ID :
10209
Tue, 06/17/2008 - 14:06
Auther :
Shortlink :
https://oananews.org//node/10209
The shortlink copeid
U.S., JAPAN AGREED SERVICEMEN'S WORKPLACE DRINKING "OFFICIAL DUTY"
TOKYO, June 17 (Kyodo) - Japan and the United States agreed in 1956 to include commuting to and from, and drinking at the workplace in certain cases in the scope of U.S. service people's official duty, where Japan does not have primary jurisdiction over crimes involving them under the bilateral Status of Forces Agreement, according
to declassified U.S. documents.
SOFA, which stipulates U.S. military operations in Japan and legal arrangements for its personnel, states that Japan does not possess primary jurisdiction over U.S. service personnel when they commit crimes during official duty.
Although SOFA specifies that the U.S. side has first jurisdiction over crimes committed by U.S. servicemen while on official duty, it does not specify scope of the duty.
The agreement was reached at a 1956 meeting of the Japan-U.S. joint committee created under SOFA, according to the documents.
The documents were found mainly at the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration by Japan-U.S. history researcher Shoji Niihara.
One of the documents, a telegram titled ''Progress Report of Joint Committee Meeting,'' was sent by the U.S. Embassy in Japan to the U.S. Embassy in the Philippines on Feb. 28, 1970, when the United States was holding talks with the Philippines to conclude a status of forces agreement.
The telegram mentions four traffic accidents in Tokyo, Hyogo and Fukuoka prefectures from 1954 to 1955 involving vehicles driven by U.S. personnel and a total of four Japanese people who either died or suffered injuries.
The four cases became a point of dispute between Japan and the United States over whether the accidents occurred while the servicemen were on official duty as they had taken place when the personnel were either going home from their workplace or to their workplace from their residence.
In a meeting of the joint committee held in 1956, the United States and Japan agreed that the term ''official duty'' is understood to include travel by U.S. service personnel from their authorized quarters or residence directly to their place of duty, and from their place of duty directly to their authorized quarters or residence, according to the documents.
''Provided, drinking intoxicating beverages, except at an official function at which his attendance is required, shall remove such person from his official duty status,'' it added.
Japan's Justice Ministry in 1956 sent messages to chief public prosecutors nationwide, telling them to handle traffic accidents as occurred during official duty if they took place while U.S. service people are either traveling to the workplace from home or going home from the workplace.
For reference, the ministry attached minutes of a subcommittee meeting held in November 1955.
At the subcommittee meeting held prior to the agreement, the Japanese side asserted that official events should be interpreted narrowly, but it agreed to recognize events where drinking takes place as official duty if other officers attend the events and they are not considered as being the cause of accidents, the documents said.
It also recognized to ''consider the question of deviation on an individual case basis'' when deciding whether accidents occurred while on official duty, they said.
to declassified U.S. documents.
SOFA, which stipulates U.S. military operations in Japan and legal arrangements for its personnel, states that Japan does not possess primary jurisdiction over U.S. service personnel when they commit crimes during official duty.
Although SOFA specifies that the U.S. side has first jurisdiction over crimes committed by U.S. servicemen while on official duty, it does not specify scope of the duty.
The agreement was reached at a 1956 meeting of the Japan-U.S. joint committee created under SOFA, according to the documents.
The documents were found mainly at the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration by Japan-U.S. history researcher Shoji Niihara.
One of the documents, a telegram titled ''Progress Report of Joint Committee Meeting,'' was sent by the U.S. Embassy in Japan to the U.S. Embassy in the Philippines on Feb. 28, 1970, when the United States was holding talks with the Philippines to conclude a status of forces agreement.
The telegram mentions four traffic accidents in Tokyo, Hyogo and Fukuoka prefectures from 1954 to 1955 involving vehicles driven by U.S. personnel and a total of four Japanese people who either died or suffered injuries.
The four cases became a point of dispute between Japan and the United States over whether the accidents occurred while the servicemen were on official duty as they had taken place when the personnel were either going home from their workplace or to their workplace from their residence.
In a meeting of the joint committee held in 1956, the United States and Japan agreed that the term ''official duty'' is understood to include travel by U.S. service personnel from their authorized quarters or residence directly to their place of duty, and from their place of duty directly to their authorized quarters or residence, according to the documents.
''Provided, drinking intoxicating beverages, except at an official function at which his attendance is required, shall remove such person from his official duty status,'' it added.
Japan's Justice Ministry in 1956 sent messages to chief public prosecutors nationwide, telling them to handle traffic accidents as occurred during official duty if they took place while U.S. service people are either traveling to the workplace from home or going home from the workplace.
For reference, the ministry attached minutes of a subcommittee meeting held in November 1955.
At the subcommittee meeting held prior to the agreement, the Japanese side asserted that official events should be interpreted narrowly, but it agreed to recognize events where drinking takes place as official duty if other officers attend the events and they are not considered as being the cause of accidents, the documents said.
It also recognized to ''consider the question of deviation on an individual case basis'' when deciding whether accidents occurred while on official duty, they said.
