1998: Temporary participation in Ghana under ACRI and other activities that can be agreed by two governments in the year 2000: additional agreement, separate from ACRI, which is for people who are temporarily staying in Ghana as part of humanitarian aid operations in southern Africa, has a status specific to the armed forces with the Afghan government in the form of an annex to a military technical agreement entitled „Arrangements on the Status of the International Security Assistance Force.“ The agreement provides that all ISAF members and support staff are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their respective national criminal or disciplinary elements and that such personnel are immune from arrest or detention by the Afghan authorities and cannot be handed over to an international tribunal or other body or another state without the explicit consent of the contributing country. In 2003, NATO took command of ISAF in Afghanistan. A SOFA is not a mutual defence agreement or a security agreement and generally does not authorize any specific exercise, activity or mission. SOFAs are peace documents and therefore do not deal with the rules of war, the laws of armed conflict or the laws of the sea. The existence of a SOFA does not affect or diminish the inherent right of the parties to self-defence under martial law. In the event of an armed conflict between the parties to a SOFA, the terms of the agreement would no longer be applicable. In addition, the service member stated that the Constitution and the Single Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 95 provide the only methods of examining soldiers abroad and that they cannot be amended by an executive agreement.96 The court held that the premise was true only if there was no violation of the laws of foreign jurisdiction. In the event of a violation of the criminal laws of the foreign jurisdiction, the main jurisdiction belongs to that country and the provisions of the UCMJ apply only if the foreign nation expressly or implicitly renounces its jurisdiction.97 In support of its decision, the court invoked the Wilson principle,98 that the primary right of jurisdiction belongs to the nation in the territory of which the service member commits the crime. The United States has closed SOFA with countries to support specific activities or exercises. In general, these agreements are concluded in support of a joint military exercise or humanitarian initiative. SOFA will contain a language that limits the scope of the agreement to specific activity, but there is sometimes the language that extends the agreement to other activities, as agreed by both countries. Agreements are not based on a treaty or a measure of Congress; Rather, they are exclusive executive agreements.

In 1947, the United States and the Republic of the Philippines entered into a military aid agreement.99 The agreement lasted five years, effective July 4, 1946, and provided that the United States would provide the Philippines with military assistance for the training and development of the armed forces. The agreement was established for an advisory group of advice and assistance in the Philippines, as approved by the U.S. Congress.100 The agreement was renewed and amended for a new five-year period in 1953.101 The political issue of soFAs is complicated by the fact that many host countries have mixed feelings about foreign bases on their soil and that requests for newborns are often linked to requests for the total withdrawal of foreign troops.