On December 16, 2010, the Obama administration declared, as part of its annual Afghanistan-Pakistan review, that it remained committed, as a member of the NATO coalition, to a long-term partnership with Afghanistan.62 whether the United States intends to conclude strategic and security agreements. as in Iraq during the announced transition period. The deadly attacks on Afghan civilians, allegedly carried out by a U.S. soldier, have raised questions about the status of the U.S.-Afghanistan forces agreement, which would determine whether Afghan law would apply in these circumstances. SOFAs are multilateral or bilateral agreements that generally define the framework within which the United States operates military personnel in a foreign country and the national legislation of foreign jurisdiction with respect to U.S. personnel in that country. In Wilson v. Girard,76 The Supreme Court first considered the jurisdiction provisions contained in the administrative agreement. The Court of Justice did not note this and stated that “in the absence of such interventions, the wisdom of the agreement applies exclusively to the determination of the executive and the legislative power”. 79 Prior to the current security agreements between the United States and Japan, countries concluded a security treaty in 195272 and an accompanying administrative agreement.73 The administrative agreement concerned, inter alia, the jurisdiction of the United States over offences committed in Japan by members of the United States. . .

.