These agreements, commonly referred to as the status of forces agreements (SOFAs), generally define the framework within which the United States conducts military activities in a foreign country.1 SOFAs provide rights and privileges for insured persons under foreign jurisdiction and address how domestic laws of foreign jurisdiction apply to U.S. personnel.2 But the most frequently discussed question is which country can exercise criminal justice over U.S. personnel. The United States has agreements in which it retains exclusive jurisdiction over its personnel, but the agreement more often requires common jurisdiction with the recipient country. 1941: First of a series of numerous agreements, some of which took place before NATO, within the framework of the defence that contained the status of the armed forces. A SOFA, as required by Article VI of the Treaty, was concluded as a separate agreement under the 1960 Treaty.84 The SOFA deals with the use of facilities by US forces. and the status of U.S. forces in Japan. The agreement has been amended at least four times since the original agreement.85 The 2002 Authority for the Military Use Force Against Iraq (2002 AUMF, P.L. 107-243) authorized the President to use military force, as it deemed necessary and appropriate to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat of Iraq; and (2) to implement all relevant UN Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq. One could argue that the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein`s regime from power in Iraq and the end of the UN Security Council`s mandate mean that the 2002 AUMF no longer serves as the legal basis for US operations in Iraq. Regardless of the enduring viability of the 2002 AUMF, the use of funds by Congress to support ongoing military operations can be considered a legal authorization for those operations.
For more information, see CRS report RL33837, Congressional Authority to Limit U.S. .