Page 197 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

"consult immediately in order to agree to measures which usually regulated are civil juisdiction, claims, taxes,
should be taken for common defense." The members duties, and the procurement of local supplies and
are: employees. The criminal jurisdiction features of many of
Australia France
these treaties willnow be examined.
New Zealand Pakistan
10-3. Jurisdictional Immunity of Visiting
Philippines Thailand
Forces. a. Historical Concept. Although the rights and
United Kingdom United States
obligations of most United States military personnel per-
e. Declaration relating to the Baghdad Pact. 9 The forming duties in foreign countries are now s@ied by
declaration was signed at London, 28 July 1958. The international agreements, some writers and courts
Baghdad Pact was signed at Baghdad on 24 February 1955 thought that under customary international law a foreign
and provided that the parties would cooperate for their force, invited into a State without conditions, is by im-
security and defense. 10 Parties to the Baghdad Pact were plication immune from the jurisdiction of the receiving
Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. In (host) State. Until recently writers and judges have cited
the London Declaration the parties, with the exception of in support of this rule of implied agreement the dictum of
Iraq, reaffmed the pact made at Baghdad, and the Chief Justice Marshall in the case of The Schooner Ejc-
United States agreed to cooperate with them in their change v. McFaddon. 18
mutual defense. The Baghdad Pact has been known since b. Modern View. Recently, however, in the companion
1959 as the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO). 11 cases of Reid v. Covert and Kinsella v. Krueger, 19 and in
The United States has maintained an observer status in the case of Wilson v. Girard, 20 the Supreme Court of the
regard to CENTO. 12 United States in effect denied the existence of a customary
f. Bilateral treaties of mutual assistance. Primary exam- international rule of implied waiver of jurisdiction by the
lples of bilateral treaties of mutual assistance in Asia are: host State when such an implied waiver is sought to be
(1) Republic of China. Mutual defense treaty was based solely on an unconditional invitation from the host
signed at Washington, 2 December 1954 and entered into State. The court held, citing The Schooner Exchange v.
force for the U.S. 3 March 1955. 13 McFaddon, 21 that "a sovereign nation has exclusive ju-
(2) Japan. Mutual cooperation and security treaty risdiction to punish offenses against its laws committed
was signed at Washington, 19 January 1960 and entered within its borders unless it expressly or impliedly consents
into force for the U.S. 23 June 1960. 14 to surrender its jurisdiction," 22 and that generally the
(3) Korea. Mutual defense treaty was signed at only jurisdiction which United States military authorities
Washington, 1 October 1953 and entered into force for could exercise over its militarypersonnel in foreign coun-
the U.S. 17 November 1954. 15 tries was that which was permitted by the express consent
(4) Philippines. Mutual defense treaty was signed at of the foreign government concerned. The United States
Washington, 30 August 1951 and entered into force for has sought to negotiate detailed agreements with all
the U.S. 27 August 1952. 16 foreign countries where its forces are to be stationed.
g. This collective self-defense system, authorized c. Types of Agreements. There are three general types
under Article 5 1, has assumed proportions not anticipated of agreements which are concerned with the status of
at the time of the drafting of the U.N. Charter. 17 To be United States military personnel who are stationed in
effective under modem conditions of warfare this collec- foreign countries. First, there are what may be called
tive self-defense must be established during peace. It de- Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA), examples of which
mands a close peacetime cooperation including in some are the NATO SOFA and the Japanese Administrative
instances the stationing of troops in foreign, allied and Agreement; second, Mission Agreements such as those
friendly states. This stationing of troops in foreign coun- with Nicaragua 23 and many other Latin-American coun-
tries in time of peace has been the occasion of the many tries; and third, Mutual Defense Assistance Agreements
status of forces agreements which specitjl the rights and under which Military Assistance Advisory Groups
duties of the receiving (host) State and the sending (MAAG) operate. 24 With the exception of military at-
(guest) State. The matters covered vary in scope and in tach& who enjoy hll diplomatic immunity,and U.S.
detail. In addition to criminal jurisdiction, other items
18. 11 U.S. (7 CRANCH) 116 (1812). A discussion of Justice
Marshall's comment appears at paragraph 4-2a, supra. See also Cole-
9. [I9581 9 U.S.T. 1077, T.I.A.S. No. 4084. man v. Tennessee, 97 U.S. 509 (1878); Dow v. Johnson, 100 U.S. 158
10. Royal Institute on International Affairs, Documents on Interna- (1879). For an examination of the customary law in the absence of a
tional &fairs, 1955, 287-89 (1958). status of forces treaty see Re, The NATO Status of Forces Agreement
11. See 41 Dep't State Bull. 487, 581 (1959). and International Law, 50 N W LI.L. Rev. 349 (1955).
12. 44 Dep't Sure Bull. 780 (1961). 19. 354 U.S. 1 (1957).
13. [I9551 6 U.S.T.433, T.I.A.S. No. 3178. 20. 354 U.S. 524 (1957).
14. [I9601 11 U.S.T. 1632, T.I.A.S. No. 4509.
21. 11 U.S. (CRANCH) 116 (1812).
1s. [I9541 5 U.S.T. 2368, T.I.A.S. No. 3097.
22. 354 U.S.at 529.
16. [I9521 3 U.S.T. 3947, T.I.A.S. No. 2529. 23. [I9531 4 U.S.T. 2238, T.I.A.S. No. 2876.
17. Eagleton, supra note 3, at 551. 24. [I9541 5 U.S.T. 852, T.I.A.S. No. 2976.