The Soyiet Status of Forces Agreewents: Legal Limitation or Political Deyices?

• Author: By Lieutenat Colonel George S. Prugh
• Pages: 01

1. 1STRODUCTION

   In the late months of 1956 and during 1957 the CSSR negotiated

   substance the documents may conrain. and to put in proper per-spective the azieements and what they represent.

   Ten years after the end of fighting in Xorld War 11. the USSR had troop3 stationed in four fareign states-Poland, Hunpary, P.umanx, and East Germany (the "German Democratic Republic" or GDR). M'ith The exception of East Germany, the several

   MILITPIRY LAW REVIEW

   People's Republic were bound together with the USSR in a tieht network of bilateral treaties of "friendship, cooperation, ana mutual assistance." providing in peneral for mutual Security anti varying from each other in only slight &pee3 In reality, the concept of mutual Tecurity was hinaed upon the rieht and oblication of the Soviet Army to enter the territories of the People'-Republics and to remain there in case of war or threat of war.4 In 1956 there was superimposed over these bilateral treaties a multilateral one, papularl>- called the U'arsaiv Pact.s a counterpart to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

   The Varaaw Pact contained no prorision concerninp the exercise of jurisdiction. that is. the right to try and determine legal issues arising from the stationing of troops of one state in the territory of another. In truth, no need far such an azreement appeared nece~sary, The bloc nations, each beins under Communist Part? domination, following a philosophy of law siniilar to that of the Soviet Union, and aCti\-ely courting Soviet frlendehip, simply exercised no jurisdiction over the Soviet farces etationed there. Instead, the Soviets apabroad the principle of extraterritorialSoviet law fallooed the troops wherever they were stationed so that they continually remained subject to that law, and only that law was permitted to be applicable to them

   Almost a year and a half passed after The signing of the TVaranw Pact, during which no publicity concerning any need for a base rights or status of forces agreement disturbed the apparent calm of relations between the USSR and its sR*ellite states Then, rapidly. within less than six months, four bh.teral nonrecipracsl status of forces agreement8 were signed by plenipotentiaries of

   a Eg Trealy of Fr.end%hlp. Mutual Aid and Poa:-War Co-operst on Be.

   ship. Co.operation and \Iifual

   R Feb 1948, 48 U N 1

   S 181;utusl Asmtanie Betueer Hungary snd E.S S R,

   Feb 18. 1 9 i B 18

   .S 163, Treaty of FT>endsh>p Co.aperation and .Ilu:ual Aid Betrieen Poland and Hrngary. June 18. 1918. 25 1.N.T S 318; Treaty of Friendihip, Co-operatian snd Mutual A~smanee Betwen Poland and Romaria. Ja1819. 85 U.XT S. 21

   4 Brakes. Leoal Stohci of Soviet T~onps

   ,n Cmirai a,d Enstem Eit (1858) IDraff. Legal Committee. Assembly af Captive European Kat

   L Treaty of Fr,endship, Co-operaf:on and hlvtual Assistance. Hau 14218 U I\' T S 3 This treaty was aimed by Albania, Bulparia, Czechaaiauak the German Democratic Republic. Hungary, Poland. Romaria. and tiie U S S.R Bncf Data onIts S gnificaner. Statui Conslziution. Puipases, and Operations (1960) (Uq-published manuscript. Dickinron College).

   2 *co 60628

   See Gavrilavic, The Wm6aw Tieaid O~gonzrai,on.

   SOVIET SOF AGREEMENTS

   the USSR each with a bloc state where Soviet troops were statmnde

   There instantly arises B question as to why the agreements were entered into to begin with and what purposes they were expected to sene. Do these agreements ln fact establish R formula for tke exercise of jurisdiction to resolve military related lepal questicns arising between the nations concerned, thus creating at least Some degree of lepal limitation upon the L-SSR' Or are these agreements merely political tools, performing political tasks under cover of a treaty of apparent binding force? Are these treaties intended to be realistic statements of effective law' Or do they accomplish some symbolic purpose far more usefol to the Soviets than mere regularization of previously established le~al relationships?

   11. BACKGROL'SD TO THE TREATIES

   4.

   THE DEVELOPVEST OF THE .IIODERS STATES

   OF FORCES TREATIES

   The stationing of troops of one sovereign nation, usu1111y called in modern terms the "aendmg state,'' on the terntory of another, the "host state" or the "receiving state," for substantial periods of peacetime, presents a palsxy of problems which inevitably find their way, in one farm or another, into cour:s of lawi The underlying question in the legal solutions to these problems is the choice of law to apply. for there is far 183s difficulty in determining ahether a particular act or ornissmn is legal within the law of Bcertain state. The choice of law 1s restated as an aspect of the problem of jursdiction, that LL, aho has the right under the circumstances to try and determine the issue.

   The basic rule to determine choice of law involving fareign persons in courts of a host state hinges upon the doctrine of territorial sorereignty.8 That is to say that the host state normally has exclusire jurisdiction o ~ e r all things and persons within its own territory, Subject only to certain exceptions! Under tradi- L See Bkkav, Arg,i,nints on 'tr Legal Statiir o l Sov'lrt Troops Ttniporami~

   -~

   3 Jo rf Resolai!on SOD Below the House Cninmilicr onC a w , 1st Sesi 160 i t ~ e q .

   (1956, 196619 See Ass'" of the Bar ai the City of New York, Camm. on lnt'l I., Report an Sratvs of force^ Agreements (1958).*GO P062B 3

   SOVIET SOF AGREEMENTS

   whether the host s& or the military COUT+B of the sending state

   hare the right to proceed in 8. case, A ''Wa1Tel'~ prov1-don permits either state to yi' t =.e rcise the jurisdic-tion. Another important pronsion is conc&n%kwth the aettlement of claims by persons of one Bide against those of the other.11 Yet others deal with problems of entry and exit, use of realty and facilities, vehicle licensing, taxation, customs laws, currency, and exchange regulations.

   2. SOVIET RELAXATION OF COSTROLSIn 1955 the Soviet Union relaxed their stringent controls over the satellites in what has been called a decompression," or a gradual release of pressure within the restricted bioc area. Others have referred to this chanpe in attitude as the thaw in solid bloc relations. In any event, that year saw a serious effort by the Soviets to find a new formula for relationships within the bloc, to give greater authority to each satelli:e in salving internal prab-lems with diminished Soviet interference. while at the same time preser\-~ng bloc solidarity.

      The Soviets inaccurately measured the "head of steam" that had collected within the bloc. The relaxation of controls was answered by increasing clamor for greater internal freedom. by the voicing of dissident policies, and by revisionism. "The thaw was turning into a deluge." By mid-1956 the Soviets were confronted in several key areas wlth resistance unlike anything they had experienced since the early days of the bloc.

      Swiet response took ~everal forms. Jlilitary power was used to crujh or to persuade by intimidation. Political maneuvers were employed to remove ineffective or unreliable satellite ieaders, substituting in their place obedient Servants or at least acceptable and cooperatire followers, albeit of a nationalistic stripe. Finally, the Soviets made certain concessions in the farm of promises and

      13 NATO SOPA. art Vlll

      14 Dallm. Ihr Sariel Stoke m Eastern Europe. 317 Annals 138-45 (1958). 16 Brzezmski, ~n his valuable buak, The Swat Bloc, Cmtd ond Confliol (1950). wrote: "The Sawets, CO~SCIDYS a i their power posman. yet wantmg to ~ 1 a . e ~ their leader3h.D on a inore reliable bails. were not lirmaril~ m.

      Commun~st aorld. . . Alan, cy September 1985. Sbmet redefiniiians could no longer eantain the developments nurtured by the dissipation of Stalinism and eryrtalliied by the reconciliation with Belgrade. The thaw was turning into a deluge." id. at 205.*GO 8012B 5

      ~

      MILITARY LAB REVIEW

      agreements, the latter category including the status of forces agreement3 of this study.

      111. THE CONTEST OF THE SOVIET STATUS OF FORCES TREATIES

   1. THE MRliAL STATEXEST

      The first agreement. dated in December 1956. war with Poland.16 The other three suickl>- follow& using similar format. Each employed a remarkably simikr pattern of a preliminary joint Statement to The effect that ;he respective government? decided to conclude the arreement and far that purpoae had appointed plenipotentiaries. who were in each case the officials heading the ministries of foieign affairs and defense.

      1. SiioJnritiis

      Aii four treaties recognize the etarioning of Soviet troops as

      being only temporary, reaffirm the swereignty of the satellite, end annoiince that the troops may not interfere in the internal affairs of the bloc members concerned." None of the four treaties refera to the permision far Soviet troop presence being thereby granted. but each presumes such presence.

      Each of the aEreements prorider for coneultation or agreement between the satellite and the USSR resardinp Btrength and places of stationing of the Soviet troops. The satellires are permitted some Yoice regarding military maneurer~of Sovier troops.

      In each agreement, using almost identical language. the Soviet force personnel and members of their families are declared obliged to respect and abide by the locai satellite la\

      The nearing of the military uniform and the carrrinp o by Soviet personnel is authorized in accordance with tt,? pro

      ~~

      I6 Legal Starur of Saviet Forces Temporarily Stationed :n Poland, Dei. 1:. 1956. 2iG U S T S 1% For B chronological table of the Soviet treatlea con. cerning the status of :'leu forces and representative extracts of :bee apreements. 3-e the Appendix to th 3 article

      ''These p ~ m e l ~ l ~ s uere breached early. lmre Nagy, deposed es premier

      in Hvn~ariwhen the Sornet Arm? suppressed his eavernment m November

      4, 1966. sought refwe in the then-frnendly Yuposlaiian Embassy rnder falae pretences he 1>a1 enticed t o leave rhe Embssi. arrested by Saviet soldiers,taken aembs the border to Rumarm and...