While NATO SOFA offers complete language for establishing jurisdiction, the United States has registered many SOFS that seem to have a very fundamental rule for determining jurisdiction. Some agreements contain a single sentence that U.S. personnel must grant equivalent status to the administrative and technical staff of the U.S. Embassy in that country. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961 establishes classes of personnel of different levels of legal protection.30 Administrative and technical personnel benefit in particular from the “immunity of the criminal jurisdiction of the host state”. 31 Therefore, a SOFA that treats U.S. personnel as administrative and technical personnel while in the host country grants immunity from criminal jurisdiction. There is agreement on the status of U.S. Department of Defense military and civilian personnel in Afghanistan as part of cooperation efforts in terrorism, humanitarian and civic assistance, military training and exercises, and other activities.45 These personnel must be granted “equivalent status to the administrative and technical personnel” of the U.S. Embassy. , in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in Vienna of 1961.46.
, U.S. personnel are immune from criminal prosecution by the Afghan authorities, and are immune from civil and administrative jurisdiction, except for acts committed outside its duties.47 In the agreement, the Interim Islamic Administration of Afghanistan (ITGA)48 explicitly authorizes the U.S. government to exercise criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel, and the Government of Afghanistan is not authorized to transfer U.S. personnel to the custody of another state. , international tribunal or any other institution without the approval of the U.S. government. Although the agreement was signed by ITGA, the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, subsequently elected, assumed responsibility for ITGA`s legal obligations and the agreement remains in force. The agreement does not appear to create immunity for contract staff. There has been some controversy as to whether, on behalf of the United States, these agreements could be duly registered by the executive branch without the participation of Congress.121 Security agreements that allow the United States to take military steps to defend another country have generally been ratified as treaties.122 It could be argued that the security agreement that the United States envisions , conducting military operations in Iraq and possibly protecting the Iraqi government from external or domestic security threats. , requires congressional approval to be legally binding after the United States.