Sofa Military Agreement

The agreement with Afghanistan does not explicitly authorize the United States to conduct military operations inside Afghanistan, but acknowledges that such operations are “ongoing.” In 2001, Congress authorized the use of military force there (and elsewhere) through a joint resolution to “attack nations, organizations or individuals who planned, authorized, committed or supported the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.” 49 The United Nations Security Council implicitly acknowledged that the use of force in response to the 2001 terrorist attacks,50 and then authorized the deployment of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to Afghanistan.51 Subsequent UN Security Council resolutions constitute a permanent mandate for ISAF52, in which it is invited to cooperate “in close coordination with” Operation Enduring Freedom (EEO- the US-led coalition , which conducts military operations in Afghanistan) in the execution of the mandate53. , Security Council resolutions appear to satisfactorily recognize the legitimacy of its operations, ultimately calling on the Afghan government to continue to address the threat posed by the Taliban to the security and stability of Afghanistan, with the assistance of the international community, including the International Security Assistance Force and the Coalition , in accordance with their respective functions that are developing. 54 The agreement in return contains provisions relating to the criminal jurisdiction of Filipino personnel in the United States. The agreement was reached in the form of an executive agreement and was not ratified by the U.S. Senate. Probably, according to the logic of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Clifford, because the agreement probably reduced the impact of U.S. jurisdiction, it would have to be ratified by the Senate to be constitutionally valid. But the counter-agreement can be distinguished from SOFA with the Republic of Korea and SOFAs with other foreign jurisdictions, because the United States does not completely waive jurisdiction for crimes committed on the territory of the United States. On the contrary, the agreement stipulates that, at the request of the Philippine government, the U.S. authorities will require the competent authorities to lift jurisdiction in favor of the Philippine authorities.107 The State Department and the U.S.

Department of Defense, however, retain the ability to determine that U.S. interests require the United States to exercise federal or state jurisdiction over Philippine personnel.108 8. The provisions of this agreement can be amended by unanimous written agreement between the representatives of the governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting in the Council. NATO SOFA is a multilateral agreement applicable between all NATO member countries. Since June 2007, 26 countries, including the United States, have either ratified the agreement or joined it by joining NATO.9 In addition, 24 other countries are subject to NATO`s SOFA by participating in the NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme. 11 The various pfP countries are committed to meeting NATO SOFA12 conditions through NATO SOFA and NATO, and the United States has a common couch with about 58 countries.

Comments are closed.