Order Code RL34531
Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA):
What Is It, and How Might One Be Utilized In Iraq?
June 16, 2008
R. Chuck Mason
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division

---

Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA):
What Is It, and How Might One Be Utilized In Iraq?
Summary
The United States has been party to multilateral and bilateral agreements
addressing the status of U.S. armed forces while present in a foreign country. These
agreements, commonly referred to as Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs),
generally establish the framework under which U.S. military personnel operate in a
foreign country, addressing how the domestic laws of the foreign jurisdiction shall
be applied toward U.S. personnel while in that country. In light of the “Declaration
of Principles,”signed by U.S. President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister
Nouri Kamel Al-Maliki on November 26, 2007, and the possibility that the United
States will enter into a SOFA with the Government of Iraq, there is considerable
interest in Congress in SOFAs, what they may cover, and how they have been
concluded in the past.
Formal requirements concerning form, content, length, or title of a SOFA do not
exist. A SOFA may be written for a specific purpose or activity, or it may anticipate
a longer-term relationship and provide for maximum flexibility and applicability. It
is generally a stand-alone document concluded as an executive agreement. A SOFA
may include many provisions, but the most common issue addressed is which country
may exercise criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. Other provisions that may
be found in a SOFA include, but are not limited to, the wearing of uniforms, taxes
and fees, carrying of weapons, use of radio frequencies, licenses, and customs
regulations.
SOFAs are often included, along with other types of military agreements, as part
of a comprehensive security arrangement with a particular country. A SOFA itself
does not constitute a security arrangement; rather, it establishes the rights and
privileges of U.S. personnel present in a country in support of the larger security
arrangement. SOFAs may be entered based on authority found in previous treaties
and congressional actions or as sole executive agreements.
There has been considerable interest in possible future security agreements
between the United States and Iraq. The Administration has indicated that it intends
to enter into two distinctive agreements. The first is a non-binding security
agreement, and the second is a U.S.-Iraq SOFA. The SOFA may be unique from
other SOFAs concluded by the United States in that it may contain authorization by
the host government — the government of Iraq — for U.S. forces to engage in
military operations within Iraq.
The United States is currently party to more than 100 agreements that may be
considered SOFAs. A list of current agreements is included at the end of this report
categorized in tables according to the underlying source of authority, if any, for each
of the SOFAs.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Multilateral vs. Bilateral SOFAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Provisions of Status of Forces Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Civil/Criminal Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Status Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authority to Fight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Other Provisions Such as Uniforms, Taxes, and
Customs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Security Arrangements and SOFAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Bilateral SOFAs: Historical Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
South Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Prospective SOFA with Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Survey of Current Status of Forces Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Status of
Forces Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Partnership for
Peace - Status of Forces Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Treaty as Underlying Source of Authority for Status of
Forces Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Congressional Action as Underlying Source of
Authority for Status of Forces Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Base Lease Agreement Containing Status of
Force Agreement Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Status of Forces Agreement in Support of
Specified Activity/Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Status of Forces Agreement Not in Support of Specified
Activity/Exercise and Not Based on Underlying
Treaty/Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
List of Tables
Table 1. North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Status of
Forces Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 2. North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Partnership for
Peace - Status of Forces Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 3. Treaty as Underlying Source of Authority for
Status of Forces Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 4. Congressional Action as Underlying Source of
Authority for Status of Forces Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 5. Base Lease Agreement Containing Status of
Force Agreement Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

---

Table 6. Status of Forces Agreement in Support of
Specified Activity/Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 7. Status of Forces Agreement Not in Support of
Specified Activity/Exercise and Not Based on
Underlying Treaty/Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

---

Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA):
What Is It, and How Might One
Be Utilized In Iraq?
Introduction
The United States has been party to multilateral and bilateral agreements
addressing the status of U.S. armed forces while present in a foreign country. These
agreements, commonly referred to as Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs),
generally establish the framework under which U.S. military personnel operate in a
foreign country. In light of the “Declaration of Principles,”1 signed by U.S. President
George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Kamel Al-Maliki on November 26,
2007, and the possibility that the United States will enter into a SOFA with the
government of Iraq,2 there has been considerable interest in Congress in SOFAs,
what they may cover, and how they have been concluded in the past.
The United States is currently party to more than 100 agreements that may be
considered SOFAs.3 A SOFA as a stand-alone document may not exist with a
particular country, but that does not necessarily mean that the status of U.S. personnel
in that country has not been addressed. Terms commonly found in SOFAs may be
contained in other agreements with a partner country so that a separate SOFA is not
always utilized.
A SOFA is an agreement that establishes the framework under which armed
forces operate within a foreign country.4 The agreement provides for rights and
1 Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship
Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America. The text of this agreement
is available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071126-11.html].
2 Hearing of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, and the Subcommittee
on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee; Declaration and Principles: Future U.S. Commitments to Iraq , March 4, 2008
(statement by Ambassador David M. Satterfield, Senior Advisor to the Secretary and
Coordinator for Iraq).
3 TREATIES IN FORCE, A LIST OF TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS OF
THE UNITED STATES IN FORCE. Prepared by the Department of State for the purpose of
providing information on treaties and other international agreements to which the United
States is a party and which are carried on the records of the Department of State as being in
force as of November 1, 2007. Available at
[http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/treaties/2007/index.htm].
4 In any discussion of SOFAs, it must be noted that there are at least 10 agreements that
(continued...)

---

CRS-2
privileges of covered individuals while in the foreign jurisdiction, addressing how the
domestic laws of the foreign jurisdiction shall be applied to U.S. personnel5 while in
that country. It is important to note that a SOFA is a contract between parties and
may be cancelled at the will of either party. SOFAs are peacetime documents and
therefore do not address the rules of war, the Laws of Armed Conflict, or the Laws
of the Sea. In the event of armed conflict between parties to a SOFA, the terms of
the agreement would no longer be applicable.
SOFAs may include many provisions, but the most common issue addressed is
which country may exercise criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. The United
States has concluded agreements where it maintains exclusive jurisdiction over its
personnel, but more often the agreement calls for shared jurisdiction with the
receiving country. In general, a SOFA does not authorize specific exercises,
activities, or missions. Rather, it provides the framework for legal protections and
rights while U.S. personnel are present in a country for agreed upon purposes. A
SOFA is not a mutual defense agreement or a security agreement. The existence of
a SOFA does not affect or diminish the parties inherent right of self-defense under
the law of war.
Multilateral vs. Bilateral SOFAs
With the exception of the multilateral SOFA among the United States and North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries, a SOFA is specific to an individual
country and is in the form of an executive agreement.6 The Department of State and
the Department of Defense, working together, identify the need for a SOFA with a
particular country and negotiate the terms of the agreement. The NATO SOFA7 is
the only SOFA that was concluded as part of a treaty.8 The Senate approved
ratification of the NATO SOFA on March 19, 1970, subject to reservations. The
resolution included a statement
4 (...continued)
currently are classified documents. The agreements are classified for national security
reasons. They are not discussed in this report.
5 U.S. personnel may include U.S. armed forces personnel, Department of Defense civilian
employees, and/or contractors working for the Department of Defense. The scope of
applicability is specifically defined in each agreement.
6 For a discussion on the form and content of international agreements under U.S. law,
distinguishing between treaties and executive agreements, see CRS Report RL34362,
Congressional Oversight and Related Issues Concerning the Prospective Security
Agreement Between the United States and Iraq, by Michael John Garcia, R. Chuck Mason,
and Jennifer K. Elsea.
7 4 U.S.T. 1792; T.I.A.S. 2846; 199 U.N.T.S. 67. Signed at London, June 19, 1951. Entered
into force August 23, 1953.
8 See, e.g., Agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security
Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in Japan, 11
U.S.T. 1652, entered into force June 23, 1960 (SOFA in the form of an executive agreement
pursuant to a treaty).

---

CRS-3
that nothing in the Agreement diminishes, abridges, or alters the right of the
United States to safeguard its own security by excluding or removing persons
whose presence in the United States is deemed prejudicial to its safety or
security, and that no person whose presence in the United States is deemed
prejudicial to its safety or security shall be permitted to enter or remain in the
United States.9
The Senate reservations to the NATO SOFA include four conditions: (1) the criminal
jurisdiction provisions contained in Article VII of the agreement do not constitute a
precedent for future agreements; (2) when a servicemember is to be tried by
authorities in a receiving state, the commanding officer of the U.S. armed forces in
that state shall review the laws of the receiving state with reference to the procedural
safeguards of the U.S. Constitution; (3) if the commanding officer believes there is
danger that the servicemember will not be protected because of the absence or denial
of constitutional rights the accused would receive in the United States, the
commanding officer shall request that the receiving state waive its jurisdiction; and,
(4) a representative of the United States be appointed to attend the trial of any
servicemember being tried by the receiving state and act to protect the constitutional
rights of the servicemember.10
The NATO SOFA is a multilateral agreement that has applicability among all
the member countries of NATO. As of June 2007, 26 countries, including the United
States, have either ratified the agreement or acceded to it by their accession into
NATO.11 Additionally, another 24 countries are subject to the NATO SOFA through
their participation in the NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) program.12 The program
consists of bilateral cooperation between individual countries and NATO in order to
increase stability, diminish threats to peace and build strengthened security
relationships.13 The individual countries that participate in the PfP agree to adhere
to the terms of the NATO SOFA.14 Through the NATO SOFA and the NATO PfP,
the United States has a common SOFA with approximately 58 countries. Secretary
Rice and Secretary Gates stated that the United States has agreements in more than
115 countries around the world.15 The NATO SOFA and NATO PfP SOFA account
for roughly half of the SOFAs to which the United States is party.
9 S.Res. of July 15, 1953, Advising and Consenting to Ratification of the NATO SOFA. See
also 32 C.F.R. § 151.6.
10 S.Res. of July 15, 1953, Advising and Consenting to Ratification of the NATO SOFA.
See also 32 C.F.R. § 151.6.
11 See [http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/85630.pdf].
12 See [http://www.nato.int/issues/pfp/index.html].
13 Id.
14 See [http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b950619a.htm].
15 What We Need In Iraq, By Condoleeza Rice and Robert Gates, February 13, 2008,
available at
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/12/AR2008021202001.
html].

---

CRS-4
Department of Defense Directive 5525.1 provides policy and information
specific to SOFAs.16 The Department of Defense policy is “to protect, to the
maximum extent possible, the rights of U.S. personnel who may be subject to
criminal trial by foreign courts and imprisonment in foreign prisons.”17 The directive
addresses the Senate reservations to the NATO SOFA by stating even though the
reservations accompanying its ratification only apply to NATO member countries
where it is applicable, comparable reservations shall be applied to future SOFAs.
Specifically, the policy states that “the same procedures for safeguarding the
interests of U.S. personnel subject to foreign jurisdiction” be applied when
practicable in overseas areas where U.S. forces are stationed.18
Provisions of Status of Forces Agreements
There are no formal requirements governing the content, detail, and length of
a SOFA. A SOFA may address, but is not limited to, criminal and civil jurisdiction,
the wearing of uniforms, taxes and fees, carrying of weapons, use of radio
frequencies, license requirements, and customs regulations. The United States has
concluded SOFAs as short as one page and in excess of 200 pages. For example, the
United States and Bangladesh exchanged notes19 providing for the status of U.S.
armed forces in advance of a joint exercise in 1998.20 The agreement is specific to
one activity/exercise, consists of 5 clauses, and is contained in one page. The United
States and Botswana exchanged notes providing for the status of forces “who may
be temporarily present in Botswana in conjunction with exercises, training,
humanitarian assistance, or other activities which may be agreed upon by our two
governments.”21 The agreement is similar in its scope to the agreement with
Bangladesh and is contained in one page. In contrast, in documents exceeding 200
pages, the United States and Germany entered into a supplemental agreement to the
NATO SOFA,22 as well as additional agreements and exchange of notes related to
specific issues.23
16 Available at [http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/552501p.pdf].
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Diplomatic notes are used for correspondence between the U.S. government and a foreign
government. The Secretary of State corresponds with the diplomatic representatives of
foreign governments in Washington, DC, and foreign offices or ministries abroad. See
[http://foia.state.gov/masterdocs/05fah01/CH0610.pdf].
20 T.I.A.S. Exchange of notes at Dhaka, August 10 and 24, 1998. Entered into force August
24, 1998. (Providing U.S. armed forces status equivalent to Administrative and Technical
Staff of the U.S. Embassy).
21 T.I.A.S. Exchange of notes at Gaborone, January 22 and February 13, 2001. Entered into
force February 13, 2001. (Providing U.S. forces status equivalent to Administrative and
Technical Staff of the U.S. Embassy).
22 14 U.S.T. 531; T.I.A.S. 5351. Signed at Bonn, August 3, 1959. Entered into force July
1, 1963.
23 14 U.S.T. 689; T.I.A.S. 5352; 490 U.N.T.S. 30. Signed at Bonn, August 3, 1959. Entered
(continued...)

---

CRS-5
Civil/Criminal Jurisdiction. The issue most commonly addressed in a
SOFA is the legal protection from prosecution that will be afforded U.S. personnel
while present in a foreign country. The agreement establishes which party to the
agreement is able to assert criminal and/or civil jurisdiction. In other words, the
agreement establishes how the domestic civil and criminal laws are applied to U.S.
personnel while serving in a foreign country. The United States has entered
agreements where it maintains exclusive jurisdiction, but the more common
agreement results in shared jurisdiction between the United States and the signatory
country. Exclusive jurisdiction is when the United States retains the right to exercise
all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction for violations of the laws of the foreign
nation while the individual is present in that country. Shared jurisdiction occurs
when each party to the agreement retains exclusive jurisdiction over certain offenses
but also allows the United States to request that the host country waive jurisdiction
in favor of the United States exercising criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction. The
right to exert jurisdiction over U.S. personnel is not solely limited to when an
individual is located on a military installation. It may cover individuals off the
installation as well. The right to exert jurisdiction can result in complete immunity
from the laws of the receiving country while the individual is present in that country.
Example of Exclusive Jurisdiction. The United States entered into an
agreement regarding military exchanges and visits with the Government of
Mongolia.24 As part of the agreement, Article X addresses criminal jurisdiction of
U.S. personnel located in Mongolia. The language of the agreement provides,
“United States military authorities shall have the right to exercise within Mongolia
all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction over United States [p]ersonnel conferred on
them by the military laws of the United States. Any criminal offenses against the laws
of Mongolia committed by a member of the U.S. forces shall be referred to
appropriate United States authorities for investigation and disposition.”25 The
agreement allows the government of Mongolia to request the United States to waive
its jurisdiction in cases of alleged criminal behavior unrelated to official duty.26 There
is no requirement for the United States to waive jurisdiction, only to give
“sympathetic consideration” of any such request.27
Example of Shared Jurisdiction. The NATO SOFA, applicable to all
member countries, is an example of shared jurisdiction. Article VII provides the
jurisdictional framework.28 The SOFA allows for a country not entitled to primary
23 (...continued)
into force July 1, 1963.
24 T.I.A.S., Agreement on Military Exchanges and Visits Between The Government of the
United States of America and The Government of Mongolia, agreement dated June 26,
1996.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 4 U.S.T. 1792; T.I.A.S. 2846; 199 U.N.T.S. 67. Article VII:
(continued...)

---

CRS-6
jurisdiction to request the country with primary jurisdiction waive its right to
jurisdiction. There is no requirement for the country to waive jurisdiction, only that
28 (...continued)
1. Subject to the provisions of this Article,
(a) the military authorities of the sending State shall have the right to exercise
within the receiving State all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred
on them by the law of the sending State over all persons subject to the military
law of that State;
(b) the authorities of the receiving State shall have jurisdiction over the
members of a force or civilian component and their dependents with respect to
offenses committed within the territory of the receiving State and punishable
by the law of that State.
2. — (a) The military authorities of the sending State shall have the right to exercise
exclusive jurisdiction over persons subject to the military law of that State with
respect to offenses, including offenses relating to its security, punishable by the law
of the sending State, but not by the law of the receiving State.
(b) The authorities of the receiving State shall have the right to exercise
exclusive jurisdiction over members of a force or civilian components and their
dependents with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security
of that State, punishable by its law but not by the law of the sending State.
(c) For the purposes of this paragraph and of paragraph 3 of this Article a
security offense against a State shall include
(i) treason against the State;
(ii) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to official
secrets of that State, or secrets relating to the national defense of that
State.
3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent, the following rules
shall apply:
(a) The military authorities of the sending State shall have the primary right to
exercise jurisdiction over a member of a force or of a civilian component in
relation to
(i) offenses solely against the property or security of that State, or
offenses solely against the person or property of another member of the
force or civilian component of that State or of a dependent;
(ii) offenses arising out of any act or omission in the performance of
official duty.
(b) In the case of any other offense the authorities of the receiving State shall
have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction.
(c) If the State having the primary right decides not to exercise jurisdiction, it
shall notify the authorities of the other State as soon as practicable. The
authorities of the State having the primary right shall give sympathetic
consideration to a request from the authorities of the other State for a waiver of
its right in cases where that other State considers such waiver to be of particular
importance.
4. The foregoing provisions of this Article shall not imply any right for the military
authorities of the sending State to exercise jurisdiction over persons who are
nationals of or ordinarily resident in the receiving State, unless they are members
of the force of the sending State.”

---

CRS-7
it gives “sympathetic consideration” of the request.29 Under the shared jurisdiction
framework, each of the respective countries is provided exclusive jurisdiction in
specific circumstances, generally when an offense is only punishable by one of the
country’s laws.30 In that case, the country whose law has been offended has exclusive
jurisdiction over the offender. When the offense violates the laws of both countries,
concurrent jurisdiction is present and additional qualifications are used to determine
which country will be allowed to assert jurisdiction over the offender.31
Status Determinations. While the NATO SOFA provides extensive
language establishing jurisdiction, the United States has entered numerous SOFAs
that appear to have a very basic rule for determining jurisdiction. Some agreements
contain a single sentence stating that U.S. personnel are to be afforded a status
equivalent to that accorded to the administrative and technical staff of the U.S.
Embassy in that country. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April
18, 1961 establishes classes of personnel, each with varying levels of legal
protections.32 Administrative and technical staff receive, among other legal
protections, “immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.”33
Therefore, a SOFA which treats U.S. personnel as administrative and technical staff
confers immunity from criminal jurisdiction while in the receiving country.
Authority to Fight. SOFAs do not generally authorize specific military
operations or missions by U.S. forces. While SOFAs do not generally provide
authority to fight, the inherent right of self-defense is not affected or diminished.
U.S. personnel always have a right to defend themselves, if threatened or attacked,
and a SOFA does not take away that right.34 Language is often found within the
SOFA that defines the scope of applicability of the agreement. For example, the
SOFA with Belize expressly applies to U.S. personnel “who may be temporarily in
Belize in connection with military exercises and training, counter-drug related
activities, United States security assistance programs, or other agreed purposes.”35
The United States had previously entered into two different agreements with Belize
related to military training and the provision of defense articles.36 The SOFA itself
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 23 U.S.T. 3227; T.I.A.S. 7502. Signed April 18, 1961. Entered into force December 13,
1972. For background see, CRS Report RL33147, Immunities Accorded to Foreign
Diplomats, Consular Officers, and Employees of International Organizations Under U.S.
Law, by Michael John Garcia.
33 Vienna Convention, supra note 32, at art. 37(2), citing art. 31(1).
34 See CJCSI 3121.01B, Standing Rules of Engagement for US Forces (U), June 13, 2005.
(The SROE is a classified document, but portions are unclassified).
35 T.I.A.S. Exchange of notes at Belize City September 4, 2001and April 24, 2002. Entered
into force April 24, 2002.
36 34 U.S.T. 23; T.I.A.S. 10334. Exchange of notes at Belize and Belmopan December 8,
1981 and January 15, 1982. Entered into force January 15, 1982. T.I.A.S. 11743; 2202
(continued...)

---

CRS-8
does not authorize specific operations, exercises, or activities, but provides
provisions addressing the legal status and protections of U.S. personnel while in
Belize. Under the terms of the agreement, U.S. personnel are provided legal
protections as if they were administrative and technical staff of the U.S. Embassy.37
Other Provisions Such as Uniforms, Taxes, and Customs. While
understandings regarding the assertion of legal jurisdiction are generally a universal
component of a SOFA, more detailed administrative and operational matters may be
included as well. A SOFA may address, for example, the wearing of uniforms by
armed forces while away from military installations, taxes and fees, carrying of
weapons by U.S. personnel, use of radio frequencies, driving license requirements,
and customs regulations. A SOFA provides the legal framework for day-to-day
operations of U.S. personnel while a foreign country. Most SOFAs are bilateral
agreements, therefore they may be tailored to the specific needs of the personnel
operating in that country.
Security Arrangements and SOFAs
In support of U.S. foreign policy, the United States has concluded agreements
with foreign nations related to security commitments and assurances.38 These
agreements may be concluded in various forms including as a collective defense
agreement (obligating parties to the agreement to assist in the defense of any party
to the agreement in the event of an attack upon it), an agreement containing a
consultation requirement (a party to the agreement pledges to take some action in the
event the other country’s security is threatened), an agreement granting the legal right
to military intervention (granting one party the right, but not the duty, to militarily
intervene within the territory of another party to defend it against internal or external
threats), or other non-binding arrangements (unilateral pledge or policy statement).
SOFAs are often included, along with other types of military agreements (i.e., basing,
access, and pre-positioning), as part of a comprehensive security arrangement. A
SOFA may be based on the authority found in previous treaties, congressional action,
or sole executive agreements comprising the security arrangement.
Bilateral SOFAs: Historical Practice
The following sections provide a historical perspective on the inclusion of a
SOFA as part of comprehensive bilateral security arrangements by the United States
with Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines. The
36 (...continued)
U.N.T.S. 141. Exchange of notes at Belize and Belmopan August 6 and 23, 1990. Entered
into force August 23, 1990.
37 T.I.A.S. Exchange of notes at Belize City September 4, 2001and April 24, 2002. Entered
into force April 24, 2002.
38 For a discussion on security arrangements, see CRS Report RL34362, Congressional
Oversight and Related Issues Concerning the Prospective Security Agreement Between the
United States and Iraq, by Michael John Garcia, R. Chuck Mason, and Jennifer K. Elsea.

---

CRS-9
arrangements may include a stand-alone SOFA or other agreements including
protections commonly associated with a SOFA.
Afghanistan. The United States and Afghanistan entered into an agreement,39
in 2002, regarding economic grants under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,40 as
amended, as well as for the furnishing of defense articles, defense services and
related training, pursuant to the United States International Military and Education
Training Program (IMET),41 from the United States to the Afghanistan Interim
Administration.
In 2003, the parties entered into an agreement regarding the status of U.S.
military and civilian personnel of the U.S. Department of Defense present in
Afghanistan to promote cooperative efforts in response to terrorism, humanitarian
and civic assistance, military training and exercises, and other activities.42 Such
personnel are to be accorded “a status equivalent to that accorded to the
administrative and technical staff” of the U.S. Embassy under the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations of 1961.43 Accordingly, U.S. personnel are immune from
criminal prosecution by Afghan authorities, and are immune from civil and
administrative jurisdiction except with respect to acts performed outside the course
of their duties.44 In the agreement, the Islamic Transitional Government of
Afghanistan45 explicitly authorized the U.S. government to exercise criminal
jurisdiction over U.S. personnel, and the government of Afghanistan is not permitted
to surrender U.S. personnel to the custody of another state, international tribunal, or
any other entity without consent of the U.S. government. The agreement does not
appear to provide immunity for contract personnel.
The agreement with Afghanistan does not expressly authorize the United States
to carry out military operations within Afghanistan, but it recognizes that such
39 Exchange of notes at Kabul April 6 and 13, 2002. Entered into force April 13, 2002. Not
printed in Treaties and Other International Acts Series (T.I.A.S.).
40 P.L. 87-195, 75 Stat. 424 (September 4, 1961) (An act to “promote the foreign policy,
security, and general welfare of the United States by assisting peoples of the world in their
efforts toward economic development and internal and external security, and for other
purposes.” The act authorizes the President “to furnish military assistance on such terms
and conditions as he may determine, to any friendly country or international organization,
the assisting of which the President finds will strengthen the security of the United States
and promote world peace and which is otherwise eligible to receive such assistance ...”).
41 22 U.S.C. § 2347 et seq.
42 T.I.A.S. Exchange of notes September 26 and December 12, 2002 and May 28, 2003.
Entered into force May 28, 2003.
43 Id.
44 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961, T.I.A.S. 7502; 23 U.S.T.
3227.
45 The transitional government has since been replaced by the fully elected Government of
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. For information about the political development of
Afghanistan since 2001, see CRS Report RS21922, Afghanistan: Government Formation
and Performance, by Kenneth Katzman.

---

CRS-10
operations are “ongoing.” Congress authorized the use of military force there (and
elsewhere) by joint resolution in 2001, targeting “those nations, organizations, or
persons [who] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on September 11, 2001....”46 The U.N. Security Council implicitly
recognized that the use of force was appropriate in response to the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks,47 and subsequently authorized the deployment of an
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to Afghanistan.48 Subsequent U.N.
Security Council resolutions provide a continuing mandate for the ISAF (NATO
peacekeeping force),49 calling upon it to “work in close consultation with” Operation
Enduring Freedom (OEF — the U.S.-led coalition conducting military operations in
Afghanistan) in carrying out the mandate.50 While there is no explicit U.N. mandate
authorizing the OEF, Security Council resolutions appear to provide ample
recognition of the legitimacy of its operations, most recently by calling upon the
Afghan Government,
with the assistance of the international community, including the International
Security Assistance Force and Operation Enduring Freedom coalition, in
accordance with their respective designated responsibilities as they evolve, to
continue to address the threat to the security and stability of Afghanistan posed
by the Taliban, Al-Qaida, other extremist groups and criminal activities....51
On May 23, 2005, President Hamid Karzai and President Bush issued a “joint
declaration” outlining a prospective future agreement between the two countries.52
It envisions a role for U.S. military troops in Afghanistan to “help organize, train,
equip, and sustain Afghan security forces” until Afghanistan has developed its own
capacity, and to “consult with respect to taking appropriate measures in the event that
46 P.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (September 18, 2001). For a discussion on the legislative
history of P.L. 107-40 and the scope of authorization for the use of military force, see CRS
Report RS22357, Authorization For Use of Military Force in Response to the 9/11 Attacks
(P.L. 107-40): Legislative History, by Richard F. Grimmett.
47 U.N.S.C. Res. 1368 (September 12, 2001) (“Recognizing the inherent right of individual
or collective self-defence in accordance with the [UN] Charter,” and expressing its
“readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks”).
48 U.N.S.C. Res. 1386 (December 20, 2001).
49 The ISAF has its own status of forces agreement with the Afghan government in the form
of an annex to a Military Technical Agreement entitled “Arrangements Regarding the Status
of the International Security Assistance Force.” The agreement provides that all ISAF and
supporting personnel are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their respective national
elements for criminal or disciplinary matters, and that such personnel are immune from
arrest or detention by Afghan authorities and may not be turned over to any international
tribunal or any other entity or State without the express consent of the contributing nation.
50 See U.N.S.C. Res. 1776 § 5 (September 19, 2007); U.N.S.C. Res. 1707 § 4 (2007).
51 U.N.S.C. Res. 1746 § 25 (2007) (U.S. forces currently participate in the International
Security Assistance Force and the Operation Enduring Freedom coalition.).
52 United States-Afghanistan Declaration. The text of the declaration is available at
[http://www.mfa.gov.af/Documents/ImportantDoc/Afghanistan-US%20Joint%
20Strategic%20Partnership%20Declaration_En.pdf].

---

CRS-11
Afghanistan perceives that its territorial integrity, independence, or security is
threatened or at risk.” The declaration does not mention the status of U.S. forces in
Afghanistan, but a status of forces agreement can be expected to be part of the final
arrangement.
Germany. In 1951, prior to Germany becoming a member of NATO, the
United States and Germany entered into an agreement53 related to the assurances
required under the Mutual Security Act of 1951.54 Germany subsequently joined
NATO in 1955 and, in the same year, concluded an agreement related to mutual
defense assistance,55 obligating the United States to provide “such equipment,
materials, services, or other assistance as may be agreed” to Germany.56
Four years after Germany joined NATO, the counties entered into an agreement
implementing the NATO SOFA of 1953.57 The agreement provided additional
supplemental agreements, beyond those contained in the NATO SOFA, specific to
the relationship between the United States and Germany. The implementation and
supplemental agreements to the NATO SOFA are in excess of 200 pages and cover
the minutiae of day-to-day operations of U.S. forces and personnel in Germany.
Japan. Prior to the current security arrangements between the United States
and Japan, the countries, in 1952, concluded a security treaty58 and an accompanying
administrative agreement.59 The administrative agreement covered, among other
maters, the jurisdiction of the United States over offenses committed in Japan by
members of the U.S. forces, and provided that the United States could waive
jurisdiction in favor of Japan. One provision established that the United States
retained jurisdiction over offenses committed by a servicemember arising out of any
act or omission done in the performance of official duty.
In 1957, a member of the U.S. Army was indicted in the death of a Japanese
civilian while participating in a small unit exercise at Camp Weir range area in
Japan.60 The United States claimed that the act was committed in the performance
53 3 U.S.T. 4564; T.I.A.S. 2607; 181 U.N.T.S. 45. Exchange of letters at Bonn December
19 and 28, 1951.
54 P.L. 82-165, 65 Stat. 373 (October 10, 1951) (An act to promote the foreign policy and
provide for the defense and general welfare of the United States by furnishing military
assistance in the form of equipment, materials, and services to NATO member countries).
55 6 U.S.T. 5999; T.I.A.S. 3443; 240 U.N.T.S. 47. Signed at Bonn June 30, 1955. Entered
into force December 27, 1955.
56 Id.
57 14 U.S.T. 689; T.I.A.S. 5352; 490 U.N.T.S. 30. Signed at Bonn August 3, 1959. Entered
into force July 1, 1963.
58 3 U.S.T. 3329. Signed at San Francisco September 8, 1951. Ratification advised by the
Senate March 20, 1952. Entered into force April 28, 1952.
59 3 U.S.T. 3341. Signed at Tokyo February 28, 1952; entered into force April 28, 1952.
60 The servicemember had been indicted in the death of a Japanese civilian while
(continued...)

---

CRS-12
of official duty, but Japan insisted that it was outside the scope of official duty and
therefore Japan had primary jurisdiction to try the member. After negotiations, the
United States acquiesced and agreed to turn the member over to Japanese authorities.
In an attempt to avoid trial in the Japanese Courts, the member sought a writ of
habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.61 The
writ was denied, but the member was granted an injunction against delivery to
Japanese authorities to stand trial. The United States appealed the injunction to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
In Wilson v. Girard,62 the Supreme Court first addressed the jurisdictional
provisions contained in the administrative agreement. The Court determined that by
recommending ratification of the security treaty and subsequently the NATO SOFA,
the Senate had approved the administrative agreement and protocol (embodying the
NATO provisions) governing jurisdiction to try criminal offenses.63 The Court held
that “a sovereign nation has exclusive jurisdiction to punish offenses against its laws
committed within its border, unless it expressly or impliedly consents to surrender
its jurisdiction” and that Japan’s “cession to the United States of jurisdiction to try
American military personnel for conduct constituting an offense against the laws of
both countries was conditioned” by provisions contained in the protocol calling for
“sympathetic consideration to a request from the other State for a waiver of its right
in cases where that other State considers such waiver to be of particular
importance.”64 The Court concluded that the issue was then whether the Constitution
or legislation subsequent to treaty prohibited carrying out of the jurisdictional
provisions. The Court found none and stated that “in the absence of such
encroachments, the wisdom of the arrangement is exclusively for the determination
of the Executive and Legislative Branches.”65
The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between the United States of
America and Japan66 was concluded in 1960 and subsequently amended on December
26, 1990.67 Under Article VI of the Treaty, the United States is granted “the use by
its land, air and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan” in order to contribute “to
60 (...continued)
participating in a small unit exercise at Camp Weir range area in Japan. The member had
placed an expended 30-caliber cartridge case in a grenade launcher attached to his rifle and
projected the cartridge out of the launcher by firing a blank. The cartridge hit the Japanese
woman while she was gathering expended cartridge cases on the range and caused her death.
61 Girard v. Wilson, 152 F. Supp. 21 (D.D.C. 1957). For a brief explanation of the writ of
habeas corpus, see CRS Report RS22432, Federal Habeas Corpus: An Abridged Sketch, by
Charles Doyle.
62 354 U.S. 524 (U.S. 1957).
63 Id. at 528.
64 Id. at 529.
65 Id. at 530.
66 11 U.S.T. 1632; T.I.A.S. 4509; 373 U.N.T.S. 186. Signed at Washington January 19,
1960. Entered into force June 23, 1960.
67 T.I.A.S. 12335.

---

CRS-13
the security of Japan and maintenance of international peace and security in the Far
East[.]”68 Article VI provides further that the use of facilities and the status of U.S.
armed forces will be governed under a separate agreement,69 much like the previous
security treaty concluded in 1952.
A SOFA, as called for under Article VI of the Treaty, was concluded as a
separate agreement pursuant to and concurrently with the Treaty in 1960.70 The
SOFA addresses the use of facilities by the U.S. armed forces, as well as the status
of U.S. forces in Japan. The agreement has been modified at least four times since
the original agreement.71
South Korea. In 1954 the United States and the Republic of Korea entered
into a mutual defense treaty.72 As part of the treaty the countries agree to attempt to
settle international disputes peacefully, consult whenever the political independence
or security of either party is threatened by external armed attack, and that either party
would act to meet the common danger in accordance with their respective
constitutional processes.73 Article IV of the treaty grants the United States “the right
to dispose....land, air and sea forces in and about the territory” of South Korea.74
Pursuant to the treaty, specifically Article IV, the countries entered into a SOFA with
agreed minutes and an exchange of notes in 1966;75 it was subsequently amended
January 18, 2001.
In 1968, two years after the SOFA was signed between the countries, a member
of the U.S. Army asserted in Smallwood v. Clifford76 that U.S. authorities did not
have legitimate authority, under the jurisdictional provisions contained in the
agreement, to release him to the Republic of Korea for trial by a Korean court on
charges of murder and arson.77 The servicemember asserted that the agreement was
68 Id.
69 Id.
70 11 U.S.T. 1652; T.I.A.S. 4510; 373 U.N.T.S. 248. Signed at Washington January 19,
1960. Entered into force June 23, 1960.
71 Agreements concerning new special measures relating to Article XXIV of the agreement
of January 19, 1960 (related to costs of maintenance of U.S. forces in Japan and furnishment
of rights of way related to facilities used by U.S. forces in Japan), have been signed in 1991,
1995, 2000, and 2006.
72 5 U.S.T. 2368; T.I.A.S. 3097; 238 U.N.T.S. 199. Signed at Washington October 1, 1953.
Entered into force November 17, 1954.
73 Id.
74 Id.
75 17 U.S.T. 1677; T.I.A.S. 6127; 674 U.N.T.S. 163. Signed at Seoul July 9, 1966. Entered
into force February 9, 1967.
76 286 F. Supp. 97 (D.D.C. 1968).
77 The servicemember was implicated in the murder of a female Korean national which
occurred off post in the Republic of Korea. Pursuant to the provisions of the SOFA, the
(continued...)

---

CRS-14
not approved in a “constitutionally acceptable manner.”78 He maintained that U.S.
domestic law requires international agreements pertaining to foreign jurisdiction over
U.S. forces stationed abroad be approved “either expressly or impliedly by the [U.S.]
Senate.”79 The court found that the SOFA resulted in a diminished role for the
Republic of Korea in enforcing its own laws and that the United States did not waive
jurisdiction over offenses committed within its own territory. Therefore, ratification
by the Senate was “clearly unnecessary” because Senate approval would “have no
effect on a grant of jurisdiction by the Republic of Korea, [of] which the United
States could not rightfully claim.”80
Additionally, the servicemember asserted that the Constitution and the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)81 provide the sole methods for trying servicemen
abroad and that they can not be changed by an executive agreement.82 The court held
that the premise is true only when there hasn’t been a violation of the laws of the
foreign jurisdiction. When a violation of the foreign jurisdiction’s criminal laws
occurs, the primary jurisdiction lies with that nation and the provisions of the UCMJ
only apply if the foreign nation expressly or impliedly waived its jurisdiction.83 In
support of its decision the court cited the principle, stated in Wilson,84 that the
primary right of jurisdiction belongs to the nation in whose territory the
servicemember commits the crime.

Philippines. In 1947 the United States and the Republic of the Philippines
entered into an agreement on military assistance.85 The agreement was for a term of
five years, starting July 4, 1946, and provided that the United States would furnish
military assistance to the Philippines for the training and development of armed
forces. The agreement further created an advisory group to provide advice and
assistance to the Philippines as had been authorized by the U.S. Congress.86 The
agreement was extended, and amended, for an additional five years in 1953.87
77 (...continued)
Korean Minister of Justice notified the Commander, United States Forces, Korea, that the
Korean Government intended to exercise its primary right of jurisdiction over the
servicemember on charges of murder and arson.
78 Clifford, 286 F. Supp at 99.
79 Id.
80 Id. at 100.
81 10 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.
82 Clifford, 286 F. Supp. at 101.
83 Id.
84 Wilson, 354 U.S. at 529.
85 61 Stat. 3283; T.I.A.S. 1662. Signed at Manila March 21, 1947. Entered into force March
21, 1947.
86 61 Stat. 3284.
87 4 U.S.T. 1682; T.I.A.S. 2834; 2163 U.N.T.S. 77. Exchange of notes at Manila June 26,
1953. Entered into force July 5, 1953.

---

CRS-15
A mutual defense treaty was entered into by the United States and the
Philippines in 1951.88 The treaty publicly declares “their sense of unity and their
common determination to defend themselves against external armed attack, so that
no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that either of them stands alone in
the Pacific Area[.]”89 The Treaty does not address or provide for a SOFA.
In 1993, the countries entered into a SOFA.90 The agreement was subsequently
extended on September 19, 1994, April 28, 1995, and November 29, December 1 and
8, 1995. The countries entered into an agreement regarding the treatment of U.S.
armed forces visiting the Philippines in 1998.91 This agreement was amended on
April 11 and 12, 2006. The distinction between this agreement and the SOFA
originally entered into in 1993 is that this agreement applies to U.S. armed forces
visiting, not stationed in the Philippines. The countries also entered into an
agreement regarding the treatment of Republic of Philippines personnel visiting the
United States (counterpart agreement).92
The counterpart agreement contains provisions addressing criminal jurisdiction
over Philippine personnel while in the United States. The agreement was concluded
as an executive agreement and not ratified by the U.S. Senate. Arguably, following
the logic of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Clifford, because
the agreement arguably diminishes the impact of U.S. jurisdiction, it would need be
ratified by the Senate in order to be constitutionally valid. But, the counterpart
agreement can be distinguished from the SOFA with the Republic of Korea, and
SOFAs with other foreign jurisdictions, in that the U.S. is not fully waiving
jurisdiction over offenses committed within U.S. territory. Rather, the agreement
states that U.S. authorities will, at the request of the Government of the Philippines,
request that the appropriate authorities waive jurisdiction in favor of Philippine
authorities.93 However, the U.S. Department of State and Department of Defense
retain the ability to determine that U.S. interests require that the United States
exercise federal or state jurisdiction over the Philippine personnel.94
Prospective SOFA with Iraq
Pursuant to the August 26, 2007 Declaration between President Bush and Prime
Minister Al-Maliki, the parties pledged to “begin as soon as possible, with the aim
to achieve, before July 31, 2008, agreements between the two governments with
88 3 U.S.T. 3947; T.I.A.S. 2529; 177 U.N.T.S. 133. Signed at Washington August 30, 1951.
Entered into force August 27, 1952.
89 Id.
90 T.I.A.S. Exchange of notes at Manila April 2, June 11 and 21, 1993. Entered into force
June 21, 1993.
91 T.I.A.S. Signed at Manila February 10, 1998. Entered into force June 1, 1999.
92 T.I.A.S. Signed at Manila October 9, 1998. Entered into force June 1, 1999.
93 Id.
94 Id.

---

CRS-16
respect to the political, cultural, economic, and security spheres.”95 Among other
things, the Declaration proclaims the parties’ intention to negotiate a security
agreement:
To support the Iraqi government in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi
Security Forces so they can provide security and stability to all Iraqis; support
the Iraqi government in contributing to the international fight against terrorism
by confronting terrorists such as Al-Qaeda, its affiliates, other terrorist groups,
as well as all other outlaw groups, such as criminal remnants of the former
regime; and to provide security assurances to the Iraqi Government to deter any
external aggression and to ensure the integrity of Iraq’s territory.96
The Administration has stated it intends to negotiate two separate security
agreements with Iraq. The first agreement, described as a “strategic framework
agreement,” would broadly address topics outlined in the Declaration of Principles.
On March 4, 2008, Ambassador Satterfield testified during a joint hearing before the
Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, and the Subcommittee on
International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee that the Administration does:
not at this stage contemplate it as a legally-binding agreement.... Should that
change in the course of the discussions, we will, of course, so inform the
Congress and we’ll take appropriate measures in accordance with our
constitutional provisions.97
The second agreement would presumably constitute a legally-binding SOFA to
define the legal status of U.S. forces within Iraq. During his testimony on April 10,
2008, before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee regarding the similarities and
differences between the proposed Iraq SOFA and the SOFAs that the United States
has entered with other countries, Ambassador Satterfield stated:
This agreement is similar to the many [SOFAs]...we have across the world,
which address such matters as jurisdiction over U.S. forces; the movement of
vehicles, vessels, and aircraft; non-taxation of U.S. activities and the ability of
U.S. forces to use host-government facilities. The SOFA is also unique in that it
also takes into account the particular circumstances and requirements for our
forces in Iraq, in particular, by providing for consent by the Government of Iraq
95 Declaration of Principles, supra note 1.
96 White House Office of the Press Secretary, Fact Sheet: U.S.-Iraq Declaration of
Principles for Friendship and Cooperation, November 26, 2007, available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071126-1.html].
97 Hearing of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, and the Subcommittee
on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee; Declaration and Principles: Future U.S. Commitments to Iraq, March 4, 2008
(statement by Ambassador David M. Satterfield in response to question by Representative
William Delahunt) [hereinafter “Satterfield Testimony of March 4”].

---

CRS-17
to the conduct of military operations. Neither we nor the Iraqis intend for this to
be a permanent provision of the SOFA.98
The parties’ expressed goal is to finalize the agreements before the end of July, 2008.
The status of the negotiations are ongoing.99
As discussed above, formal requirements concerning the form, content, length,
or title of a SOFA do not exist. SOFAs may be written for a specific purpose or
activity, or they may anticipate a longer-term relationship and provide for maximum
flexibility and applicability. As Ambassador Satterfield stated, the provision
providing consent to conduct military operations would be unique to this proposed
SOFA. While SOFAs have been concluded with countries where the agreement
identifies specific activities and exercises, the agreements themselves do not
authorize the activity or exercise. It is unclear if the proposed SOFA will involve
consent to specific military operations or be similar to the SOFA with Belize100 that
acknowledges counter-drug activities without specifics. It also remains to be seen
if coalition partner countries will conclude SOFAs with Iraq containing provisions
consenting to military operations by their forces as well, or if future military
operations will be solely by U.S. forces.
Survey of Current Status of Forces Agreements
The charts below provide a list of current agreements according to the
underlying source of authority, if any, for each of the SOFAs. Within each category
the agreements are arranged alphabetically by partner country. The categories are
defined as follows:
North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Status of Forces Agreement.
The NATO SOFA is a multilateral agreement that has applicability among all the
member countries of NATO. As of June 2007, 26 countries, including the United
States, have either ratified the agreement or acceded to it by their accession into
98 Hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Negotiating a Long Term
Relationship with Iraq, April 10, 2008 (statement by Ambassador David M. Satterfield).
99 See, e.g., Iraqis Condemn American Demands, By Amit R. Paley and Karen DeYoung,
June 11, 2008, available at
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/10/AR2008061003415
.html] (reporting that negotiations continue on the proposed agreements and that some Iraqi
officials are opposed to what they characterize as U.S. demands related to base use rights,
immunity from prosecution under Iraqi laws for U.S. personnel and contractors, the right for
U.S. forces to detain and hold Iraqis without turning them over to the Iraqi judicial system,
and the right for U.S. forces to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi
government.) The possible provisions have not been confirmed by U.S. authorities and
speculation as to the status of these negotiations is beyond the scope of this report.
100 T.I.A.S. Exchange of notes at Belize City September 4, 2001and April 24, 2002. Entered
into force April 24, 2002.

---

CRS-18
NATO.101 The NATO SOFA102 is the only SOFA that was concluded as part of a
treaty.103
North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Partnership for Peace - Status
of Forces Agreement. There are currently 24 countries, non-members of NATO,
subject to the NATO SOFA through their participation in the NATO Partnership for
Peace (PfP) program.104 The program consists of bilateral cooperation between
individual countries and NATO in order to increase stability, diminish threats to
peace and build strengthened security relationships.105 The individual countries that
participate in PfP agree to adhere to the terms of the NATO SOFA.106
Treaty as Underlying Source of Authority for Status of Forces
Agreement. The United States has concluded SOFAs where the underlying
authority for the agreement is a treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate. The United States
entered into a SOFA with Japan in 1960107 under the authority contained in Article
VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security108 previously concluded
between the countries. Additionally, the United States entered into a SOFA with
Korea in 1967109 under the authority in Article V of the Mutual Defense Treaty
previously concluded between the two countries.110
The United States entered into SOFAs with Australia and the Philippines after
concluding treaties with the respective countries. In the case of Australia, the U.S.
Senate advised ratification of the ANZUS Pact111 in 1952. In 1963, nine years after
ratification of the Pact, Australia and the United States entered into an agreement
concerning the status of U.S. forces in Australia.112 The United States entered into
a SOFA with the Philippines in 1993 after concluding a mutual defense treaty with
101 See [http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/85630.pdf].
102 4 U.S.T. 1792; T.I.A.S. 2846; 199 U.N.T.S. 67. Signed at London, June 19, 1951.
Entered into force August 23, 1953.
103 See, e.g., Agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security
Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in Japan, 11
U.S.T. 1652, entered into force June 23, 1960 (SOFA in the form of an executive agreement
subsequent to a treaty).
104 See [http://www.nato.int/issues/pfp/index.html].
105 Id.
106 See [http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b950619a.htm].
107 11 U.S.T. 1652.
108 11 U.S.T. 1632.
109 17 U.S.T. 1677.
110 5 U.S.T. 2368.
111 3 U.S.T. 3420; T.I.A.S. 2493; 131 U.N.T.S. 83. Signed at San Francisco, September 1,
1951. Entered into force April 29, 1952.
112 14 U.S.T. 506.

---

CRS-19
the country in 1952.113 The agreements with Australia and the Philippines can be
distinguished from the agreements with Japan and Korea in that they cite general
obligations under the previously concluded treaty, while the agreements with Japan
and Korea cite to a specific authority (i.e., Article VI and Article V, respectively)
contained in the underlying treaty.
The United States is a party to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal
Assistance (Rio Treaty),114 for which the U.S. Senate advised ratification December
8, 1947. The United States then entered into military assistance agreements with
Guatemala,115 Haiti,116 and Honduras.117 The agreements cite obligations created
under the Rio Treaty and address status of U.S. personnel in each of the countries.
The United States expanded on the status protections contained in the military
assistance agreements by later concluding SOFAs with each of the countries. In all
three, the military assistance agreements were cited as the basis of the new
agreement.
Congressional Action as Underlying Source of Authority for Status
of Forces Agreement. As previously discussed, Congress approved compacts
changing the status of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau from former
territories and possessions to that of being Freely Associated States (FAS).118 The
language of the compacts call for a SOFA to be concluded between the respective
parties. The Marshall Islands and Micronesia entered into SOFAs with the United
States in 2004.119 Palau entered into a SOFA with United States in 1986.120
Base Lease Agreement Containing Status of Force Agreement
Terms. In 1941, the United States entered into an agreement with the United
Kingdom regarding the lease of naval and air bases in Newfoundland, Bermuda,
Jamaica, St. Lucia, Antigua, Trinidad, and British Guiana.121 The agreement not only
113 3 U.S.T. 3947.
114 62 Stat 1681; T.I.A.S. 1838. Done at Rio de Janeiro, September 2, 1947. Entered into
force December 3, 1948.
115 6 U.S.T. 2107.
116 6 U.S.T. 3847.
117 5 U.S.T. 843.
118 Act Approving Compacts of Free Association with the Republic of the Marshall Islands
and the Federated States of Micronesia, P.L. 99-239, § 311 (1986). See also Act approving
Compact of Free Association between the United States and the Government of Palau, P.L.
99-658, § 352 (1986).
119 T.I.A.S.
120 T.I.A.S.
121 55 Stat. 1560; Executive Agreement Series 235 (The agreement titled “Leasing of Naval
and Air Bases,” establishes that the bases and facilities are to be leased to the United States
for a period of ninety-nine years, free from all rent and charges. A typical lease includes an
agreement by a lessor to turn over specifically-described premises to the exclusive
possession of the lessee for a definite period of time and for consideration/rent. In the
(continued...)

---

CRS-20
described the physical location being leased, but provided for status of U.S. personnel
present in the leased location. The lease agreement, while not a stand-alone SOFA,
served the purpose of a SOFA in the specified locations. The United States and the
United Kingdom concluded additional lease agreements in the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s
that contained status protection provisions in the leased locations.
Status of Forces Agreement in Support of Specified
Activity/Exercises. The United States has entered into SOFAs with countries in
support of specific activities or exercises. Generally, these agreements are entered
in order to support a joint military exercise or a humanitarian initiative. The SOFA
will contain language limiting the scope of the agreement to the specific activity, but
sometimes language is present expanding the agreement to cover other activities as
agreed upon by the two countries. The agreements are not based upon a treaty or
congressional action; rather, they are sole executive agreements.
For example, the African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) was a bilateral
training program introduced by the Clinton Administration in 1997. The United
States entered into SOFAs with many African countries specifically addressing the
ACRI. Each of the SOFAs contained language limiting the agreements to U.S.
personnel temporarily in the country in connection with ACRI activities or other
activities as agreed upon by the countries. While the agreement may have been
entered as a result of the ACRI, language allowing for other activities, as agreed
between the two countries, allows for the SOFA remain in force even though the
ACRI does not currently exist.
Status of Forces Agreement Not in Support of Specified
Activity/Exercise and Not Based on Underlying Treaty/Congressional
Action. The last group of SOFAs discussed are agreements entered as sole
executive agreements without a specified activity or exercise. These agreements
contain broad language of applicability. Some of the agreements apply to U.S.
personnel “present” in a country, others apply to U.S. personnel “temporarily
present” in a country. In addition to time limitations, most of the agreements contain
language which attempts to frame the scope of activities. The activities described
may be as broad as “official duties” or specific to a particular class of activities (i.e.,
humanitarian, exercises, and/or training).
121 (...continued)
present case, the agreement called for a lease without consideration/rent, therefore it could
be asserted that a use agreement rather than a lease was created.).

---

CRS-21
Table 1. North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Status of Forces Agreement
NATO Member Country
Agreements Supplementing or in Addition to the NATO SOFA
Belgium
Bulgaria
2001: Agreement concerning overflight, transit through, and presence in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria of U.S.
forces, personnel, and contractors in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (Agreement concluded prior to Bulgaria
joining NATO)
Canada
1953: Agreement relating to the application of the NATO status of forces agreement to U.S. forces in Canada, including
those at the leased bases in Newfoundland and Goose Bay, Labrador except for certain arrangements under the leased bases
agreement
Czech Republic
Denmark
1956: Agreement relating to the status of personnel of the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group and of the personnel of
the offshore procurement program
Estonia
France
Germany, Federal Republic of
1963: Agreements implementing the NATO status of forces agreement of August 3, 1959
Greece
1956: Agreement concerning the status of U.S. forces in Greece
Hungary
1997: Agreement concerning activities of U.S. forces in the territory of the Republic of Hungary
Iceland
1951: Annex on status of U.S. personnel and property

---

CRS-22
NATO Member Country
Agreements Supplementing or in Addition to the NATO SOFA
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
1954: Agreement relating to the stationing of U.S. armed forces in the Netherlands
Norway
1954: Agreement concerning the status of military assistance advisory group under paragraph 1(a) of the NATO status of
forces agreement
Poland
Portugal
Romania
2002: Agreement regarding the status of U.S. forces in Romania (Agreement concluded prior to Romania joining NATO)
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
2003: Agreement concerning the overflight and transit through the territory and airspace of Slovenia by U.S. aircraft,
vehicles and personnel for purposes of supporting security, transition and reconstruction operations in Iraq (Agreement
concluded prior to Slovenia joining NATO)
Spain
1988: Defense cooperation agreement
Turkey
1954: Agreement relating to implementation of the North Atlantic Treaty Status of Forces Agreement
United Kingdom
1941: First in series of numerous agreements, some predating NATO, related to defense containing status of forces terms

---

CRS-23
Table 2. North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Partnership for Peace - Status of Forces Agreement
NATO PfP Member Country
Agreements Supplementing or in Addition to the NATO PfP SOFA
Albania
1995: Agreement concerning the status of U.S. military personnel and civilian employees of the DOD who may be present
in Albania in connection with Search and Rescue (SAREX) joint military exercise. 2004: Supplementary agreement to
“Agreement among member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty and other participating states in the Partnership for
Peace regarding the status of their forces” on the status of the forces of the U.S. in Republic of Albania
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Bosnia-Herzegovina
2005: Agreement on status protections and access to and use of facilities and areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Croatia
2006: Memorandum of understanding concerning the use of airspace, ranges, airports, seaports, and training facilities by
U.S. forces in Europe
Finland
Georgia
Ireland
Kazakhstan

---

CRS-24
NATO PfP Member Country
Agreements Supplementing or in Addition to the NATO PfP SOFA
Kyrgyz Republic
2001: Present in Kyrgyzstan in connection with cooperative efforts in response to terrorism, humanitarian assistance, and
other agreed activities
Macedonia
Malta
Moldova
Montenegro
2007: Agreement on status protections and access to and use of military infrastructure in Montenegro
Russian Federation
Serbia
2006: SOFA (Concluded prior to joining NATO PfP program)
Sweden
Switzerland
Tajikistan
2001: Agreement regarding status of U.S. military personnel and civilian personnel of DOD present in Tajikistan in
connection with cooperative efforts in response to terrorism, humanitarian assistance and other agreed activities
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan

---

CRS-25
Table 3. Treaty as Underlying Source of Authority for Status of Forces Agreement
Country
Year
Treaty/Agreement
Applicability Language
Australia
1963
Agreement concerning the status of U.S. forces in Australia (14
U.S.T. 506), cites ANZUS Pact (3 U.S.T. 3420)
Guatemala
2005
Agreement regarding the status of U.S. personnel (T.I.A.S.),
Temporarily present in Guatemala
cites military assistance agreement (6 U.S.T. 2107), cites Rio
Treaty (62 Stat 1681)
Haiti
1995
Agreement regarding status of U.S. military and civilian
Temporarily present in Haiti in connection
employees of DOD (NP), cites military assistance agreement (6
with official duties
U.S.T. 3847), cites Rio Treaty (62 Stat 1681)
Honduras
1982
Agreement relating to privileges and immunities for U.S. armed
Temporarily present in Honduras for the
forces (35 U.S.T. 3884), cites military assistance agreement (5
purpose of participating in military
U.S.T. 843), cites Rio Treaty (62 Stat 1681)
exercises, or for other temporary purposes,
authorized by the government of Honduras
Japan
1960
Agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual
Cooperation and security (11 U.S.T. 1652), cites Treaty of
Mutual Cooperation and security (11 U.S.T. 1632)
Korea
1967
Agreement under Article V of the Mutual Defense Treaty
regarding facilities and areas and the status of U.S. armed forces
in Korea (17 U.S.T. 1677), cites Mutual Defense Treaty (5
U.S.T. 2368)
Philippines
1993
Agreement regarding the status of U.S. military and civilian
personnel (T.I.A.S.), cites Mutual Defense Treaty (3 U.S.T.
3947)

---

CRS-26
Table 4. Congressional Action as Underlying Source of Authority for Status of Forces Agreement
Country
Year
Source
Marshall Islands
2004
Compact of Free Association (P.L. 99-239)
Micronesia
2004
Compact of Free Association (P.L. 99-239)
Palau
1986
Compact of Free Association (P.L. 99-658)
Table 5. Base Lease Agreement Containing Status of Force Agreement Terms
Country
Year
Source
Applicability Language
Antigua and Barbuda
1941/1977
U.K. - lease agreement
1941: Agreement pertains to naval and air bases leased to U.S.
(55 Stat. 1560)
1977: Agreement on defense areas and facilities (29 U.S.T. 4183)
Bahamas
1941/1950
U.K. - lease agreement
Numerous agreements pertaining to facilities and personnel
(55 Stat. 1560)
U.K. - Ascension Island
1956
Cites agreement between
Extension of the Bahamas Long Range Proving Ground
U.K./U.S. (1 U.S.T. 545)
U.K. - Bermuda
1941/1950
U.K. - lease agreement
Agreements pertain to naval and air bases leased to U.S.
(55 Stat 1560)
U.K. - Diego Garcia
1966
Indian Ocean islands for defense (18 U.S.T. 28)
U.K. - Turks and Caicos Islands
1979
Defense area agreement (32 U.S.T. 429)

---

CRS-27
Table 6. Status of Forces Agreement in Support of Specified Activity/Exercise
Country
Year
Applicability Language
Benin
1998
Temporarily present in Benin in connection with ACRI and other activities as may be agreed upon by the two governments
Cote D’Ivoire
1998
Temporarily present in Cote d’Ivoire in connection with ACRI and other activities as may be agreed upon by the two
countries
Ethiopia
1994
Present in Ethiopia in connection with “Nectar Bend 94,” scheduled for 1 June, 1994 through 7 July, 1994, future exercises,
and otherwise in respect to their official duties
Gabon
1999
Temporarily present in Gabon in connection with “Gabon 2000” and other activities
Ghana
1998/2000
1998: Temporarily present in Ghana in connection with ACRI and other activities as may be agreed upon by two
governments 2000: Additional agreement, separate from ACRI, addressing individuals temporarily present in Ghana in
connection with humanitarian relief operations in Southern Africa
Madagascar
2000
Temporarily present in Madagascar in connection with current humanitarian relief operations and other activities as may be
agreed upon the two governments
Malawi
1997
Temporarily present in the Republic of Malawi in connection with the ACRI Mobile Training Team visit and other activities
related to ACRI as may be agreed upon by two governments
Mali
1997
Temporarily present in Mali in connection with ACRI Mobile Training Team visit and other activities as may be agreed
upon up two governments
Nepal
2000
Temporarily present in the Kingdom of Nepal in connection with the Multi-Platoon Training Event
Nigeria
2000
Temporarily present in Nigeria in connection with upcoming military training and other activities as may be agreed upon by
two governments
Peru
1995
Certain U.S. personnel who may serve for a period of less than ninety days at the ground-based radar site at Yurimajuas, and
at other locations as agreed by the Peruvian Air Force
Rwanda
2005
Present in Rwanda in connection with the military airlift of Rwandan military forces in support of operations in Darfur and
future mutually agreed activities

---

CRS-28
Table 7. Status of Forces Agreement Not in Support of Specified Activity/Exercise and
Not Based on Underlying Treaty/Congressional Action
Country
Year
Applicability Language
Afghanistan
2002
May be present in Afghanistan in connection with cooperative efforts in response to terrorism,
humanitarian and civic assistance, military training and exercises, and other activities
Bahrain
1971/1975/1977/1991
1971: Agreement for the Deployment in Bahrain of the United States Middle East Force (22 U.S.T. 2184)
- modified by 1975 agreement for the Deployment in Bahrain of the United States Middle East Force (26
U.S.T. 3027) and 1977 agreement on the Status of Administrative Support Unit Personnel (28 U.S.T.
5312) 1991: Agreement concerning the deployment of United States forces (T.I.A.S. 12236)
Bangladesh
1998
Agreement regarding the status of U.S. forces visiting Bangladesh
Belize
2001
Temporarily present in Belize in connection with military exercises and training, counter-drug related
activities, United States security assistance programs, or other agreed upon purposes
Botswana
2001
Temporarily present in Botswana for the purpose of carrying out exercises, training, humanitarian
assistance, or other activities which may be agreed upon by both governments
Brunei
1994
MOU on defense cooperation (military training, military exercises, exchange of personnel, exchange of
information)
Cambodia
1996
Temporarily present in Cambodia in connection with military assistance activities and other official duties
Chad
1987/1998/2005
1987: Text classified 1998: Agreement regarding individuals temporarily present in Chad in connection
with official duties relating to humanitarian demining activities 2005: Agreement regarding status of
personnel of the U.S. in Chad
Congo, Democratic
1994
May be present in Zaire in connection with humanitarian efforts
Republic of the
Costa Rica
1983
Agreement relating to privileges and immunities for United States personnel providing assistance to the
drought stricken provinces in northern Costa Rica
Djibouti
2001
Status of forces agreement with related note

---

CRS-29
Country
Year
Applicability Language
Dominican Republic
1988
U.S. personnel not members of the U.S. Diplomatic Mission present in Dominican Republic for a period
less than six months in connection with their official duties
Egypt
1981
While in the Arab Republic of Egypt, in connection with assistance and training programs, defense
industrial cooperation, or such other matters as may from time to time be agreed
El Salvador
2007
Personnel and contractors who may be temporarily present in El Salvador in connection with ship visits,
training, exercises, humanitarian activities and other activities as mutually agreed
Grenada
1984/1993
1984: SOFA 1993: Additional agreement concerning temporary assignment in Grenada in connection
with exercises or activities approved by both governments in accordance with usual procedures
Guinea
2002
Temporarily present in the Republic of Guinea in connection with training exercises, humanitarian relief
operations, and other activities as may be agreed upon by the two governments
Guyana
2000
Temporarily present in Guyana in connection with military exercises and training, counter-drug related
activities, U.S. security assistance programs, or other agreed purposes
Israel
1994
U.S. personnel sent to Israel for ship and aircraft visits, military exercises and other mutually agreed
military activities; recognizing that any decision regarding the sending of U.S. personnel to Israel will be
the subject of separate arrangements between the parties
Jordan
1996
Present in Jordan in connection with their official duties
Kenya
1980
Text classified
Kuwait
1991
Text classified
Liberia
2005
Temporarily present in Liberia
Malaysia
1990
Text classified
Maldives
2004
Agreement regarding military and DOD civilian personnel
Mongolia
1998
Agreement on military exchanges and visits, with annex
Mozambique
2000
Temporarily present in Mozambique in connection with humanitarian relief operations

---

CRS-30
Country
Year
Applicability Language
Nicaragua
1998
Present in connection with the disaster relief/assistance effort and mutually agreed follow-on activities
Oman
1980
Text classified
Panama
2001
Temporarily present in Panama
Papua New Guinea
1989
Temporarily present in Papua New Guinea in connection with their official duties (disaster relief,
humanitarian and civic assistance activities) from time to time as authorized by the Government of Papua
New Guinea
Paraguay
2005
Temporarily present in Paraguay
Qatar
1992
Text classified
Saint Kitts and Nevis
1987
Present in connection with their official duties
Saint Lucia
2000
Present in St. Lucia in connection with military exercises and training, counter-drug related activities, U.S.
security assistance programs, or other agreed peaceful purposes
Saudi Arabia
1972
Agreement to govern the status, duties, administration and conduct of the United States Military Training
Mission, to be known as the United States Military Assistance Advisory Group, to Saudi Arabia
Senegal
2001
Temporarily present in Senegal in connection with training, humanitarian relief operations, exercises and
other agreed purposes
Singapore
1990
Memorandum of Understanding between U.S. and Singapore regarding U.S. use of facilities in Singapore
Solomon Islands
1991
Temporarily present in Solomon Islands in connection with their official duties from time to time as
authorized by the Government of Solomon Islands
Somalia
1990
Text classified
South Africa
1999
Present in the Republic of South Africa in connection with mutually agreed exercises and activities
Sri Lanka
1995
Present in Sri Lanka for exercises or other official duties
Sudan
1981
Present in Sudan in connection with their official duties
Suriname
2005
Temporarily present in the Republic of Suriname

---

CRS-31
Country
Year
Applicability Language
Timor-Leste
2002
Present in the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste in connection with humanitarian and civic assistance,
ship visits, military training and exercises and other agreed activities
Tonga
1992
Temporarily present in Tonga, as authorized by Tonga, in connection with their official duties
Uganda
1994
Temporarily present in Uganda in connection with their official duties
United Arab Emirates
1994
Text classified
Western Samoa
1990
Present in Western Samoa in connection with their official duties, as authorized by the Government of
Western Samoa

---