Nato Status of Forces Agreement Turkey

By December 13, 2020 No Comments

– on the armed forces, ships or aircraft of one of the Contracting Parties, if they are situated in or over those territories or in any other area of Europe where the occupying forces of one of the Contracting Parties were stationed at the time of entry into force of the Treaty, or in the Mediterranean Sea or in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. The presence of armed forces of NATO countries stationed in Germany under a special agreement is governed by the Status of NATO Forces (SOFA) of 19 June 1951 (Agreement between the Contracting Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Status of their Armed Forces, Federal Journal of Laws 1961 II p.1190) and the SOFA Supplementary Agreement of 3 August 1959 (Agreement supplementing the Agreement between the Contracting Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty on the status of their armed forces vis-à-vis the Federal Republic of Germany stationed foreign armed forces, Federal Law Gazette 1961 II p.1218). The supplementary agreement contains detailed regulations on all matters relating to troops stationed in Germany. After German reunification, it was fundamentally revised by the agreement of 18 March 1993 (Federal Law Gazette 1994 II p.2594). Finally, it must be emphasised that the geographical conditions laid down in Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty apply only to the obligation of mutual defence laid down in Article 5 and not to other provisions of the Agreement. As Theodore C. Achilles, one of the early architects of the treaty, pointed out: “There was never the slightest thought in the minds of the authors that [Article 6] should prevent collective planning, maneuvers or operations south of the Tropic of Cancer in the Atlantic Ocean or in any other area important to the security of the parties.” In other words, collective action that is not undertaken under Article 5 of the Treaty can be described as “out of reach”, but it is neither taboo nor ultra vires for NATO. More than 30 Turkish soldiers lost their lives in an airstrike in northeastern Syria on February 27. This is the largest combat loss suffered by Turkish troops since their intervention in the Syrian conflict four years ago. In response to the airstrike, Turkish forces attacked Syrian regime targets, destroying a large number of tanks, helicopters and other military equipment, and killing hundreds of employees. Meanwhile, Russia has sent two frigates equipped with cruise missiles to the Mediterranean. After the end of World War II, the presence of foreign forces in Germany was initially based on the law imposed by the occupying powers. This Regulation ended on 5 May 1955 with the entry into force of the Convention on Relations between the Three Powers and the Federal Republic of Germany of 26 May 1952 (Federal Law Gazette 1955 II p.303).

On 23 October 1954, the Convention on the Presence of Foreign Armed Forces in the Federal Republic of Germany (BGBl. 1955 II p.253) between Germany and eight partners (Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America) a contractual basis for the presence of the armed forces stationed in Germany. This agreement of indefinite duration remains in force even after the conclusion of the Two plus Four Treaty (Treaty on the Definitive Settlement vis-à-vis Germany of 12 September 1990, Federal Law Gazette 1990 II p.1317), but can now be terminated with two years` notice (Exchange of Notes of 25 September 1990, Federal Official Gazette 1990 II p.1390 and 16 November 1990, Federal Official Gazette 1990 II p.1696). In principle, it still does not apply to Berlin, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia (former GDR). An exchange of notes (of 25 September 1990, see Federal Law Gazette 1990 II p.1251, Federal Law Gazette 1994 II p.29, and 12 September 1994, see BGBl. 1994 II p.3716), however, granted the armed forces of France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America, Belgium, Canada and the Netherlands the right to a temporary presence in these new Länder. including the reunified Berlin, if the German authorities agree. In witness whereof, the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Agreement. Done at London, nineteen June 1951, in the English and French languages, each text being equally authentic, in a single original, which shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America shall transmit certified copies thereof to all signatory and acceding States. Although the North Atlantic Treaty was not directed against any particular adversary, its original purpose was to unite its signatories to counter the threat posed by the Soviet Union. To this end, two overarching membership criteria have emerged: NATO should be a community of like-minded nations sharing common democratic ideals, but a country`s inclusion must also have military and strategic meaning.

As a result, NATO was conceived as an organization whose membership is regional rather than potentially universal. As the Washington Paper of September 1948 acknowledged, the first detailed overview of what later became the North Atlantic Treaty: “A boundary must be drawn somewhere” with respect to the geographical scope of NATO and its activities. Finally, this boundary was drawn in the form of Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Article 6 is the only provision of the Agreement that has ever been formally amended. In its original version, as adopted on 4 April 1949, it reads as follows: When discussing the status of the armed forces, a distinction must be made between the legal status of foreign armed forces in Germany and the legal status of German armed forces abroad. The temporary stationing of the armed forces of the Partnership for Peace (PfP) states and other third countries in Germany requires the conclusion of an agreement in accordance with the Law of 20 July 1995 on visiting forces (Federal Law Gazette 1995 II p.554, Federal Law Gazette 2002 II p.2482). . .