U.S. Personnel Status Agreement (T.I.A.S.), citing a Military Support Agreement (6 U.S.T. 2107), City Treaty of Rio (62 Stat 1681) 1956: Agreement on the Status of U.S. Forces in Greece The following sections offer a historical perspective on the inclusion of a SOFA within the framework of the united States` comprehensive bilateral security agreements with Afghanistan Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. Agreements may include a standalone sofa or other chords, including protective measures that are usually related to a sofa. The ANA Trust Fund is one of four funding streams used to channel financial assistance to Afghan security forces and institutions. The other three are the Public Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan (LOTFA), managed by the United Nations Development Programme; United States Security Fund of Afghanistan (ASFF); and the Afghan government`s commitment to allocate $500 million per year as it strives to increase this amount each year until it is able to financially support its own armed forces. LOTFA is used to pay the salaries of police and justice staff and set up the capacity of the Ministry of the Interior. ASFF is subject to a bilateral agreement between the United States and Afghanistan and pays for the equipment and thinking of the Afghan security forces. In 1968, two years after the signing of SOFA between the countries, a member of the US Army in Smallwood v. Clifford90 asserted that the US authorities did not have the legitimate authority to send him back to the Republic of Korea, in accordance with the jurisdictional rules contained in the agreement, to bring him to justice by a Korean court for murder and arson.91 The member of the service claimed that he was in the Republic of Korea.
agreement was not approved in a “constitutionally acceptable” manner. 92 He asserted that U.S. domestic law stated that international foreign jurisdictional agreements concerning U.S. forces deployed abroad were “either explicitly or tacitly approved by the [United States]. Senate. 93 The Tribunal found that sofa had the effect of reducing the role of the Republic of Korea in enforcing its own legislation and that the United States had not waived jurisdiction for offences committed on its own territory. Therefore, ratification by the Senate is “clearly unnecessary” because Senate approval “would not affect the allocation of powers by the Republic of Korea, which the United States cannot rightly claim.” 94 The text of the treaty gives the United States full legal jurisdiction for U.S. troops and Department of Defense civilians working in Afghanistan.  With respect to troop immunity, it states that Afghanistan has the “exclusive right to exercise the jurisdiction” of members of the force and its civilian component “with respect to all criminal or civilian offences committed on the territory of Afghanistan” and that “Afghanistan authorizes the United States to prosecute civil and criminal proceedings in such cases.” , or, if necessary, to take further disciplinary action on the territory of Afghanistan.” “, but the Afghan authorities can demand that everyone be evacuated from the country.
 Afghan authorities are prohibited from arresting U.S. troops or American civilians working with them. But should this happen “for some reason,” “these employees will be immediately turned over to U.S. authorities.”  The agreement also provides that U.S. troops and civilians cannot be transferred to an “international tribunal or another state” without express permission from the United States. Afghanistan, it is said, retains legal responsibility for civilian contractors, and contractors are prohibited from wearing military uniforms and “can only carry weapons in accordance with Afghan laws and regulations.”  1971: Agreement on the deployment of the United States Middle East Force (22 U.S.T.