If a crime is committed off-base in a foreign country, does host nation jurisdiction or UCMJ jurisdiction take precedence, and does SOFA status change that?

It depends on the agreement in force and on the offense. Under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, the model this page uses, an act that is a crime under only one country’s law falls in that country’s exclusive jurisdiction. When it is a crime under both, the jurisdiction is concurrent, and the agreement assigns a “primary right”: the United States has it for offenses solely against U.S. property or security, offenses solely against other members of the U.S. force or their dependents, and offenses arising out of official duty; the host nation has it for everything else, which covers off-base offenses against local people or property that did not arise out of official duty. The country with the primary right can waive it, and once a member has been tried by one country, the other cannot try the member again for the same offense in that territory, though U.S. military authorities can still try violations of rules of discipline arising from the same act.

Exclusive jurisdiction

Article VII(2) of the NATO SOFA gives “exclusive jurisdiction” to:

• the sending state’s military authorities “with respect to offences, including offences relating to its security, punishable by the law of the sending State, but not by the law of the receiving State”; and
• the receiving state “with respect to offences, including offences relating to the security of that State, punishable by its law but not by the law of the sending state.”

Purely military offenses, such as unauthorized absence, are punishable only under U.S. military law, so the United States has exclusive jurisdiction over them.

Concurrent jurisdiction and the primary right

Where both countries’ laws make the act a crime, Article VII(3) applies. The sending state has “the primary right to exercise jurisdiction” over a member in relation to:

• “offences solely against the property or security of that State, or offences solely against the person or property of another member of the force or civilian component of that State or of a dependent”; and
• “offences arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.”

“In the case of any other offence the authorities of the receiving State shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction.” An off-base assault on a local national, a theft from a local business, or a traffic death involving local victims falls in that category unless it arose out of official duty.

Waiver and notice

The primary right is not exclusive. Under Article VII(3)(c), “If the State having the primary right decides not to exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the other State as soon as practicable,” and “The authorities of the State having the primary right shall give sympathetic consideration to a request from the authorities of the other State for a waiver of its right in cases where that other state considers such waiver to be of particular importance.” The question, then, is whether the host nation exercises its right or waives it in favor of the United States.

No second trial for the same offense

Article VII(8): “Where an accused has been tried in accordance with the provisions of this Article by the authorities of one Contracting Party and has been acquitted, or has been convicted and is serving, or has served, his sentence or has been pardoned, he may not be tried again for the same offence within the same territory by the authorities of another Contracting Party.” The same paragraph preserves military discipline: nothing in it “shall prevent the military authorities of the sending State from trying a member of its force for any violation of rules of discipline arising from an act or omission which constituted an offence for which he was tried by the authorities of another Contracting Party.”

Custody, cooperation, and trial rights abroad

• Custody. The custody of an accused “over whom the receiving state is to exercise jurisdiction shall, if he is in the hands of the sending State, remain with that State until he is charged by the receiving State” (Article VII(5)(c)).
• Evidence. The two states “shall assist each other in the carrying out of all necessary investigations into offences, and in the collection and production of evidence” (Article VII(6)(a)). How foreign-gathered evidence is treated at court-martial is covered in evidence gathered by a foreign government.
• Rights in a host-nation trial. Under Article VII(9), a member prosecuted by the receiving state is entitled to “a prompt and speedy trial,” to be told the charges in advance, “to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” to compulsory process for witnesses within that state’s jurisdiction, and to legal representation of choice or free or assisted representation under local conditions.

UCMJ jurisdiction is still there

The UCMJ “applies in all places” (Article 5), and court-martial jurisdiction depends on the accused’s military status, so the question overseas is not whether the United States has jurisdiction but which country exercises it first under the agreement. Countries outside NATO have their own bilateral agreements with different terms; the text of the agreement that applies in the country concerned controls. How the same rules apply to an Article 120 allegation abroad is covered in whether an overseas Article 120 accusation can be prosecuted in a U.S. military court, and finding civilian counsel overseas in how to locate a civilian military defense attorney when a spouse is stationed overseas.

Statutes and rules cited here were checked in October 2026.

This content is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Military law is complex and fact-specific. If you are facing a UCMJ investigation, court-martial, administrative separation, or any other military legal matter, consult a qualified military defense attorney before taking any action.