NATO SOFA. The United Kingdom considers that the Russian statement purports to modify the legal effect of the Partnership for Peace Agreement in its application to the Russian Federation in respect of Article VII(4) of the NATO SOFA which applies to the Russian Federation by virtue of Article I of the Partnership for Peace Agreement. It is accordingly a reservation. The United Kingdom objects because it purports to create a new right for the Russian Federation under the Partnership for Peace Agreement.
NATO SOFA. It therefore constitutes a reservation to which Sweden objects. In this context, Sweden recalls its reservation of November 13, 1996, regarding jurisdiction in the receiving State [see footnote 10]. “Further regarding Article XI. The references to Russian national legislation aim to make the Partnership for Peace Agreement subject to national Russian legislation. The Russian Statement would seem to seek to modify the legal effect of the Partnership for Peace Agreement in its application to the Russian Federation in respect of Article XI NATO SOFA. It thus constitutes a reservation to which Sweden objects. “The Statement also presumes certified translation into the Russian language of documents and materials appended to them. This would constitute an additional obligation for the other Parties to the Partnership for Peace Agreement and would seem to seek to modify the legal effect of the Partnership for Peace Agreement in its application to the Russian Federation. It thus constitutes a reservation to which Sweden objects. “The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Russian Federation to the Agreement among the States Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty and Other States Participating in the Partnership for Peace regarding the Status of their Forces and the Additional Protocol thereto. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Partnership for Peace Agreement and the Additional Protocol thereto between the Russian Federation and Sweden, as modified by the reservation made by Sweden. The Partnership for Peace Agreement and the Additional Protocol thereto enters into force between the Russian Federation and Sweden without the Russian Federation benefiting from its reservation. “The Embassy of Sweden avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the United States Department of State the assurances of its highest consideration.” From the United States, received September 12, 2008: “The Government of the United States of America has examined the statement submitted by the Russian Federation with its instrument of ratification on August 28, 2007, concerning the 1995 Agreement Among the States Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty and the Other States Participating in the Partnership for Peace Regarding the Status of their Forces (hereinafter the PfP SOFA) and the Additional Protocol thereto. In its statement, the Russian Federation states that it sets forth its understanding of the provisions of the Agree...
NATO SOFA. The United Kingdom is concerned by the breadth of the Russian statement in respect of Article VII(2c) NATO SOFA. To the extent that any offences directed against the foundations of the Russian constitutional system and security go wider than those which can be considered to fall within Article VII(2c), the United Kingdom considers that the statement modifies the legal effect of the Partnership for Peace Agreement in its application to the Russian Federation in respect of Article VII(2c) of the NATO SOFA which applies to the Russian Federation by virtue of Article I of the Partnership for Peace Agreement and amounts to a reservation. The United Kingdom objects to the statement on the basis that it appears very wide in scope and does not clearly define for the other Parties to the Partnership for Peace Agreement the scope of the list of offences applying in the case of the Russian Federation.
NATO SOFA. If the Russian statement is to be understood to seek the addition of offences to those which otherwise might fall within the scope of Article VII (2) c of the NATO SOFA, the Government of Sweden considers that the statement would seek to modify the legal effect of the Partnership for Peace Agreement in its application to the Russian Federation. It thus constitutes a reservation to which Sweden objects.
NATO SOFA. The Government of Sweden is concerned about the wide scope of application of this Russian presumption, which would seem to seek to widen the field of Russian jurisdiction and thus modify the legal effect of the Partnership for Peace Agreement in its application to the Russian Federation in respect of Article VII (4)
NATO SOFA. A GERMAN PERSPECTIVE 46 trative law, acts of a government agency in its official capacity are attributed to the state. This “official act” will be lawful only if specific authority under administrative law exists. The acting person may invoke civil law rules of self-defense exclu- sively in proceedings to establish his or her personal liability under criminal or civil law. Even if these rules are invoked successfully, the “official act” will remain unlawful unless the official actor has authority to perform the act under adminis- trative In contrast to all federal and state police acts, the 1966 Act contains no clause allowing the “official” recourse to self-de- fense. This puts the acting service member in legal limbo. Thus far, the courts have managed to avoid resolving this question.
NATO SOFA. A PERSPECTWE 47 from country to country. Second, differences in technical terms exist. For instance, self-defense is a valid defense in Germany only if the perceived threat actually exists. An honest mistake of fact that prompts an individual to intervene, will not render his or her action lawful. Mistakes of fact are addressed as a matter of personal Therefore, German law divides crim- inal responsibility into the “factual” question of lawfulness and the “personal” question of guilt. As to actions of state officers in their official capacities, German administrative law concentrates exclusively on the “factual” lawfulness of the ac- tion. This construction is inconsequential in criminal and civil proceedings, in which the personal responsibility of the officer is in question. The implications, however, should be clear con- cerning suits against the state. By contrast, under Anglo-American common-law rules, self- defense is a valid defense if an honest mistake of fact These rules combine both problems by asking whether the force used was “reasonable under the and by giving a single answer. This construction may lead to problems of mutual misunderstanding on account of different legal tradi- tions. Because the law of the land cannot apply “out of area,” United Kingdom authorities assume that British common-law rules do not apply in Germany, while German civil-law rules apply by way of articles 12 and 20. Accordingly, sepa- rate regulations have been issued with no serious differences in practice.
NATO SOFA. Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the Status of their Forces, done in London on 19 June 1951;
