AN EXPLORATION IN INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE LEGAL GEOGRAPHY: MILITARY STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENTS (SOFAs), SEXUAL VIOLENCE, AND JURISDICTION

Abstract

Laws and legal practices have long shaped physical space, demarcated acceptable bodies and behaviors in place(s), and determined our rights, privileges, protections, and movements. Often, when we speak of “Law,” we speak of it philosophically asking abstract conceptual questions like “What is law?”, or, we approach law through normative questions regarding the relationship between morality and law. These questions, while important, have a tendency to homogenize or simplify law; however, by looking at legal interpretation and legal practices we can begin to understand the material impacts, the uneven legal geographies created by jurisdictional allocation and rules, and the heterogeneity of legal experiences. Utilizing a critical legal geography framework, I examine the contingencies and constraints of spatial justice in cases of rape and sexual assault of civilians by military personnel housed extraterritorially outside of direct conflict areas. The continued presence of foreign military personnel housed extraterritorially in times of peace is a relatively new phenomenon beginning in the middle of the 20th century and most often justified through a discourse of security. The long-term stationing of foreign forces requires legal instruments outlining and defining the rights, privileges, and immunities of these forces while in the territory of the host state. Crucially, these legal agreements, or Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs), outline the jurisdictional allocation of criminal offenses committed by foreign forces while in a host state. To explore the material and spatial aspects of the different ways in which jurisdictional allocation is structured I utilized an exploratory, non-linear case study approach of three SOFAs: the UN SOFA in Haiti 2011-2014, the Japan-US SOFA in Okinawa 1945-2016, and the NATO SOFA specially in regard to US troops stationed in Germany, Italy, and the UK from 1990-2016. Each of the three cases was examined through a critical legal geography framework with attention paid to forms of social power and the impact of such forces on the achievement of justice for survivors of sexual assault crimes. As each case differed considerably historically, socially, and spatially, different forms of analysis were used within each case as deemed appropriate, including chronotope analysis and informational interviews with legal practitioners to fully explore the ways in which spatial justice is achieved or constrained for sexual assault and rape survivors.