Status of Forces Agreements: Bilateral Experience of the US with Iraq, Japan and South Korea

Abstract

Status of forces agreements SOFAs are usually concluded when a state sends its troops to a foreign country. SOFAs mostly are bilateral agreements however they might different forms such as “exchange of notes”, or names as in “memorandum of understandings”. Moreover, they might be formulated as multilateral agreements as in the example of NATO SOFA. Status of forces agreements are neither military assistance agreements nor do they necessarily prescribe the mandate of a force. A State’s right to station its forces in another country, which is referred to as ius ad praesentiam, is not prescribed by a SOFA. To the contrary, SOFAs regulate the legal status of the forces while in a receiving State ius in praesentia . This study aims to analyse bilateral experience of the US in terms of status of forces regime with Iraq, Japan and South Korea respectively. This study has been divided into three main sub-topics, each dedicated to one of the aforementioned countries, analysing its bilateral experience with the US

Keywords

• status of forces agreements,SOFAs,official duty status,immunities and privileges,exclusive jurisdiction,concurrent jurisdiction,primary jurisdiction,waiver of jurisdiction,Status of US forces in Iraq,Blackwater Incident,Status of US forces in

Kuvvetler Statüsü Anlaşmaları Askerî Kuvvetlerin Yabancı Ülkelerdeki Durumuna Dair Anlaşmalar : Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nin Irak, Japonya ve Güney Kore ile İkili Tecrübesi

Abstract

Kuvvetler statüsü anlaşmaları genellikle bir devlete ait askerî kuvvetler bir başka devlete gönderildiğinde akdedilir. Kuvvetler statüsü anlaşmaları umumiyetle iki taraflı olarak formüle edilseler de çeşitli isim anlaşma muhtırası gibi veya şekillerde nota teatisi gibi yapılabilirler. NATO Kuvvetler Statüsü Anlaşması gibi çok taraflı kuvvetler statüsü anlaşması yapmak da mümkündür. Kuvvetler statüsü anlaşmaları askerî yardım veya müşterek savunma anlaşmaları olmadıkları gibi bir askerî kuvvetin misyonunu tarif etmek mecburiyetinde de değildirler. Kuvvetler statüsü anlaşmaları bir devlete, bir diğer devlet ülkesinde asker bulundurma hakkı ius ad praesentiam tanımak için yapılan andlaşmalardan farklıdırlar. Bilakis, Kuvvetler statüsü anlaşmaları, kabul eden devlet ülkesinde bulunan yabancı devlet askerlerinin hukukî statülerini ius in praesentia belirlemek için akdedilirler. Bu çalışma, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nin sırasıyla Irak, Japonya ve Güney Kore ile olan ikili tecrübesini kuvvetler statüsü anlaşmaları bakımından incelemektedir. Bunu yaparken makale, adı geçen devletlerin kuvvetler statüsü anlaşmalarının akdedilmesinin temelini hazırlayan süreçlere de değinmektedir. Çalışma, her biri bahsi geçen devletlerin ABD ile ikili tecrübesine yer veren üç ana başlıkta ele alınmıştır.

Keywords

• Kuvvetler statüsü anlaşmaları, KSA, SOFA, görev statüsü, ayrıcalık ve bağışıklıklar, münhasır yargı yetkisi, mütedahil yetki, rüçhanlı öncelikli yargı yetkisi, yargı yetkisinden feragat, Irak’taki ABD askerlerinin statüsü, Blackwater Olayı, Japonya’daki ABD askerlerinin statüsü, Güney Kore’deki ABD askerlerinin hukukî statüsü.

References

1. • Ackerman, S., “Abu Ghraib torture suit against contractor revived by federal court”, The Guardian, 30 June 2014, https://bit.ly/2SvCMBu (17.09.2018).
2. • “Administrative Agreement under Article III of the Security Treaty between the United States of America and Japan”, Tokyo, February 28, 1952, Japan’s Foreign Relations- Basic Documents, Vol. 1, p. 472-502, Bkz. “The World and Japan” Database, https:// bit.ly/2G4uU8R (22.09.2018).
3. • Agreed Minutes to the Agreement under Article IV of the Mutual Defense Treaty bet- ween the United States of America and the Republic of Korea, Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea, 1966 .
4. • Agreed Minutes to the Agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Coope- ration and Security between Japan and the United States of America, Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in Japan, 19 Janu- ary 1960, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, https://bit.ly/2BWiCv3 (23.09.2018). (Kısaca Agreed Minutes to Japan-US SOFA).
5. • Agreed Understandings to the Agreement under Article IV of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of Korea, Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea and Related Agreed Minutes, 1966 .
6. • Agreed Views pertaining to Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Ar- med Forces in the Republic of Korea, 2001. (Kısaca 2001 Agreed Views).
7. • Agreement between the Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command, on the one hand, and the Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army and the Comman- der of the Chinese People’s volunteers, on the other hand, concerning a military ar- mistice in Korea. (Kısaca Korean War Armistice Agreement), 4 U.S.T. 234, T.I.A.S. No: 2782 Bkz. https://bit.ly/2E9zWOT (26.09.2018).
8. • Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the Status of their Forces, (NATO SOFA), 19 June 1951, https://bit.ly/2SrUbLe (27.10.2018).

9. • Agreement Between the United States and the Republic of Korea Amending the Agre- ement Under Article IV of the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea, Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea of July 9, 1966, as amended 2001. (Kısaca 2001 Agreement Amending the Agreement Under Article IV).
10. • Agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq on the Withdrawal of US Forces from Iraq and the Organisation of their Activities du- ring their Temporary Presence in Iraq, 17 November 2008, https://bit.ly/1k8vPCF (27.04.2018). (Kısaca Irak-ABD KSA, 2008).
11. • Agreement Concerning Jurisdiction over Offences by the United States Forces in Ko- rea of 12 July 1950, 5 U.S.T. 1408, T.I.A.S. No: 3012; Échange de notes constituant un accord relatif à la compétence en matiére d’infractions commises par les membres des forces armées des États-Unis en Corée, Taejon, 12 juillet 1950, 222 Nations Unies Re- cueil des Traités 1955, No. 3029, s. 230 et seq. https://bit.ly/2KZA30A (25.09.2018).
12. • Agreement on Economic Coordination between the Republic of Korea and the Unified Command of 24 May 1952. 3 U.S.T. 4420, T.I.A.S No: 2593, 179 UNTS 23.
13. • Agreement under Article IV of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of Korea, regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in Korea of 9 July 1966, 17 U.S.T. 1677, 1703, T.I.A.S. No: 6127, 674 UNTS 199. (Kısaca Güney Kore-ABD KSA). Bkz. https://bit.ly/2Qi93zd (26.09.2018).
14. • Agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security bet- ween Japan and the United States of America, Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in Japan (Agreement regarding the Sta- tus of United States Armed Forces in Japan), signed 19 January 1960, 11 U.S.T. 1652, T.I.A.S. No. 4510. Bkz. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, https://bit.ly/2BWiCv3 (23.09.2018). (Japon-ABD KSA).
15. • Agreement with Annex between the United States of America and the Netherlands Regarding the Stationing of United States Armed Forces in the Netherlands, signed 13 August 1954, 6 U.S.T. 103, T.I.A.S. No: 3174, 251 UNTS 91.
16. • Amendments to the Agreed Minutes of July 6, 1966 to the Agreement Under Article IV of the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Ko- rea, Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea, as amended 2001. (Kısaca 2001 Amendments to the Agreed Minutes).
17. • Arango, T.; Schmidt, M. S.; “Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay”, The New York Times, 21 October 2011, https://nyti. ms/2L7TaWB (19.09.2018).
18. • Armaoğlu, F., Yirminci Yüzyıl Siyasi Tarihi: 1914-1980, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, Ankara, 1986.
19. • Aust, A., Modern Treaty Law and Practice, CUP, Cambridge, 2007.
20. • “Baghdad Blackwater shooting verdict”, Washington Post, https://wapo.st/2BVL93G (15.09.2018).
21. • M. C. Bassiouni, M. C., “Legal Status of US Forces in Iraq From 2003-2008”, Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2010.
22. • “Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, Paragraph 2, of the Charter)”, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports, 1962.
23. • Cha, J., “Comparison and Analysis of Korea and Japan Status of Forces Agreements and Their Implications for Iraq’s SOFA”, Cardozo Journal of International & Compa- rative Law, Vol. 18, No. 2.
24. • H. Chiu, “The United States Status of Forces Agreement With the Republic of China: Some Criminal Case Studies”, Boston College Int’l & Comp. L. Rev., Vol. 3 No.1, 1979.
25. • Chulov, M., “Isis insurgents seize control of Iraqi city of Mosul”, The Guardian, 10 June 2014, https://bit.ly/2uW78B6 (31.10.2018).
26. • Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 17 Status of the Coalition, Fore- ign Liaison Missions, Their Personnel and Contractors, https://bit.ly/2QD9aVD (14.09.2018). (Kısaca CPA Order 17).
27. • Conderman, P. J., Jurisdiction in D. Fleck (ed.) The Handbook the Law of Visiting Forces, OUP, Oxford, 2003.
28. • Convention entre les Etats parties au Traité de l’Atlantique Nord sur le statut de leurs forces, https://bit.ly/2rqTLcQ (13.09.2018). (Kısaca NATO KSA).
29. • Crawford, E.; Pert, A., International Humanitarian Law, CUP, Cambridge, 2015.
30. • Jawad, S. N., The Iraqi constitution: Structural flaws and political implications, LSE Middle East Centre Paper Series, 01, London, 2013.
31. • Johnson, L. D., “Uniting for Peace Does It Still Serve Any Useful Purpose”, AJIL Un- bound, Vol. 108, 2014-2015.
32. • Katzman, K., Kuwait: Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, Conressional Research Service, 19 February 2016.
33. • Kaya, İ., Uluslararası Hukukta Temel Belgeler, Basic Documents in International Law, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2013.
34. • Kaye, J., “Contrary to Obama’s promises, the US military still permits torture”, The Guardian, 25 January 2014, https://bit.ly/2rxoaX3 (16.09.2018).
35. • Kinley, D.; Murray, O., “Corporations that Kill: Prosecuting Blackwater” in Simon Bro- nitt, M. Gani, S. Hufnagel (eds.), Shooting to Kill: Socio-Legal Perspectives on the Use of Lethal Force, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2012
36. • Kinley, D.; Murray, O., Corporations that Kill: Prosecuting Blackwater in Simon Bro- nitt, M. Gani and S. Hufnagel (eds.), Shooting to Kill: Socio-Legal Perspectives on the Use of Lethal Force, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2012.
37. • Kissinger, H. Diplomasi, Terc. İ. H. Kurt, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yay., İstanbul, 2006.
38. • Kul, M. C., Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi ve Uluslararası Tecâvüz (Saldırı) Suçu, On İki Levha Yay., İstanbul, 2016.
39. • Kurtdarcan, B. R., Muharebe Alanının Yeni Aktörleri: Askeri Yükleniciler, Beta Yay., İstanbul, 2017.
40. • Leahy, P., Price Introduce Legislation To Hold American Contractors Overseas Acco- untable Under U.S. Law, Press Release, https://bit.ly/2rqH95w (15.09.2018).
41. • Lee, Y. A., “Criminal Jurisdiction under the U.S.- Korea Status of Forces Agreement: Problems to Proposals”, Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2003.
42. • Liu, H. Y., Law’s Impunity; Responsibility and the Modern Private Military Com- pany, Hart Publishing, Oxford, Portland, Oregon, 2015
43. • Logan, J., “Last U.S. troops leave Iraq, ending war”, Reuters, 18 December 2011, https://reut.rs/2QhOxyZ (19.09.2018).
44. • Malanczuk, P., Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, Routledge, London, New York, 1997.
45. • Maldonado, C. M., Les Sociétés Militaires Privées et le Droit International Contem- porain : Enjeux et Perspectives en Matière de Responsabilité, Université du Québec à Montréal, Mars, 2017.
46. • Matheson, M. J., Testimony before the Subcommitte of the US Congress to Negotiate a bilateral Agreement on the Status of Forces between the United States and Iraq, Fourth Hearing, (Committee on Foreign Affairs-28.02.2008- Subcommittee on Inter- national Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight), “Status of Forces Agreements and UN Mandates: What Protections Do They Provide to U.S. Personnel?” Available at: https://bit.ly/2OuK8na, (14.09.2018).
47. • Matsutani, H., Japonya’nın Dış Politikası ve Türkiye, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Yay., İstanbul, 2009.
48. Signed at Tokyo February 19, 1954, Entered into force June 11, 1954, 5 U.S.T. 1123
49. (1954). (Kısaca Status of United Nations Forces in Japan).
50. • The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, The US Supreme Court, 24 February 1812, 11 U.S. 116 (1812), https://bit.ly/2SvPsIz (27.04.2018).
51. • The US Department of State, International Security Advisory Board, Report on the Status of Forces Agreements, 16 January 2015.
52. • The World and Japan Database, https://bit.ly/2G4uU8R (22.09.2018).
53. • Thibaul, M. J.; Shays, C. H., et al, At What Cost?: Contingency Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, Interim Report to Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, June 2009.
54. • Timm, D. A., “Visiting Forces in Korea” in D. Fleck (ed), The Handbook the Law of Visiting Forces, OUP, Oxford, 2003
55. • Tougas, M. L., Droit International, Sociétes Militaires Privées et Conflit Armé: entre Incertitudes et Responsabilités, Bruxelles: Bruylant, 2012.
56. • Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America (Japan-U.S. Security Treaty), signed 19 January 1960, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, https://bit.ly/2RFiYeO (22.09.2018).
57. • Udoh, A., “Invoking the ‘Uniting for Peace’ Resolution of 1950 to Authorize the Use of Humanitarian Military Intervention and Prevent Mass Atrocities in Syria”, Williamet- te Journal of International Law & Dispute Resolution, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2015.
58. • UN GA Res. 377(V) (1950), Uniting for Peace, https://bit.ly/2L1CCPV (25.09.2018).
59. • UN SC Res. 1790 (2007), https://bit.ly/2EhzTBd (17.09.2018).
60. • UN SC Res. 82(1950), https://bit.ly/2EjzPkB (25.09.2018).
61. • UN SC Res. 83(1950), https://bit.ly/2UmEMhm (25.09.2018).
62. • UN SC Res. 84(1950), https://bit.ly/2UmEMhm (25.09.2018).
63. • Understanding to the Agreement Under Article IV of the Mutual Defense Treaty Bet- ween the United States and the Republic of Korea, Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea, as amended, 2001. (Kısaca 2001 Understanding to the Agreement).
64. • Understandings on Implementation of the Agreement under Article IV of the Mutu- al Defense Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of Korea, Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea and Related Agreed Minutes, 1991. (Kısaca 1991 Understandings on Implementation).
65. • Uniform Code of Military Justice, 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. §§ 801–946, Available at: https://bit.ly/2y4RSFh (15.09.2018).
66. • United States Forces Korea, United Nations Command, https://bit.ly/2zJNE84 (26.09.2018).
67. • United States Forces Korea: We Go Together, SOFA Documents, https://bit. ly/2BUwpT1 (27.09.2018).
68. • “US soldiers charged for Korean deaths”, BBC, 5 July, 2002, https://bbc.in/2QeLjMo (29.09.2018).
69. • Voetelink, J., “Status of Forces and Criminal Jurisdiction”, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 60, No. 2, 2013.
70. • Voetelink, J., Status of Forces: Criminal Jurisdiction over Military Personnel Abroad, Asser Press, Hague, 2015.
71. • Williams, A. F., “The Case for Overseas Article III Courts: The Blackwater Effect and Criminal Accountability in the Age of Privatization”, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Vol. 44, No. 1, 2010.
72. • Wilson, S.; Cribb R.; Trefalt, B.; Aszkielowicz, D, Japanese War Criminals: The Poli- tics of Justice After the Second World War, Columbia University Press, 2017.