Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) Explained

Last updated 2 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

A status of forces agreement, or SOFA, sets the legal terms for one country’s troops stationed in another. For U.S. forces abroad, the issue it most often addresses is which country may exercise criminal jurisdiction over them, and it can also cover taxes, licenses, customs and the carrying of weapons. In a report dated March 15, 2012, the Congressional Research Service said the United States was party to more than 100 agreements that may be considered SOFAs.

A SOFA does not itself send troops to a country, and it should not be read as authority to go to war. Nor is there a standard version: the rules for troops, civilian employees, family members and a spouse’s job depend on the agreement for that country.

What a SOFA changes and what it does not

A SOFA establishes personnel rights and privileges in support of a broader security arrangement; it does not itself constitute that security arrangement. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s SOFA preamble leaves the decision to send forces, and conditions not specified in the SOFA, to separate arrangements between the countries concerned. Most examples in this guide come from that agreement, known as the NATO SOFA. It is a multilateral agreement among the United States and NATO countries. The Partnership for Peace SOFA is another multilateral agreement, between NATO members and countries participating in that program. Under that agreement, parties apply the NATO SOFA as if they were parties to it, subject to exceptions in the Partnership for Peace agreement and any additional protocol.

There is no universal requirement for a SOFA’s form, length, content or title. An agreement can address a particular activity or provide a framework for a longer relationship. So the relevant document may not have the words “status of forces agreement” in its title.

The NATO SOFA requires visiting forces, their civilian component (the civilian employees who accompany them) and their dependents to respect local law and avoid activity inconsistent with the agreement, particularly political activity in the host country. Protection under an agreement therefore does not mean freedom to disregard local rules.

Under federal law, authority to send U.S. forces into hostilities, or into situations where involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated, cannot be inferred from a treaty unless legislation implementing the treaty specifically authorizes it and says it is meant as that authorization. An agreement that grants access to facilities should not be mistaken for permission under U.S. law to go to war.

Who makes the agreement

The State Department and Defense Department work together to identify the need for a SOFA and negotiate its terms. State’s published procedure requires written authorization before negotiations on treaties or other significant international agreements begin. Permission to negotiate does not approve the text or authorize signature; signing requires a separate written request.

The NATO SOFA is a treaty, while SOFAs generally take the form of executive agreements. For a treaty, the president acts with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the senators present. An executive agreement takes effect on a basis other than the Senate’s advice and consent. A SOFA can rest on an earlier treaty, congressional action or the president’s own executive authority. When an earlier treaty’s provisions authorize the agreement, the president can conclude it without further action by Congress. So a new SOFA does not automatically require a Senate vote; the question is which authority supports it.

Which country can prosecute an offense

Under the NATO SOFA, two questions decide who prosecutes: which country has authority over the offense and, when both do, which has priority. The military authorities of the sending country, the one whose forces are visiting, can exercise the criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction their own law gives them over people subject to that country’s military law. A civilian covered by the agreement is therefore not automatically subject to the sending country’s military courts; that depends on whether its military law applies to the person.

For offenses punishable under the sending country’s law but not the host country’s law, the sending country’s military authorities have exclusive jurisdiction over people subject to their military law. For offenses punishable only under the host country’s law, the host has exclusive jurisdiction over covered force members, civilian component members and dependents. Here, “exclusive” means the agreement assigns the offense to one side because the other side’s law does not punish it.

When an offense violates both countries’ laws, jurisdiction is concurrent, meaning both have authority and the agreement determines priority. NATO’s rule gives the sending country’s military authorities the primary right for offenses arising from official-duty acts or omissions. It also gives them priority for offenses solely against that country’s property or security, or solely against the person or property of another member of its force or civilian component, or a dependent. The host country has the primary right for other offenses. An off-duty offense against a local resident does not become a sending-country priority merely because the accused belongs to the visiting force.

The country with priority must give sympathetic consideration to a requested waiver when the other country considers the waiver particularly important. There is no requirement to waive jurisdiction, only to consider the request.

Priority to prosecute also differs from physical custody of the accused. Under NATO’s text, when the host country is to prosecute an accused force or civilian component member who is already in the sending country’s hands, the sending country keeps custody until the host charges the person.

For a covered person prosecuted by the host country, the NATO SOFA provides a prompt trial, advance notice of the specific charges and confrontation with prosecution witnesses. It also provides a way to compel witnesses in the accused’s favor to appear, if they are within the host’s jurisdiction, and a choice of counsel, or free or assisted counsel under the host country’s conditions. The accused is entitled to a competent interpreter if they consider one necessary and may communicate with a sending-government representative, whose presence at trial depends on the court’s rules. These safeguards concern the way a local prosecution proceeds; they do not promise an acquittal or replace the local court with an American one.

After an acquittal, pardon, or conviction with the sentence being served or completed, NATO’s agreement bars another party from retrying the same offense in the same territory. It preserves the sending military’s ability to try its force member for a disciplinary violation arising from the same act or omission.

The rules behind everyday overseas life

Which benefits apply depends first on which category of person the agreement covers. The NATO SOFA defines its civilian component as accompanying civilian employees of an armed service, excluding stateless people, nationals of non-NATO states, and host-country nationals or ordinary residents. It defines a dependent as a covered member’s spouse, or a child who depends on that member for support.

The NATO SOFA exempts force members from passport and visa rules and immigration inspection when they enter or leave the host country, subject to the host’s entry and departure formalities. They must present an identity card and movement order on demand. Civilian component members and dependents are to be identified as such in their passports. The military entry exemptions do not create a right to permanent residence or domicile.

In Germany, the Army explains that a SOFA certificate identifies entitlement to entry, exit and benefits under the NATO SOFA and German Supplementary Agreement. Active-duty U.S. military members assigned there present military identity cards and NATO or travel orders. U.S. government civilian employees, Defense Department-sponsored contractors and eligible family members need a SOFA certificate in their passport to show they are legal residents of Germany. The certificate is evidence of a person’s status under the agreements, rather than the international agreement itself. Having that certificate is not enough to settle whether a spouse can take a job or how the earnings will be taxed. Contractors should establish coverage under the applicable country arrangement rather than assume that any work for the military confers status.

The NATO SOFA exempts force and civilian component members from host-country tax on the salary the sending country pays them as members, and on movable property that is in the host country solely because of their temporary presence. It does not prevent the host from taxing a profitable enterprise a member engages in outside that employment, or from collecting other taxes the member owes under the host’s law even as a nonresident, apart from the exempt salary and property. A service-pay exemption is consequently a poor basis for assuming that every household source of income is exempt.

Military OneSource says country-specific agreements can affect military spouse employment and the taxation of earnings. Its guidance directs spouses to free legal assistance for overseas employment and telework rules, starting with the overseas installation’s legal assistance office. Before accepting a job, a spouse should ask that office whether a work permit is needed, whether taking the job affects status privileges, and how the applicable agreement treats the work and income. Working remotely does not remove the need to resolve those country-specific questions.

For covered force and civilian component members, the NATO SOFA requires the host either to accept a sending-country driving license without a test or fee, or to issue its own license without a driving test. It permits temporary duty-free importation of private vehicles for personal use, but does not require exemption from road-use taxes. It also allows covered members to bring personal effects and furniture duty-free at their first arrival to take up service, or at a dependent’s first arrival to join them, for the term of service. The timing and purpose of the import matter; the provision is not an unlimited exemption for every later purchase.

Under the NATO SOFA, force members normally wear uniform and may carry arms only if their orders authorize it; the sending country is to give sympathetic consideration to host-country requests about carrying arms.

Criminal prosecution and compensation for damage are different problems, even when they arise from the same incident. When an official-duty act by a force or civilian component member, or another occurrence the force is legally responsible for, damages a third party in the host country, the NATO SOFA has the host country handle the claim under the laws it applies to claims arising from its own armed forces. Contractual claims and certain other specified claims are excepted.

Why country-specific agreements matter

Japan’s agreement on facilities and the status of U.S. forces was signed January 19, 1960, and entered into force June 23, 1960. South Korea’s was signed July 9, 1966, and entered into force February 9, 1967, with amendments dated January 18, 2001. The State Department’s Treaties in Force lists both among agreements in force on January 1, 2026.

Japan’s agreement grants use of facilities and areas under Article VI of the U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, with specific facilities agreed through a Joint Committee. South Korea’s agreement implements Article IV of the U.S.-Republic of Korea Mutual Defense Treaty. These examples explain why the underlying security treaty and the agreement about personnel should be read together.

Japan’s base text defines dependents to include spouses and children under 21, plus parents and children over 21 who depend on a covered member for more than half their support. That wording differs from NATO’s definition, which is one reason a status decision from one posting should not simply be carried over to another.

Where an offense violates both countries’ laws, the Japan and South Korea texts give U.S. military authorities priority for specified offenses solely against U.S. interests or covered people, and for official-duty acts. Japan and South Korea have the primary right for any other such offense. The mechanism resembles NATO’s, but the details are in each country’s own text and amendments.

A SOFA is not necessarily limited to peacetime: NATO’s agreement remains in force during hostilities covered by the North Atlantic Treaty, subject to its hostilities provisions. Those provisions exclude war damage from specified claims procedures and require immediate review of the agreement’s rules, which the parties may agree to modify. A party may suspend provisions as they apply to itself with 60 days’ notice during such hostilities, followed by consultations on suitable replacement provisions.

For ordinary withdrawal, the NATO SOFA permits a party, after four years from entry into force, to give written notice to the U.S. government, which notifies the other parties. Withdrawal takes effect one year after the notice is received. The agreement then continues for the remaining parties.

How to find the agreement that applies

Start with the State Department’s Treaties in Force: use the country listing to identify the agreement and its amendments, and check the publication’s reference date. The list excludes classified agreements and certain agency-level agreements. The State Department posts the text of international agreements at state.gov/tias and publishes legal-authority information on a separate page. Match the country, full agreement title and publication identifier so that a similarly named security treaty is not mistaken for the personnel-status agreement.

State’s published rules say unclassified international agreements that have entered into force generally will be released on request, while classified agreements are not published. So an agreement can exist even when no public text turns up in an index.

Military OneSource directs service members and families seeking advice on personal legal affairs to the nearest installation Legal Assistance Office and offers a Legal Services Locator. Anyone asking for country-specific advice should bring the agreement’s title and the documents that establish the person’s status.