The political issue of SOFA is complicated by the fact that many host countries have mixed feelings about foreign bases on their soil and that SOFA renegotiation requests are often linked to calls for a total withdrawal of foreign troops. Issues of different national practices may arise – while the United States and host countries in general agree on what constitutes a crime, many American observers believe that the host country`s judicial systems offer much lower protection than the United States and that the host country`s courts may be under pressure from the public to be found guilty; In addition, U.S. service members who are invited to send shipments abroad should not be forced to waive their rights under the Rights Act. On the other hand, observers of the host country who do not have a local equivalent of the law of rights often feel that these are irrelevant excuses for special treatment and resemble the extraterritorial agreements demanded by Western countries during colonialism. A host country where such sentiment is widespread, South Korea, itself has forces in Kyrgyzstan and has negotiated a SOFA that gives its members total immunity from prosecution by the Kyrgyz authorities for any crime, which goes far beyond the privileges that many South Koreans enter into their country`s couch with the United States.  The United States has entered into SOFAs whose authority underpinning the agreement is a treaty ratified by the United States Senate. In 1960132, the United States included with Japan a SOFA under the entry into force of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security133, which was previously concluded between the countries. In addition, in 1967134, the United States included with Korea a SOFA under the authority of Article V of the mutual defence treaty previously concluded between the two countries.135 While NATO SOFA offers complete language for establishing jurisdiction, the United States has registered many SOFS that appear to have a very fundamental rule for determining jurisdiction. Some agreements contain a single sentence that U.S. personnel must grant equivalent status to the administrative and technical staff of the U.S.
Embassy in that country. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961 establishes classes of personnel of different levels of legal protection.30 Administrative and technical personnel benefit in particular from the “immunity of the criminal jurisdiction of the host state”. 31 Therefore, a SOFA that treats U.S. personnel as administrative and technical personnel while in the host country grants immunity from criminal jurisdiction. An agreement on visiting forces resembles an agreement on the status of the armed forces, with the exception of the first, which only temporarily covers intervention forces in a country that does not reside there. NATO SOFA is a multilateral agreement applicable between all NATO member countries. Since June 2007, 26 countries, including the United States, have either ratified the agreement or joined it by joining NATO.9 In addition, 24 other countries are subject to NATO`s SOFA by participating in the NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme. 11 The various pfP countries are committed to meeting NATO SOFA12 conditions through NATO SOFA and NATO, and the United States has a common couch with about 58 countries.