There is an agreement on the status of U.S. Department of Defense military and civilian personnel in Afghanistan as part of cooperation efforts on terrorism, humanitarian and civic assistance, military training and exercises, and other activities.45 These personnel should be granted “equivalent status to U.S. administrative and technical personnel.” Embassy under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.46 As a result, U.S. personnel are immune from prosecution by Afghan authorities and immune from civil and administrative jurisdiction, except for acts performed outside of their duties.47 In the agreement, the Afghanistan Transitional Administration (ITGA)48 specifically authorized the U.S. government to exercise criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. , and the Government of Afghanistan does not have the right to transfer U.S. personnel to another state, international tribunal or agency without the consent of the U.S. government. Although the agreement was signed by ITGA, the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, subsequently elected, assumed responsibility for ITGA`s legal obligations and the agreement remains in force. The agreement does not appear to create immunity for contract staff. There are no formal requirements for the content, details and length of a CANAPÉ.

A CANAPÉ can apply to the criminal and civil justice system, uniforms, taxes and fees, carrying weapons, using radio spectrum, licensing requirements and customs rules. The United States has completed SOFAs as short as one page and more than 200 pages. For example, the United States and Bangladesh exchanged notes for a joint exercise in 199817, which provide for the status of U.S. forces.18 The agreement is activity/exercise-specific, consists of five clauses and is on one page. The United States and Botswana exchanged notes that provide for the status of armed forces “that may temporarily reside in Botswana, in association with exercises, humanitarian aid or other activities on which our two governments can agree.” 19 The agreement is similar to its scope of the agreement with Bangladesh and appears on one page. In contrast, the United States and Germany have concluded, in documents of more than 200 pages, an additional agreement with NATO SOFA,20, as well as additional agreements and the exchange of notes on specific issues.21 1953: Agreement on the application of the NATO Status of Troops Agreement to the United States. Forces in Canada, including on leased bases in Newfoundland and Goose Bay, Labrador, with the exception of certain agreements under the Leasing Base Agreement The most frequently addressed issue in a SOFA is the legal protection against legal action afforded to U.S. personnel while they are present in a foreign country.

The agreement defines the contracting party that is able to assert criminal and/or civil jurisdiction. In other words, the agreement defines how national civil and criminal laws apply to U.S. personnel while serving in a foreign country. The United States has agreements in which it has exclusive jurisdiction, but the common agreement leads to a shared jurisdiction between the United States and the signatory country. Exclusive jurisdiction is where the United States retains the right to exercise all criminal and disciplinary jurisdictions in the event of a violation of the laws of the foreign nation while the person is present in that country.