The agreement with Afghanistan does not explicitly authorize the United States to conduct military operations inside Afghanistan, but acknowledges that such operations are “ongoing.” In 2001, Congress authorized the use of military force there (and elsewhere) through a joint resolution to “attack nations, organizations or individuals who planned, authorized, committed or supported the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.” 49 The United Nations Security Council implicitly acknowledged that the use of force in response to the 2001 terrorist attacks,50 and then authorized the deployment of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to Afghanistan.51 Subsequent UN Security Council resolutions constitute a permanent mandate for ISAF52, in which it is invited to cooperate “in close coordination with” Operation Enduring Freedom (EEO- the US-led coalition , which conducts military operations in Afghanistan) in the execution of the mandate53. , Security Council resolutions appear to satisfactorily recognize the legitimacy of its operations, ultimately calling on the Afghan government to continue to address the threat posed by the Taliban to the security and stability of Afghanistan, with the assistance of the international community, including the International Security Assistance Force and the Coalition , in accordance with their respective functions that are developing. 54 The agreement in return contains provisions relating to the criminal jurisdiction of Filipino personnel in the United States. The agreement was reached in the form of an executive agreement and was not ratified by the U.S. Senate. Probably, according to the logic of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Clifford, because the agreement probably reduced the impact of U.S. jurisdiction, it would have to be ratified by the Senate to be constitutionally valid. But the counter-agreement can be distinguished from SOFA with the Republic of Korea and SOFAs with other foreign jurisdictions, because the United States does not completely waive jurisdiction for crimes committed on the territory of the United States.
On the contrary, the agreement stipulates that the US authorities will, at the request of the Philippine government, require the competent authorities to lift jurisdiction in favour of the Philippine authorities.107 However, the State Department and the US Department of Defense retain the ability to designate those authorities.