ANSWER:
THIS IS THE COUNTRY WHICH HAS ARMED FORCES FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY STATIONED
WITHIN ITS TERRITORY.
QUESTION:
WHAT IS THE "SENDING STATE?"
ANSWER:
THIS IS THE COUNTRY WHICH HAS ITS ARMED FORCES STATIONED IN SOME OTHER
COUNTRY.
2.
Criminal jurisdiction.
A SOFA covers soldiers, civilian employees, and dependents. These, of course,
are the categories of persons the sending state sends into the receiving state.
Civilian employees are defined as "the civilian component" i.e., U.S. nationals and
U.S. citizens employed by or under contract with the United States.
a. Exclusive jurisdiction.
The receiving state is given exclusive
jurisdiction over U.S. military personnel, members of the civilian component, and
dependents with respect to conduct which violates the law of the receiving state
but not the law of the sending state (U.S.).
The U.S. would have exclusive
jurisdiction over conduct which violates U.S. law, but not the law of the receiving
state.
This would include military offenses under the UCMJ, including disrespect
to and disobedience of commissioned, warrant, and noncommissioned officers.
QUESTION:
CAN THE U.S. ALWAYS PROSECUTE ONE OF ITS CITIZENS WHO COMMITS A CRIME
OVERSEAS?
ANSWER:
NO.
AS WE SHALL SOON SEE, A SOLDIER CAN BE COURT-MARTIALED NO MATTER
WHERE HIS CRIME OCCURRED.
IF THE OFFENDER IS A CIVILIAN, HOWEVER, THE
U.S. CAN PROSECUTE ONLY IF THE CRIME APPLIES EXTRATERRITORIALLY.
b. Concurrent jurisdiction.
Most crimes committed overseas by our soldiers
fall into this category.
Within the United States, concurrent jurisdiction means
that both the federal and state governments can prosecute (since the laws of both
were violated). Overseas, this term means that both the United States and the host
nation can prosecute (since the laws of both were violated).
QUESTION:
CAN THE RECEIVING AND SENDING STATE BOTH PROSECUTE SOMEONE FOR THE SAME
CRIME?
ANSWER:
THIS IS NOT REALLY A DOUBLE JEOPARDY PROBLEM, AS THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE
SOVEREIGNS.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT MOST SOFAs PROVIDE THAT
ONCE A PERSON HAS BEEN PUNISHED OR ACQUITTED BY THE COURTS OF ONE NATION,
HE MAY NOT THEN BE TRIED BY THE OTHER NATION.
QUESTION:
IN CASES OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHO GETS THE
CASE?
1-29
MP1018
Previous Page
