STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENTS Many persons are under the impression that because  they  are  attached  to  a  ship  visiting  a foreign  port,  they  are  immune  from  jurisdiction of  the  local  government.  That  is  true  as  long  as they remain aboard or go ashore only on official business.  When  they  go  ashore  on  liberty, however, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign sovereign for any infractions of the law,  whether  criminal  or  civil.  The  Department of  Defense  protects  your  rights  as  much  as possible if you are brought to criminal trial by foreign courts. To be allowed to protect your rights,  the  United  States  entered  into  agreements with   several   of   our   allied   countries.   The agreements  are  called  the  Status  of  Forces Agreements   (SOFAs). A Status of Forces Agreement contains a complex  package  of  treaties,  protocol,  and executive  agreements  between  the  United  States and  the  individual  country  involved.  It  defines  the rights  and  duties  of  U.  S.  service  personnel,  civilian components,  and  their  dependents  while  they  are stationed  in  that  foreign  country. The agreements are by no means identical in all countries. To a large measure, the differences in agreements resulted from the contrasting political  realities  that  faced  the  negotiators  of different  countries. PURPOSE OF SOFA The  main  purpose define  the  status  of personnel  stationed  in of SOFAs is to clearly one  country’s  military the  territory  of  another. The SOFAs say, in part, that the country we are visiting will give up some jurisdiction to the visiting country in some criminal and civil cases. Some topics covered by the Status of Forces Agreements  are  as  follows: Freedom  of  troop  movements  within  the host  country Passport  requirements Criminal  jurisdiction Taxes Imposition  of  customs  duties Regulations   covering Exchange  privileges driver’s  license The  development  of  a  collective  defense  in peacetime  requires  that  forces  of  various  countries be  stationed  in  the  territory  of  other  treaty countries.  Those  forces  form  an  integrated  force for  the  defense  of  those  countries  involved.  The forces must be free to move from one country to another  under  the  demands  of  strategy.  There- fore, uniformity of arrangements and procedures governing  the  status  of  such  forces  in  countries other  than  their  own  and  their  relationship  to  the civilian  authorities  is  essential.  The  Status  of Forces  Agreements,  accordingly,  try  to  regulate that  relationship  in  two  ways.  First,  they guarantee  the  armed  forces  adequate  legal protection  without  infringing  on  the  authority  of the  military  command.  Second,  they  fully recognize  the  peacetime  rights  and  responsibilities of  the  civilian  authorities  in  the  host  countries. The United States must receive consent from the host country to station troops on that foreign soil. We must also agree to the conditions under which our troops may remain. The  original  intent  of  the  Status  of  Forces Agreements by the United States was to get the most  favorable  conditions  from  the  host  country for our own forces. The agreements apply to personnel belonging to the land, sea, and air armed forces, as well as civilian personnel accompanying an armed force. Article II of the NATO Status of Forces Agree- ment  sets  forth  the  basic  principle  to  be  observed by any force in a country other than its own: It is the duty of a force and its civilian component  and  the  members  thereof  as well  as  their  dependents  to  respect  the  law of  the  receiving  State,  and  to  abstain  from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of the  present  Agreement,  and  in  particular, from  any  political  activity  in  the  receiving State. It is also the duty of the sending State  to  take  necessary  measures  to  that end. DEVELOPMENT  OF  SOFA Why does the United States station large contingents  of  forces  in  foreign  countries,  and why does the status of these forces have to be defined  by  agreements? The United States has accepted the fact that the only true security available in this modern world   is   collective   security.   Congress   has demonstrated time and again its recognition of this  proposition.  We  have  entered  into  alliances 2-19