4. Each Government shall waive all claims against the other Government for the violation or death suffered by a member of its armed forces while that member has held office. Due to the limitation of facilities in certain areas of the Territories and the problems that an influx of dependants could cause, the entry of dependants will be the subject of an agreement between the competent authorities of the two Governments. AGREE that they shall subsequently enter into negotiations with a view to concluding a mutual agreement governing the status of the armed forces of each Government in the territory of the other Government. While the U.S. military has the largest foreign presence and therefore represents the largest number of SOFAs, Britain, France, Australia, Germany,[2] Italy, Russia, Spain, and many other nations also deploy armed forces abroad and negotiate SOFAs with their host countries. In the past, the Soviet Union had SOFAs with most of its satellite states. While most U.S. SOAs are public, some remain secret. [3] (b) The arbitrator referred to in point (a) of this paragraph shall be chosen by mutual agreement between the two Governments from among the nationals of Australia who hold or have held a senior judicial office.

The Committee on Food and Fisheries has adopted measures to establish a system for the recognition of human and human rights in the context of the implementation of the Human rights and Human Rights Act. An analysis of Australian national interests in a proposed status-of-forces agreement, described as a sofa, aims to clarify the conditions under which the foreign military can operate. As a rule, purely military and operational matters, such as the location of bases and access to facilities, are covered by separate agreements. A SOFA focuses more on legal issues related to military persons and property. This may include issues such as entry and exit into the country, tax obligations, postal services or the conditions of employment of nationals of the host country, but the most controversial issues are civil and criminal justice on bases and personnel. For civil cases, SOFAs provide for how civilian damages caused by the armed forces are identified and paid. Criminal problems vary, but the typical provision in U.S. SOFAs is that U.S. courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed either by a soldier against another soldier or by a soldier as part of his or her military duty, but the host country retains jurisdiction over other crimes. [4] (3) Ships of the United States Armed Forces that use port facilities owned by the Australian Government are not subject to tolls, including lighter tolls and port charges, and such ships are not subject to the requirement to pilotage in those ports. .

. .