Army Sofa Agreement

The purpose agreement 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 states that: However, 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 U.S. federal or state jurisdiction over Philippine personnel.108 For example, , the African Crisis Response (ACRI) initiative was a bilateral training program.108 that was introduced in 1997 by the Clinton administration.

The United States closed SOFA with many African countries specifically dealing with ACRI. Each of the sofas contained a language that limited the agreements to U.S. personnel who were temporarily in the country for ACRI or other activities, as agreed by the countries. Although the agreement may have been registered as a result of ACRI, the language that allows other activities allows, as agreed between the two countries, that SOFA remains in force, even though ACRI does not currently exist. There is agreement on the status of U.S. Department of Defense military and civilian personnel in Afghanistan as part of cooperation efforts in terrorism, humanitarian and civic assistance, military training and exercises, and other activities.45 These personnel must be granted “equivalent status to the administrative and technical personnel” of the U.S. Embassy. , in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in Vienna of 1961.46.

, 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 their duties.47 In the agreement, the Interim Islamic Administration of Afghanistan (ITGA)48 expressly approved the United States.