Subject to agreements and arrangements already in force which may be concluded or concluded between the authorized representatives of the sending State and the host State after the entry into force of this Agreement, the authorities of the host State shall assume exclusive responsibility for making appropriate arrangements for making available to units, formations or other facilities the buildings and land required by them; and related facilities and services. Such agreements and arrangements shall, as far as possible, comply with the provisions on accommodation and placement of units, training or other similar entities of the host Member State. A Forces Agreement (SOFA) is an agreement between a host country and a foreign nation that deploys armed forces in that country. SOFAs are often part of a comprehensive security agreement with other types of military agreements. A SOFA is not a safety device; it establishes the rights and privileges of foreign personnel who set up in a host country to support the strengthening of security measures.  Under international law, a status-of-force agreement differs from military occupation. 4. The provisions of this Agreement shall be without prejudice to the rights and obligations of the Parties under international agreements and other international instruments establishing international tribunals, including the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.7 Where third countries participate in activities to which this Agreement applies, the agreements or arrangements governing such participation may include a provision that this Agreement shall also apply to those third countries in the context of those activities. The political issue of SOFAs is complicated by the fact that many host countries have mixed feelings about foreign bases on their soil, and calls to renegotiate SOFA are often combined with calls for foreign troops to withdraw completely. While the United States and host countries generally agree on what a crime is, many U.S. observers believe that the host country`s justice systems give defendants much weaker protection than the United States and that the courts of the host country may be subject to popular pressure to render a guilty verdict; In addition, U.S. soldiers who have been sent abroad should not be forced to give up the rights conferred on them by the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, observers from the host country, who have no local equivalent to the Bill of Rights, often feel that it is an unrelated excuse to demand special treatment and resembles the extraterritorial agreements demanded by Western countries during colonialism.
. . .