Menu

Visiting Forces Agreement Labor

The Philippines is a contractual ally of the United States with several military agreements that depend on the VFA, which provides the legal framework for which Washington troops can operate on a rotational basis in the Southeast Asian country. Apart from this reading of the tea leaves, Duterte cannot in principle have a single discretion to decide the fate of the VFA. Senior leaders in the Philippine Senate, particularly the president of the Senate, an ally of Duterte, have launched a petition asking the Supreme Court to ascertain whether Duterte has the unilateral power to denounce the deal. The petition calls for the executive and the legislature to agree on such a decision. Despite the court decision, President Salvador Panelo`s spokesman said: « We will follow the Supreme Court. No matter what the law says, we will follow. However, the Supreme Court tends to favour Duterte. Duterte`s cabinet also appear to have serious reservations about his VFA decision. They tried to discuss their concerns with him cautiously, but they understood that they probably will not change their minds. In order to make their views more attractive, they probably tried to emphasize the importance of the VFA for maintaining assistance to U.S. special forces in the fight against terrorist operations in the southern Philippines against the jihadists. 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 sentiment is widespread, South Korea, itself has forces in Kyrgyzstan and has negotiated a SOFA that grants 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, on the couch of their nation , have challenged the United States. What will happen to other military treaties and agreements with the United States? For many American observers, the fact that most of the criminals charged are ultimately charged in a local court and convicted that the system works; for some observers in the host country, it reinforces the perception that the VFA protects the culprits and makes the exceptions more egregious. 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. In civil matters, the VFA provides for the identification and payment of civilian damage caused by the armed forces. Criminal issues vary, but the typical provision in the VFA is that U.S. military courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed either by a serving member against another serving member or by a serving member as part of his or her military duty, but the host country retains jurisdiction for other crimes.