Abstract
In their study of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), Snee and Pye stated that a new conjurisdictional law was being developed with respect to the right to exercise criminal jurisdiction under status of forces agreements. Their study and most other studies, however, are concerned only with the jurisdictional arrangements under the NATO agreement. If a new law is developing, it will evolve not only from the NATO agreement but also from other less publicized agreements. Therefore, these other agreements must be studied in order to determine if the NATO SOFA is setting a standard for the development of such a law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Presumably this would also apply in the case of the recently concluded United States-Australian agreement. The criminal jurisdictional arrangements under this agreement are the same as those in the NATO SOFA, with no added “minutes” or “understandings” such as one finds in the United States-Philippine agreement or the United States-Japanese agreement. See Article 8, Status of United States Forces in Australia, signed at Canberra May 9, 1963, entered into force May 9, 1963; TIAS 5349.
See, for example, Josef L. Kunz, “Pluralism of Legal and Value Systems and International Law,” 49 AJIL 370–376 (1955);
Kunz, “The Changing Law of Nations,” 51 AJIL 77–83 (1957); Statement of Luis Padilla, 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 155–156 (1957);
Jorge Castaneda, “The Underdeveloped Nations and the Development of International Law,” 15 International Organization 38–48 (1961);
R. P. Anand, “Role of the ‘New’ Asian-African Countries in the Present International Legal Order,” 56 AJIL 383–406 (1962);
Edward McWhinney, “The ‘New’ Countries and the ‘New’ International Law: The United Nations’ Special Conference on Friendly Relations and Co-Operation Among States,” 60 AJIL 1–33 (1966); and
J. J. G. Syatauw, Some Newly Established Asian States and the Development of International Law (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1961).
It should be pointed out, however, that in some instances, most notably with respect to waiver provisions, supplemental bilateral agreements between the United States and other NATO countries approach the provisions of the United States-Philippine agreement. See, for example, Annex to Stationing of United States Armed Forces in the Netherlands, signed at The Hague August 13, 1954, entered into force November 16, 1954, 6 UST 103, TIAS 3174; and Article II, paragraph 1, Agreement Between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Greece Covering the Status of United States Forces in Greece, signed at Athens September 7, 1956, entered into force September 7, 1956, 7 UST 2555, TIAS 3649.
Additional evidence is supplied by the agreement between the United States and Korea, which was published while the present study was in the final stages of preparation. Under this agreement the right to exercise jurisdiction over United States forces is basically the same as under the United States-Philippine agreement. See Article XXII, Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in Korea, with Agreed Minutes, Agreed Understandings and Exchange of Letters, signed at Seoul July 9, 1966, entered into force May 9, 1967, TIAS 6127.
Of the published United States agreements, see for example: Agreement... Covering the Defense of Greenland, signed at Copenhagen April 27, 1951, entered into force April 27, 1951, 2 UST 1485, TIAS 2292; Agreement Concerning the Utilization of Defense Installations in Ethiopia, signed at Washington June 22, 1953, entered into force June 22, 1953, 5 UST 749, TIAS 2964; Agreement Concerning the Establishment of a Loran Transmitting Station [in the Dominican Republic], signed at Washington March 19, 1957, entered into force March 19, 1957, TIAS 3780; Agreement for the Establishment of a Loran Transmitting Station [in Nicaragua], signed at Managua September 5, 1958, entered into force September 5, 1958, 9 UST 1206, TIAS 4106; Agreement Relating to the Use of Facilities and Services at Dhahran Airfield [Saudi Arabia], signed at Jidda June 18, 1951, entered into force June 18, 1951, 2 UST 1466, TIAS 2290, extended April 2, 1957, 8 TOT 403, TIAS 3790; and Agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of Korea, signed at Taejan July 12, 1950, entered into force July 12, 1950, 5 UST 1408, TIAS 3012.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1968 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dodd, J.W. (1968). Toward a Conjurisdictional Law. In: Criminal Jurisdiction under the United States-Philippine Military Bases Agreement. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0518-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0518-5_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0043-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-0518-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive