Visiting Forces Agreement Effect

Under Article V of the agreement, the custody of U.S. personnel whose case falls under Philippine jurisdiction must « immediately reside with the U.S. military authorities if they wish » from the time the crime was committed, until all legal proceedings are completed. However, U.S. military authorities make the accused available to the Philippine authorities « in a timely manner for investigations or judicial proceedings related to the offence. » The United States could also take the opportunity to renegotiate a new, better-value agreement with the Philippines – one that meets President Duterte`s goal of being strong against the United States and the other that gives President Trump the opportunity to mark another important deal, this time a defense deal, with its unique footprint that could advance U.S. interests for years. The VFA provides for rules on the entry and exit of U.S. personnel to the Philippines, the transfer of military ships and aircraft, and the importation and export of equipment and goods related to the activities covered by the agreement. A Visiting Agreement (VFA) is an agreement between a country and a foreign nation visiting military forces in that country. The agreements on visiting forces are similar in the intention of obtaining the agreements on the armed forces (SOFA). A VFA usually covers forces that are temporarily visiting, while a CANAPÉ usually covers forces in the host country as well as visiting missions.

The political issue of the VFA is complicated by the fact that many host countries have mixed feelings about foreign troops on their soil and that the VFA`s renegotiation requests are often linked to requests for the total withdrawal of foreign troops. Questions of different national practices may arise. Many American observers believe, for example, that the host country`s judicial systems provide much lower protection for defendants than the host country`s courts may be under pressure from the public to commit guilt; In addition, U.S. service members who are invited to send shipments abroad should not be forced to waive their rights under the U.S. Bulletin of Rights. On the other hand, observers of the host country who do not have a local equivalent of the law of rights often feel that these are irrelevant excuses for seeking special treatment and resemble the extraterritorial agreements demanded by Western countries during the colonial period. A host country where such a state of mind is widespread, South Korea, itself has forces in Kyrgyzstan and has negotiated a SOFA that gives its members full immunity from prosecution by the Kyrgyz authorities for any crime[1] something that goes far beyond the privileges that many South Koreans, in the couch of their nation , blame the United States. [Citation required] the VFA can become an important political issue after crimes allegedly committed by members of the visiting service. This is especially true when it comes to serious crimes such as theft, murder, manslaughter or sexual crime, especially when the charge is defined differently between the two nations.

For example, in 2005, four U.S. Marines were charged in the Philippines with raping a native woman they had been drinking with. As the incident had nothing to do with the military duties of the accused, they were charged under Philippine law before a Philippine court that convicted one of the accused and acquitted the others. The VFA must clarify the conditions under which foreign military personnel can operate. In general, a VFA deals primarily with legal issues relating to military individuals and property. This may include issues such as entry and departure, tax obligations, postal services or the conditions of employment of nationals of the host country, but the most controversial issues are the civil and criminal competences of visiting staff.

Ce contenu a été publié dans Non classé. Vous pouvez le mettre en favoris avec ce permalien.

Les commentaires sont fermés.