Status Of Forces Agreement (Sofa) Afghanistan

In 1968, two years after the signing of SOFA between the countries, a member of the US Army in Smallwood v. Clifford90 asserted that the US authorities did not have the legitimate authority to send him back to the Republic of Korea, in accordance with the jurisdictional rules contained in the agreement, to bring him to justice by a Korean court for murder and arson.91 The member of the service claimed that he was in the Republic of Korea. agreement was not approved in a "constitutionally acceptable" manner. 92 He asserted that U.S. domestic law stated that international foreign jurisdictional agreements concerning U.S. forces deployed abroad were "either explicitly or tacitly approved by the [United States]. senate. 93 The Tribunal found that sofa had the effect of reducing the role of the Republic of Korea in enforcing its own legislation and that the United States had not waived jurisdiction for offences committed on its own territory. Therefore, ratification by the Senate is "clearly unnecessary" because Senate approval "would not affect the allocation of powers by the Republic of Korea, which the United States cannot rightly claim." 94 There is an agreement on the status of U.S. Department of Defense military and civilian personnel in Afghanistan as part of cooperation efforts on terrorism, humanitarian and civic aid, training and military exercises, as well as other activities45.45 These personnel must be granted "equivalent status to the administrative and technical personnel" of the United States Embassy under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in Vienna.46 which is granted to the administrative and technical staff of the United States Embassy in accordance with the 1961 Vienna Convention.46 , U.S. personnel are immune from criminal prosecution by the Afghan authorities, and are immune from civil and administrative jurisdiction, except for acts committed outside its duties.47 In the agreement, the Interim Islamic Administration of Afghanistan (ITGA)48 explicitly authorizes the U.S. government to exercise criminal jurisdiction over U.S.

personnel, and the Government of Afghanistan is not authorized to transfer U.S. personnel to the custody of another state. , international tribunal or any other institution without the approval of the U.S. government. Although the agreement was signed by ITGA, the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, subsequently elected, assumed responsibility for ITGA`s legal obligations and the agreement remains in force. The agreement does not appear to create immunity for contract staff. 1941: First, in a series of agreements, some before NATO, relating to the status of the defence forces When this happens, the United States may decide to argue that a number of Force Status Agreements (SOFAs) executed by Afghanistan, the ICC on DOD personnel, including members of the U.S. military. (Any SOFA, it should be noted, would not apply to non-DOD personnel, as due to the difference in treatment between the DOD and CIA personnel in Italy allegedly involved in the transfer and torture of "Abu Omar"). The theory is that the ICC`s jurisdiction depends on the icc member states delegating their sovereign right to exercise territorial jurisdiction to the Court of Justice. By granting the United States exclusive criminal justice through its armed forces, Afghanistan cannot delegate to the ICC a power it has abandoned. In 1954, the United States and the Republic of Korea concluded a mutual defence treaty.86 As part of the treaty, countries agree to try to resolve international disputes peacefully, to consult with them whenever the political independence or security of one of the three armed attacks is threatened, and that each party would act to deal with the common danger in accordance with its respective constitutional processes.87 Article IV of the treaty "confers law on the United States" ...

We cannot display this gallery