Page 198 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

, forces in West Berlin, the rights and obligations of all mission agreements. This special status of the personnel of
United States military personnel performing duty in the various Military Assistance Advisory Groups
foreign territory are reflected in one of these three types of (MAAG) is attributable to the fact that those groups
agreements. generally operate as an integral part of the Embassy of the
d. Extent of Privileges. Generally, it may be said that United States. However, the scope of the privileges and
those who perform duties contemplated by Mutual immunities vary from country to country. For example,
Defense Assistance Agreements enjoy more rights and MAAG personnel in Italy have little immunity from the
privileges than are enjoyed by military personnel who per- jurisdiction of local courts.
form duties under status of forces agreements and under
Section 11. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION UNDER STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENTS
10-4. The NATO Status of Forces Agreement. The out regard to the location of their permanent duty station.
NATO Status of Forces Agreement 25 (NATO SOFA) is In Germany, a special agreement extends to persons on
a multilateral treaty to which the following members of leave in European and North African countries the status
the North Atlantic Treaty organization are parties: of members of the force for certain purposes. 26
Belgium . Canada
(a) In contrast to the NATO SOFA, the compara-
Denmark France
ble provision of the U.S. agreement with Japan does not
Gennany Greece
contain the limiting phrase "in connection with their offi-
Italy Luxembourg
cial duties." 27 Accordingly, the reason for the presence of
Netherlands Norway
Portugal Turkey
particular individuals in Japan is not material to their in-
-
United Kinadom United States
clusion within the definition of a force. 28
(6) In Germany, except in cases of military ex-
Of the 15 NATO member states only Iceland is not a party igency, the sending states have agreed not to station in the
to this agreement. This section of the chapter will be territory of the Federal Republic as members of a force
devoted to an article-by-article analysis of the criminalju- persons who are solely German. One of the reasons for
risdiction provisions of the treaty. this agreement is that, under Article 16 of the German
a. Persons protected by NATO SOFA. (1) Member of
the 'Force" of the Sending State. Basic Law (Constitution), Germany may not extradite a
German national to a foreign state. Exercise of criminal
Article ~(a): "Force" means the personnel belonging to the land, sea, jurisdiction by a sending State over a German national
or air armed services of one Contmcting Party when in the territory of
another Contracthg Party in the North Atlantic Treaty area in connec- soldier of that State within Germany is considered to be a
tion with their oflicial duties. ~rovided that the two Contractim Parties form of extradition which is repugnant to the concept of
concerned may agree that &&in individuals, units or formati&s shall the Basic Law.
not be regarded as constituting or include in a "force" for the purpclses (2) Dependents of Members of the Force and
of the present Agreement; .. . .
Civilian Component.
A "force," therefore, includes that part of the armed Article I(c): "Dependent" means the spouse of a member of a force
forces of one contra- party stationed in the territory of or of a civilian component, or a child of such member depending on him
another. However, it should be noted that the agreement or her for support; .. .
is also applicable to personnel who are sent to a NATO (a) Definition. Under this definition, a relative
country on temporary duty, and to personnel who may be other than a spouse or other than a child of a member de-
in transit through a NATO country on oficial duty. Per- pendent on him for support is excluded. Parents and other
sonnel who are AWOL or who are on authorized leave close relatives, for example, are excluded even though
alsoare covered by the agreement so long as they remain they may be dependent on the member for support and
in the country in which they are stationed, for their pres- even though they may enjoy, under U.S. Forces military
ence in that country is clearly in connection with their of- regulations, status as dependents. The definition fails to
ficial duties. However, should a soldier who is AWOL or indicate at what age, if any, a child ceases to be treated as a
who is on authorized leave commit an offense in a NATO child for the purposes of the agreement. Because of the
country other than the one m which he is stationed, a restricted definition of a dependent contained in the
different situation is presented. The defintion of a force NATO SOFA, the United States has encountered some
would not include such personnel, and they would be sub- practical diffculty in securing a liberal interpretation on
ject to the rules of law applicable in the absence of a treaty.
In practice, France hasbeen willing to apply the provisions
26. Status ofPersons on Leave, [I9591 14 U.S.T. 694,T.I.A.S. No.
of the SOFA to personnel who are in a leave status with-
5352.
27. [I960111 U.S.T. 1652,T.I.A.S. No. 4510 (Art. I(a)).
2s. [I9531 4 U.S.T. 1792,T.I.A.S. No. 2846.It must be remem- 28. The preceding agreement, which governed the status of U.S.
bered that this agreement is as operativein war and in hostilities short of Forces from 1952to 1960,also did not contain the qualifying phrase "in
formal war as it is @peace. Article XV provides for a "review" in the connection with their oflicial duty." (1952) 3 U.S.T. 3341,T.I.A.S. No.
event of hostilities. 2492.