The deadly attacks on Afghan civilians, allegedly perpetrated by a U.S. service provider, raised questions about the Interim Agreement (SOFA) between the United States and Afghanistan, which would determine whether Afghan law would apply in these circumstances. Sofa are multilateral or bilateral agreements that generally define the framework under which U.S. military personnel operate in a foreign country and how national foreign jurisdiction laws apply to U.S. personnel in that country. ISAF has a status specific to the troop agreement with the Afghan government in the form of an annex to a military technical agreement entitled “Arrangements on the Status of the International Security Assistance Force.” The agreement provides that all ISAF members and support staff are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their respective national criminal or disciplinary elements and that such personnel are immune from arrest or detention by the Afghan authorities and cannot be handed over to an international tribunal or other body or another state without the explicit consent of the contributing country. In 2003, NATO took command of ISAF in Afghanistan. 1953: Agreement on the application of the NATO Status Agreement to U.S. forces in Canada, including leased bases in Newfoundland and Goose Bay, Labrador, with the exception of some agreements under the Leased Bases Agreement in 1968, two years after the signing of SOFA between the countries, a member of the U.S. Army at Smallwood v. Clifford90 asserted that the US authorities did not have the legitimate powers to return him to the Republic of Korea, in accordance with the rules of jurisdiction under the agreement, in order to bring him to justice by a Korean court for murder and arson.91 The service member stated that the agreement had not been approved “in a constitutionally acceptable manner”.” 92 He asserted that U.S. domestic law stated that international foreign jurisdictional agreements concerning U.S.

forces deployed abroad were “either explicitly or tacitly approved by the [United States]. senate. 93 The Tribunal found that sofa had the effect of reducing the role of the Republic of Korea in enforcing its own legislation and that the United States had not waived jurisdiction for offences committed on its own territory. Therefore, ratification by the Senate is “clearly unnecessary” because Senate approval “would not affect the allocation of powers by the Republic of Korea, which the United States cannot rightly claim.” 94 The agreement with Afghanistan does not explicitly authorize the United States to conduct military operations inside Afghanistan, but acknowledges that such operations are “ongoing.” In 2001, Congress authorized the use of military force there (and elsewhere) through a joint resolution to “attack nations, organizations or individuals who planned, authorized, committed or supported the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.” 49 The United Nations Obin