Return to Answer

According to one commentator, the [1951] NATO SOFA (which the US part of) is probably it overall. Just checking what it says about crimes seems to fit too:

Article VII 1. b. the authorities of the receiving State shall have jurisdiction over the members of a force or civilian component and their dependents with respect to offences committed within the territory of the receiving State and punishable by the law of that State.

However the US rarely deploys troops in sizeable numbers to a NATO country without some additional agreements, so this answer may not be entirely satisfactory as it's not about a bilateral (but rather multilateral) agreement.

Also, even that article VII is rather long, and if one peruses it, other paragraphs add exceptions to 1. b., e.g.

3. In case where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent the following rules shall apply:

a. The military authorities of the sending State shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over a member of a force or of a civilian component in relation to

i. offences solely against the property or security of that State, or offences solely against the person or property of another member of the force or civilian component of that State or of a dependent;

ii. offences arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.

FWTW, a somewhat obscure point is that the NATO SOFA retroactively covers al PfP (Partnership of Peace) countries [by the latter agreements], not just the core NATO members.

According to one commentator, the [1951] NATO SOFA (which the US part of) is probably it overall. Just checking what it says about crimes seems to fit too:

Article VII 1. b. the authorities of the receiving State shall have jurisdiction over the members of a force or civilian component and their dependents with respect to offences committed within the territory of the receiving State and punishable by the law of that State.

However the US rarely deploys troops in sizeable numbers to a NATO country without some additional agreements, so this answer may not be entirely satisfactory as it's not about a bilateral (but rather multilateral) agreement.

Also, even that article VII is rather long, and if one peruses it, other paragraphs add exceptions to 1. b., e.g.

3. In case where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent the following rules shall apply:

a. The military authorities of the sending State shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over a member of a force or of a civilian component in relation to

i. offences solely against the property or security of that State, or offences solely against the person or property of another member of the force or civilian component of that State or of a dependent;

ii. offences arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.

FWTW, a somewhat obscure point is that the NATO SOFA nowadays covers al PfP (Partnership of Peace) countries [by the latter agreements], not just the core NATO members.

According to one commentator, the [1951] NATO SOFA (which the US part of) is probably it overall. Just checking what it says about crimes seems to fit too:

Article VII 1. b. the authorities of the receiving State shall have jurisdiction over the members of a force or civilian component and their dependents with respect to offences committed within the territory of the receiving State and punishable by the law of that State.

However the US rarely deploys troops in sizeable numbers to a NATO country without some additional agreements, so this answer may not be entirely satisfactory as it's not about a bilateral (but rather multilateral) agreement.

Also, even that article VII is rather long, and if one peruses it, other paragraphs add exceptions to 1. b., e.g.

3. In case where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent the following rules shall apply:

a. The military authorities of the sending State shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over a member of a force or of a civilian component in relation to

i. offences solely against the property or security of that State, or offences solely against the person or property of another member of the force or civilian component of that State or of a dependent;

ii. offences arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.

According to one commentator, the [1951] NATO SOFA (which the US part of) is probably it overall. Just checking what it says about crimes seems to fit too:

Article VII 1. b. the authorities of the receiving State shall have jurisdiction over the members of a force or civilian component and their dependents with respect to offences committed within the territory of the receiving State and punishable by the law of that State.

However the US rarely deploys troops in sizeable numbers to a NATO country without some additional agreements, so this answer may not be entirely satisfactory as it's not about a bilateral (but rather multilateral) agreement.

Also, even that article VII is rather long, and if one peruses it, other paragraphs add exceptions to 1. b., e.g.

3. In case where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent the following rules shall apply:

a. The military authorities of the sending State shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over a member of a force or of a civilian component in relation to

i. offences solely against the property or security of that State, or offences solely against the person or property of another member of the force or civilian component of that State or of a dependent;

ii. offences arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.

FWTW, a somewhat obscure point is that the NATO SOFA retroactively covers al PfP (Partnership of Peace) countries [by the latter agreements], not just the core NATO members.

According to one commentator, the [1951] NATO SOFA (which the US part of) is probably it overall. Just checking what it says about crimes seems to fit too:

Article VII b. the authorities of the receiving State shall have jurisdiction over the members of a force or civilian component and their dependents with respect to offences committed within the territory of the receiving State and punishable by the law of that State.

However the US rarely deploys troops in sizeable numbers to a NATO country without some additional agreements, so this answer may not be entirely satisfactory as it's not about a bilateral (but rather multilateral) agreement.

According to one commentator, the [1951] NATO SOFA (which the US part of) is probably it overall. Just checking what it says about crimes seems to fit too:

Article VII 1. b. the authorities of the receiving State shall have jurisdiction over the members of a force or civilian component and their dependents with respect to offences committed within the territory of the receiving State and punishable by the law of that State.

However the US rarely deploys troops in sizeable numbers to a NATO country without some additional agreements, so this answer may not be entirely satisfactory as it's not about a bilateral (but rather multilateral) agreement.

Also, even that article VII is rather long, and if one peruses it, other paragraphs add exceptions to 1. b., e.g.

3. In case where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent the following rules shall apply:

a. The military authorities of the sending State shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over a member of a force or of a civilian component in relation to

i. offences solely against the property or security of that State, or offences solely against the person or property of another member of the force or civilian component of that State or of a dependent;

ii. offences arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.