The United States is a party to multilateral and bilateral agreements that deal with the status of U.S. forces while they are in a foreign country. These agreements, commonly referred to as the “status of Forces Agreements,” generally create the framework within which U.S. military personnel operate in a foreign country.1 The United States provides rights and privileges for insured persons while in foreign jurisdiction and deals with how domestic foreign jurisdiction laws are applied in the United States.2 SOFS may contain many provisions. but the most common question is which country can exercise criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. The United States has agreements in which it retains the exclusive jurisdiction of its staff, but the agreement more often requires joint jurisdiction with the host country. 1998: Temporary participation in Ghana under ACRI and other activities, which can be agreed by two governments in 2000: additional agreement, separate from ACRI, to persons who are temporarily in Ghana as part of humanitarian aid operations in southern Africa between March 2003 and August 201010 the United States participated in military operations in Iraq, first to remove Saddam Hussein`s regime from power , then to fight against the remnants of the former regime and other threats to the stability of Iraq and its government after Saddam. In late 2007, the United States and Iraq signed a Declaration of Principles for Long-Term Cooperation and Friendship between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America.111 The Strategic Agreement in the Declaration was ultimately intended to replace the United Nations mandate that the United States and allied forces be responsible for its contribution to the security of Iraq. The declaration ended on December 31, 2008.112 The declaration took root in a communiqué dated August 26, 2007, signed by five political leaders in Iraq, calling for long-term relations with the United States. In accordance with the declaration, the parties pledged to “start as soon as possible with the aim of reaching agreements between the two governments on political, cultural, economic and security issues by 31 July 2008.” 113 Among other things, the declaration stated the intention of the parties to conclude a security agreement: a SOFA is not a mutual or security defence agreement and generally does not authorize any specific exercise, activity or mission. SOFAs are peace documents and therefore do not deal with the rules of war, the laws of armed conflict or the laws of the sea.
The existence of a SOFA does not affect or diminish the inherent right of the parties to self-defence under martial law. In the event of an armed conflict between the parties to a SOFA, the terms of the agreement would no longer be applicable. In the context of the preparation and execution of the tasks covered by Article 17, paragraph 2 of the EU Treaty, including exercises, headquarters and the armed forces as well as the personnel covered by Article 1, their equipment is allowed to pass and send temporarily to the territory of a Member State, subject to the agreement of the competent authorities of that Member State. Four years after Germany`s accession to NATO, the countries reached an agreement for the implementation of NATO SOFA in 1953.71 The agreement provided for additional additional agreements beyond those contained in NATO`s SOFA, which are specific to the relations between the United States and Germany. NATO SOFA`s implementation and complementary agreements cover more than 200 pages and cover the minutiae of the daily intervention of US forces and personnel in Germany. See below.B. the Agreement on the Facilities and Territories and Status of the United States Armed Forces in Japan, 11 U.S.S.1652, came into force on June 23, 1960 (SOFA in the form of an executive treaty agreement).