In March and April 2012, the United States of America and Afghanistan concluded two agreements that were reported by several newspapers as a breakthrough on the U.S. engagement framework in Afghanistan beyond 2014, when the last foreign combat troops are to leave Afghanistan.       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 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 of 196145. which corresponds to the administrative and technical staff of the United States Embassy, in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 196146. which is granted to the administrative and technical staff of the United States Embassy, in accordance with the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.46 As a result, such personnel should be granted “equivalent status to the administrative and technical personnel” of the United States Embassy, in accordance with the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. administrative and technical staff of the United States Embassy, in accordance with the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.46 These personnel must therefore be granted “status granted to the administrative and technical personnel” of the United States Embassy in accordance with the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.46 As a result, U.S. personnel are immune from criminal prosecution by the Afghan authorities and are immune to civil and administrative jurisdiction 47 In the agreement , the Transitional Islamic Government of Afghanistan (ITGA)48 expressly authorized 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 custody of another state, international tribunal or other institution 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. The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States of America and Japan80 was concluded in 1960 and was amended later on 26 December 1990.81 Under Article VI of the Treaty, the United States “uses facilities and territories in Japan by its land, air and naval forces” to “contribute to Japan`s security and to the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East.” 82 Article VI also provides that the use of the facilities and the status of the U.S. armed forces are governed by a separate agreement,83, as was the previous security treaty of 1952. The United States is a party to the Inter-American Mutual Assistance Treaty (Rio Treaty), 139, for which the U.S. Senate recommended ratification on December 8, 1947.
The United States then concluded military aid agreements with Guatemala, 140 Haiti,141 and Honduras.142 The agreements cite the commitments created by the Rio Treaty and address the status of U.S. personnel in each country. The United States has expanded the protection of the status, which is contained in the military aid agreements, by concluding sOFA with each country at a later date. In all three agreements, military assistance agreements were mentioned as the basis of the new agreement. The following sections provide a historical overview of the inclusion of a SOFA in comprehensive bilateral security agreements concluded by the United States with Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. Agreements may include a standalone sofa or other chords, including protective measures that are usually related to a sofa. The draft agreement stipulates that civilian personnel of the U.S. Army and Defense