Distribution of Jurisdiction under NATO SOFA and the Scope of Official Duty

Öz

When a host state permits the presence of foreign military personnel within its borders, questions of jurisdiction inevitably arise, encompassing both criminal and civil matters involving those individuals. As international customary law does not provide clear guidance on this issue, it is addressed through specific provisions outlined in status of forces agreements (SOFAs). In Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs), the distribution of jurisdiction between states represents a pivotal concern. International customary law does not provide a definitive answer as to whether jurisdiction over a specific incident lies with the receiving state or the sending state. Consequently, the delineation and application of jurisdiction are matters that must be resolved through negotiation. Main theoretical classifications of jurisdiction include exclusive, concurrent, and conditional jurisdiction. This paper undertakes a comparative exploration of the types of jurisdictions acknowledged under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, with particular emphasis on the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. Furthermore, it delves into the handling of official duty documents, the adjudication of offenses committed in the course of duty, and the interpretation of duty scope, all within the framework of NATO practices.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• NATO SOFA
• concurrent jurisdiction
• exclusive jurisdiction
• primary right to exercise jurisdiction
• official duty documents.

NATO Kuvvetler Statüsü Anlaşmasında Yargı Yetkisinin Taksimi ve Resmi Görevin Kapsamı

Öz

Bir yabancı devletin askeri personelini kendi ülkesine kabul eden devletin askerler üzerinde hem ceza davaları bakımından hem de hukuk davaları bakımından yargı yetkisi gündeme gelir. Bu konu uluslararası teamül kurallarınca yeterince belirlenemediğinden kuvvetler statüsü anlaşmalarına yazılan hükümlerle düzenlenir. Kuvvetler statüsü anlaşmalarında yetkinin devletler arasında taksimi önemli bir konudur. Kabul eden devlet veya gönderen devletlerden hangisinin bir olay bakımından yargı yetkisi icra edebileceği uluslararası teamül kurallarına bakılarak kesin olarak söylenemeyeceğinden yetkinin ne şekilde paylaştırılacağı ve uygulanacağı ancak anlaşma müzakereleri neticesinde ortaya çıkacaktır. Doktrinde yargı yetkisinin taksimi konusunda münhasır yetki, mütedahil yetki, şartlı yetki, rüçhanlı yetki gibi ayrımlar yapılmıştır. Bu çalışmada NATO Kuvvetler Statüsü Anlaşması’nda hangi yetki taksimlerinin kabul edildiği karşılaştırmalı olarak ele alınmıştır. Bunun yanı sıra görev belgelerinin göreceği muamele, görev esnasında işlenen suçlar ve görevin kapsamı konuları NATO uygulamasında ele alınmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• NATO Kuvvetler Statüsü Anlaşması
• münhasır yetki
• mütedahil yetki
• rüçhanlı yetki
• öncelikli yetki
• resmi görev belgesi.

Kaynakça

1. “Concurrent Jurisdiction of States over Boundary Waters.” Harvard Law Review 22, no. 8 (1909): 599–600. (Erişildi 17.10. 2024).
2. Akipek, Ö. İ., NATO Kuvvetleri Sözleşmesine Göre Vazife Kavramı ve Türkiye’deki Tatbikatı, 24(1) AÜHFD 9 (1967).
3. Artuk, M. E., Gökçen, A., Yenidünya, A. C., Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler I, Ankara, Turhan Kitabevi, 2006.
4. Baxter, R. R., Criminal Jurisdiction in the NATO Status of Forces Ag- reement, Proceedings (American Bar Association. Section of International and Comparative Law), ( July 12 and July 25, 1957).
5. Brookson-Morris, K., Conflicts of Criminal Jurisdiction, 56 The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 659 ( Jul., 2007), s. 660.
6. Çelen, O., NATO Kuvvetler Statüsü Sözleşmesine Göre Rüçhanlı Yargı Yetkisi, 92 Askeri Adalet Dergisi (Ocak 1995), Available at https://bit.ly/2SVYoIi (erişildi 09.10.2024).
7. Çelik, E. F., Milletlerarası Hukuk, Cilt 2, İstanbul, Filiz Kitabevi, 1982.
8. Cha, J., Comparison and Analysis of Korea and Japan Status of Forces Agreements and Their Implications for Iraq’s SOFA, 18 Cardozo Journal of International & Comparative Law 487 (2010).

9. Conderman, J., Jurisdiction in D. Fleck (ed), The Handbook of the Law of Visiting Forces, Oxford, OUP, 2003.
10. Dupuy, M. et Kerbrat, Y., Les Grands Textes de Droit International Public, Paris, Éditions Dalloz, 2012.
11. Erman, S., Askerî Ceza Hukuku: Umumi Kısım ve Usûl, İstanbul, 1983.
12. Honma, H., Sonnenberg D. and Timm, D. A., United States Forces in Japan in D. Fleck (ed.), The Handbook of the Law of Visiting Forces, Oxford, OUP, 2003.
13. Kort, B. S., NATO Mensuplarının Hukuki Statüsü, Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara, 2007, s. 95.
14. Kul, M. C., Uluslararası Hukukta Kuvvetler Statüsü Anlaşmaları, İstanbul, On İki Levha Yayıncılık, 2020,
15. Lazareff, S., Le Statut des Forces de l’OTAN et son Application en France, Paris, Éditions A. Pedone, 1964.
16. Lazareff, S., Status of Military Forces under Current International Law, Leyden: A. W. Sijthoff, 1971. Ovacık, M., İngilizce-Türkçe Hukuk Sözlüğü, Ankara, 2000.
17. Rouse, J. H. and Baldwin, G. B., The Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction under the NATO Status of Forces Agreements, 51 AJIL 29 (1957).
18. Snee, J. M., and Pye, K. A., Status of Forces Agreement and Criminal Juris- diction, Oceana Publications: New York, 1957.
19. Sonnenberg, D. and Timm, D. A., United States Forces in Japan: The Agreements Regarding Status of Foreign Forces in Japan in D. Fleck (ed), The Handbook of the Law of Visiting Forces, Oxford, OUP, 2003.
20. Stambuk, G., American Military Forces Abroad, Midway, Ohio University Press, 1963.
21. Stuehser, E., Military Jurisdiction under SOFA: Clarity or Confusion, 4 New Eng. Int’l & Comp. L. Ann. 247 (1998).
22. Tezcan, D., La Convention de Londres sur le Statut des Forces de l’OTAN et le Principe de Territorialite en Droit Penal International, 19 Turkish Yearbook of International Law 149 (1979), DOI: 10.1501/Intrel_0000000198.
23. Toluner, S., Milletlerarası Hukuk Dersleri: Devletin Yetkisi (Yer ve Kişiler Bakımından Çevresi ve Niteliği), İstanbul, Beta Yay, 1996.
24. Ulutaş, A., Uluslararası Örgütler Hukuku, Ankara, Adalet Yayınevi, 2023.
25. Voetelink, J., Status of Forces: Criminal Jurisdiction over Military Personnel Abroad, Hague, Asser Press, 2015.
26. Affaire Bouleau et M.P. c/ Sacommandi John, Le Tribunal de Premiére Instance de la Seine, 17e Chambre, 2 juillet 1954.
27. Aitchison c. Whitley, 43 Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 602 (1954) s. 602 et seq.
28. Grisham v Hagan, 361 US 278 (1960).
29. Kinsella v Krueger, 351 US 470 (1956).
30. Kinsella v Krueger, 354 US 7 (1957).
31. M.P. c/ Sykes, Cour d’Appel de Bourges, 1 juillet 1954.
32. M.P. c/ Sykes, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Châteauroux, 18 janvier 1954.
33. McElroy v Guagliardo, 361 US 281 (1960).
34. Reid v Covert, 351 US 487 (1956).
35. Reid v Covert, 354 US 1 (1957);
36. Wedding v Meyler, 192 U.S. 573, s. 584.
37. Wilson v Bohlender, 361 US 281 (1960).
38. Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the Status of their Forces, (NATO KSA), 19 June 1951, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_ texts_17265.htm?selectedLocale=en, (erişildi 14.10.2024); Convention entre les Etats parties au Traité de l’Atlantique Nord sur le statut de leurs forces, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17265. htm?selectedLocale=fr, (14.10.2024).
39. Agreement to Supplement the Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of Their Forces with respect to Foreign Forces Stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany. Signed at Bonn, on 3 August 1959. Came into force on 1 July 1963. 14 U.S.T. 531, 481 UNTS 262, BGBl 1961 II 1218. (German Supplementary Agreement, Alman Munzam Anlaşması).
40. 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 Korea of 9 July 1966, 17 U.S.T. 1677, 1703, T.I.A.S. No: 6127, 674 UNTS 199. (Güney Kore-ABD KSA). http://www.usfk.mil/Portals/105/Documents/SOFA/A01_SOFA.Art.I-XXXI.pdf (erişildi 16.10.2024).
41. Agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America, Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in Japan (Agreement regarding the Status of United States Armed Forces in Japan), signed 19 January 1960, 11 U.S.T. 1652, T.I.A.S. No. 4510. Available at: https://www.mofa. go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/2.html (erişildi 13.10.2024). ( Japon-ABD KSA).
42. Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 17 Status of the Coalition, Foreign Liaison Missions, Their Personnel and Contractors, (CPA Order 17) https://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/COALITION_PROVISIONAL. pdf, (18.10.2024).
43. Documents du Sous-Comité juridique de Group de Travail, MS ( J) R (51) 12. Gesetz über die Rechtsstellung ausländischer Streitkräfte bei vorübergehenden Aufenthalten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland vom 20 Juli 1995, BGBl 1995 II 554. http://rw22big3.jura.uni-sb.de/BGBl/TEIL2/1995/19950554.2.HTML, (erişildi 18.10.2024).
44. Harris, K., “Cavalese, Italy, to mark anniversary of ski gondola tragedy”, STARS AND STRIPES, 2 February 2003, https://www.stripes.com/news/cavalese-italy-to-mark-anniversary-of-ski-gondola-tragedy-1.1545 (erişildi 13.10.2024).
45. HC Deb 19 December 1983 vol 51 cc90-108, Available at: https://api.parliament. uk/historic-hansard/commons/1983/dec/19/visiting-forces-act-1952 (erişildi 10.10.2024).
46. Mason, R. C., 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 International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight),“Status of Forces Agreements and UN Mandates: What Protections Do They Provide to U.S. Personnel?”, https://bit. ly/2OuK8na, (erişildi 14.10.2024).
47. Muelenaere, M. D., “A Cavalese, le drame du téléphérique avait fait 20 morts Le pilote de l’avion tueur acquitté”, LE SOIR, 5 mars 1999, https://www.lesoir.be/art/a-cavalese-le-drame-du-telepherique-avait-fait-20-morts_t-19990305-Z0GG4M.html (erişildi 15.10.2024).
48. Procès-verbaux de Group de Travail sur le Statut des Forces de l’OTAN, Summary Record of a meeting of the Working Group on Status of Forces (23 April 1951), MS-R (51) 14.
49. The United Kingdom, Visiting Forces Act 1952, Section 1. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6and1Eliz2/15-16/67/section/1 (erişildi 14.10.2024).
50. 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, 2001, as amended. (2001 Understanding to the Agreement)
51. United States Department of State, International Security Advisory Board Report on the Status of Forces, January 16, 2015.