates how Status of Forces Agreements ("SOFAs") can forcefully shape bilateral security relations. SOFAs are international agreements that determine which country possesses jurisdiction over crimes committed by American soldiers stationed abroad. While they are enacted to promote "smooth working relations" between sending and host states, in Japan, the SOFA has devolved into one of the most contentious issues confronting the U.S.-Japan security alliance ("Security Alliance"). The SOFA has been recast as a symbol of American imperialism in the eyes of the Japanese, engendering bitter resentment amongst the host nation toward its western ally. Whether or not this perception of SOFA inequity is in fact justified, there is no doubt that the effects of such perception are real. As intimated by the current debate over the relocation of the Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, the profound resentment catalyzed by the SOFA now challenges the long-term viability of maintaining a forward deployment of U.S. military forces in Japan, the very foundation of the Security Alliance. Yet, in an age where the geopolitics of Northeast Asia are defined, in large part, by the precarious re-rise of China and the ever-present nuclear threat posed by North Korea, and as the U.S. finds itself "pivoting" to the Asia-Pacific, America's security partnership with Japan has assumed unparalleled importance. To address these issues, traditional tools of foreign policy are traded in for an often-overlooked legal instrument, the Japan SOFA. Revision to the SOFA is crucial to strengthening the Security Alliance. Ultimately advocating for the expansion of Japan's jurisdictional rights, this paper argues that the U.S. should relinquish legal authority in the name of American foreign policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Have states become more sensitive to issues of sovereignty and justice when hosting foreign troops over time? At first blush, the answer appears obvious. The tendency for host nations is to make more, not less, demands for sovereignty and justice over time. Likewise, U.S. military planners have also become more sensitive to issues of sovereignty and justice in both war and peacetime. This article systematically explores whether demands for sovereignty and justice have increased in the twenty-first century, and if so, what trade-offs the U.S. military and host nations face in the balance between security objectives on one hand and respect for sovereignty and justice on the other. Evidence from status of forces agreement (SOFA) negotiations, protest events data, civilian casualty data, and military documents and treaties chronicling shifts in the conduct of military operations do suggest that issues of sovereignty and justice matter more today to host nations and the U.S. military than in the past. This pattern holds across different regions and in both conflict and non-conflict settings. However, it is less clear to what extent greater demands for sovereignty and justice present trade-offs with security goals. Evidence from case examples are primarily drawn from U.S. military presence and operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the status of the forces agreement (SOFA) between the U.S. and China, the problems involve in the accommodation of the countries' legal systems in the SOFA negotiation process and the criminal cases tried in their military courts.

The article discusses the status of forces agreement (SOFA) between the U.S. and the Republic of Korea (ROK) which was concluded on February 9, 1967 and the problems concerning the due process and fair trial of U.S. military personnel who committed offenses in ROK.

The article discusses the status of forces agreement between the U.S. and Japan and the due process and fair trial of U.S. military personnel who committed offenses in Japan.

The article discusses the exercise of criminal jurisdiction over American military personnel under the status of forces agreement between the U.S. and the Philippines.

The US military bases in the Japanese prefecture of Okinawa have long been a source of domestic political opposition to the US–Japan alliance. As an alliance management issue, the ongoing troubles surrounding the bases raise questions as to when and why states adopt particular bargaining strategies when dealing with allies. Why, for instance, has the Japanese government not made greater use of this ‘Okinawa card’ when negotiating alliance issues with the USA? Even though highlighting particular domestic problems as a part of a negotiating strategy (known as tying hands) should appeal to a weaker ally such as Japan, this article argues that in the Okinawan case the reverse has been true. Japan has generally, though not always, sought to minimise or downplay domestic opposition to its alliance agreements, essentially preferring a cutting-slack to a tying-hands approach. The Japanese experience suggests that when states which are directly dependent on an alliance for their security see their security environment as unstable, they view tying-hands strategies as too likely to undermine their bargaining credibility. Maintaining credibility is important in an alliance bargaining context because it is a way for such states to signal their commitment to an alliance and so guard against abandonment. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the cultural meaning of the ch'oppul siwi, candlelight vigils held in 2002 following the deaths of Korean students Shin Hyosun and Shim Misŏn in an accident caused by a U.S. Army vehicle near Seoul, South Korea. It is said that South Korean protesters used the Internet to publicize the role of the U.S. State of the Forces Agreement (SOFA) with South Korea in shielding U.S. military personnel from prosecution. Topics include the role of social movements in South Korea, interviews with Korean youth who participated in the vigils, and the relation of the vigils to prior pro-democracy protests in the 1980s.

The article offers information on the present situation of Iraq after the American attack. It mentions Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which was proposed by the president of U.S., George W.Bush in 2008, set the end of 2011 as the deadline for the removal of all U.S. military forces from Iraq. It discusses several topics including attempts of newly formed president of the U.S., Barack Obama, in the removal of all American combat forces from Iraq, stability and sustainability of the political system the U.S. and free-market economy.

The article discusses a call for legal reforms in regards to foreign criminal jurisdiction practice under the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) as of June 2012. Compensation for victims of crimes and the SOFA-directed claims process are also addressed in relation to criminal acts allegedly committed by American military personnel in foreign locations. The U.S. Department of Defense's policies on jurisdiction and custody in cases involving crimes by military personnel are examined, including a 1995 rape case in Okinawa, Japan involving several U.S. Marines.

The doctrine and jurisprudence distinguish between the right that a state provide to armed force of a state in order to enter and stay on its own national territory and the legal status of these forces as log as they are staying on the territory of host state. The right to enter and stay-jus ad praesentiam is granted by access agreements, known also as defence cooperation agreements. The legal status of these forces -jus in praesentia is governed by the so-called SOFA agreements (Status of Forces Agreement). The second part of the research is dedicated to a compared law analysis among the legislation from Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the status of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq from 2003-2008. According to the author, a resolution by the United Nations (UN) Security Council authorizing U.S. military operations in Iraq, as part of a Multinational Force in accordance with international humanitarian law, expired at the end of the second term of former U.S. president George W. Bush. Topics include an overview of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which was negotiated by the U.S. and Iraqi governments in 2008, the legal authorization for the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq prior to the Iraq SOFA, and legal authorization for the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq under the Iraq SOFA.

The article focuses on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the U.S. and Iraq which was signed by representatives from the two countries on November 17, 2008. It examines the basis for determining the primary jurisdiction of U.S. service members for alleged criminal misconduct in Iraq, considering the judicial system. It states that duty status within the U.S. military is a personnel accountability term that has nothing to do with the actions a service member take.

The article presents a comparison and analysis of Korea and Japan's status of forces agreements (SOFAs) and their implications for the SOFA of Iraq. The final Iraq SOFA which was signed on November 27, 2008 with the U.S. is discussed wherein the legal jurisdiction of Iraq over U.S. military personnel accused of crimes in Iraq was permitted. The Korea SOFA and Japan SOFA are also presented where U.S. has exclusive jurisdiction over their military personnel. Changes of the SOFAs of both countries are featured which note that a U.S. soldier who commits a crime against a citizen of the host country while off-duty is subject to the host nation's jurisdiction, while crimes committed by service members during official duty are subject to exclusive U.S. jurisdiction.

The article focuses on Israel's policy to achieve normal relations with Arab countries which is based on the U.S. status as a Middle East hegemon and Israel's increasing military power. The U.S. dominance in the Middle East was shown during a coalition war against Iraq and its response to the Lebanese prime minister assassination that resulted in the Syrian military withdrawal from Lebanon. Israel's policy formulation is being affected however by the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that draws the U.S. troop withdrawal and the rising Iran influence.

The article focuses on the desperation of Iraq to appease Iran without losing the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the U.S. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has asked leaders in Iran to soften their opposition to the proposed SOFA between Iraq and the U.S. It notes that Iraq values its ties with Iran as the latter serves as an indispensable transit route for it. It adds that through the SOFA, a long-term security relationship will be created between Iraq and the U.S.

The article focuses on the draft proposal, in which administration officials termed as "status of forces agreement" (SOFA) of the U.S. government for Iraq. The author explains that provisions of the draft include a guarantee of immunity for American troops and civilian contractors, broad U.S. authority to conduct combat operations, and the right to detain Iraqi prisoners. Iraq's Kurdish Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari emphasizes that the agreement is a continued commitment by the U.S. government to stand by the Iraqi government against foreign and internal threats.

The article reflects on the criminal jurisdiction over the deployed American-Soldier and discuss trends in bilateral U.S. status of agreements by forces. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), is a model for bilateral U.S. agreements on criminal jurisdiction. The contract with SOFA entails the host nations voluntarily waiver a degree of their sovereign authority. NATO allocates criminal jurisdiction over visiting forces among the sending and receiving nations.