Racial Discrimination and Jurisdiction in Status of Forces Agreements

• In Event: Race and Racism in Foreign Policy

Abstract

Why does the United States share jurisdiction under some Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) and not others? As a common framework for military partnerships between countries, SOFAs regulate legal authority over American servicemembers stationed overseas. This paper suggests that racial discrimination within the host country matters to the United States when constraining its extraterritorial reach. In attempt to protect American soldiers from prosecution by foreign courts, the United States may seek to limit exposure of its racially heterogenous forces in host countries that exhibit higher levels of racial discrimination within their court systems. Notwithstanding its own prejudice, the United States attempts to ensure impartiality of judgement through the SOFA. This paper tests the effect of racial discrimination on SOFA jurisdiction while controlling for other plausible explanatory variables. Findings suggest that racial discrimination within host countries shapes the extraterritorial application of American law under the SOFA. Considering the often-overlooked role of racial hierarchy in foreign policy has important theoretical and empirical implications for the study of international politics.

Author

• Bianca Freeman, University of California, San Diego