Us-Rok Sofa Agreement


Formal requirements for the shape, content, length or title of a SOFA do not exist. A CANAPÉ can be written for a specific purpose or activity, or it can anticipate a longer-term relationship and ensure maximum flexibility and applicability. It is usually a separate document, which is concluded in the form of an executive agreement. A CANAPÉ may contain many provisions, but the most common problem that is raised is which country can exercise criminal responsibility for U.S. personnel. Other provisions on a sofa include uniforms, taxes and royalties, carrying weapons, use of radio spectrum, licences and customs rules. This announcement became a source of interest to Congress115, in part following statements by Bush administration officials that such an agreement would not be submitted to the legislative branch for approval, although the United States may have been required to provide “security guarantees” to Iraq.116 Several hearings were held at the 110th Congress on the proposed security agreement. In late 2007, Congress passed the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense (2008), which contained a provision limiting the resources it had made available because they were used by U.S. authorities, 117 In October 2008, Congress passed the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2009, which a report by the Chairman to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Foreign Relations and Armed Services of the Senate on any agreement between the United States and Iraq on specific issues, including security guarantees or U.S. obligations, fundamental rights and the status of U.S. forces in Iraq 118 Several legislative proposals have been presented , which would have required either submitting such an agreement to the Senate for consultation and approval. 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 assistance, military training and exercises, and other activities.45 These personnel should be granted “equivalent status to U.S. administrative and technical personnel.” Embassy under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.46 As a result, U.S. personnel are immune from prosecution by Afghan authorities and immune from civil and administrative jurisdiction, except for acts performed outside of their duties.47 In the agreement, the Afghanistan Transitional Administration (ITGA)48 specifically authorized the U.S. government to exercise criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. , and the Government of Afghanistan does not have the right to transfer U.S. personnel to another state, international tribunal or agency without the consent 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. Numerous agreements on T.I.A.S. facilities and personnel, military exchange agreements and visits between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Mongolia, agreement of June 26, 1996. In a November 26, 2007 press release on the declaration, General Douglas Lute, Presidential Assistant for Iraq and Afghanistan, stated that the government did not foresee a forward-looking agreement with Iraq “which has the status of a formal treaty that would then lead us to formal negotiations or formal contributions from Congress.” Office of White House Spokesman, Press Gaggle of Dana Perino and General Douglas Lute, Presidential Assistant for Iraq and Afghanistan, November 26, 2007, available from georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071126-6.html.

   Send article as PDF