Which term describes the relationship between military forces and the host nation's legal system as per SOFA?

The term that describes the relationship between military forces and the host nation's legal system, as outlined in a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), is concurrent jurisdiction. This concept refers to a legal arrangement where both the military and the host nation retain the right to exercise legal authority over certain matters involving military personnel.

In the context of SOFA, concurrent jurisdiction means that while military personnel may be subject to military law for offenses committed while on duty or in connection with their official functions, they may also be subject to the jurisdiction of the host nation's laws for certain actions. This arrangement aims to balance the rights and responsibilities of military forces and the interests of the host country, allowing for a collaborative legal framework that respects the sovereignty and legal processes of the host nation while ensuring the operational needs of the military are met.

Additionally, the other terms reflect different aspects of the military-legal relationship but do not encapsulate the full scope of SOFA relations. Jurisdictional authority typically refers to the ability of legal bodies to enforce laws and may not specifically address the nuanced relationships defined in SOFA agreements. Legal immunity often pertains to protection from prosecution, which does not accurately describe the shared legal responsibilities under concurrent jurisdiction. Mutual extradition involves the process of surrendering individuals