Finland's and Sweden's defense cooperation or DCA agreements were negotiated at the same time, but there are three key differences between them. Finland's agreement will be signed today, Monday, in Washington.
Finland and Sweden both went through a long negotiation process with the United States this year on bilateral defense cooperation agreements, or DCAs.
The Finnish agreement will be signed today, Monday, in Washington.
Denmark's corresponding treaty negotiations with the United States have also just ended.
The basic principles of the Finnish and Swedish agreements are very similar. The agreements were practically negotiated at the same time, and the countries are not very different from each other.
The similarity of the agreements is also explained by the fact that the United States tries to negotiate DCA agreements with its allies that are as similar as possible.
Despite this, there are also several differences in the agreements. In Finland's DCA agreement, some things have been wanted to be recorded more precisely and in more detail than in Sweden's equivalent.
First there is a notable difference in how Finland's sovereignty is emphasized in the Finnish DCA agreement.
In the first article of both the Finnish and Swedish agreements, it is defined that in all activities according to the agreement, the country's “sovereignty, legislation and international legal obligations” must be respected in all respects.
Whereas Sweden has been satisfied with the mention of the first article, Finland refers to this in three different articles in later sections of the agreement.
The first of these is an article that deals with the access of US soldiers to the areas and facilities separately agreed upon in the agreement and the activities that take place there.
The second deals with the storage of defense equipment, supplies and material outside of, for example, military exercises. In the third, the movement of aircraft, ships and vehicles in Finnish areas.
In all of them these sections also mention separately that when applying them, the views of both parties, i.e. Finland and the United States, must be heard and taken into account. Corresponding entries are missing from the Swedish DCA agreement.
According to HS's information, these mentions aim, among other things, to ensure that the Finnish authorities are aware of how the United States operates in Finnish territory in all situations. The Norwegian agreement also has a similar type of approach.
The most accurate information possible about the activities of the United States makes it possible for Finns to bring the United States to their attention at an early stage, if something about its activities is not considered acceptable.
This also makes it easier to assess whether any activity in accordance with the agreement requires separate policies or decision-making at the political or possibly state management level.
Second the key difference between the Finnish and Swedish agreements is found in the agreement's article on criminal jurisdiction. In Finland, there is an entry in it that comes from the national regulation on the status of crime victims, which is not in the Swedish agreement.
The agreements between Sweden and Finland also differ in terms of which criminal suspects the US authorities must inform their Finnish colleagues about.
According to the Swedish agreement, all suspected crimes by US forces must be reported in writing. In the Finnish agreement, suspicions of crime are limited to the scope of the reporting obligation, for which, according to US legislation, the punishment can be a maximum of a fine or a year in prison.
Finland chief negotiator of the agreement, deputy head of the political department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mikael Antell says that he does not want to comment on the differences between the Finnish and Swedish agreements, but states that the core obligations of the agreements correspond to each other.
Deputy head of department Mikael Antell
“Communication with Sweden and Norway before and during the negotiations has been close. Denmark has also been contacted,” Antell states.
On a general level, he says that Finland and Sweden have negotiated their agreements with the same basic principles, because the countries have a lot in common.
“At the same time, you have to remember that each country makes its own decisions based on its own starting points and legislation.”
“The fact that the United States commits to respect Finland's sovereignty, national legislation and international obligations in all activities according to the agreement has been an important anchor for us when the agreement has been negotiated.”
Third The Finnish agreement emphasizes more strongly than the Swedish agreement that the Finnish authorities have the primary responsibility for maintaining public order and security in Finnish areas.
A separate obligation has also been added to the article dealing with security issues of the agreement for the United States to notify the Finnish authorities without delay, if their actions in some exceptional situations target forces other than their own, for example Finns.
However, the starting point in both the Finnish and Swedish agreements is that all safety-related measures are agreed upon in jointly approved contingency plans.
Of these in addition to the three points, the differences in the agreements between Finland and Sweden are largely due to differences in the national legislation of Finland and Sweden or the fact that one issue has been emphasized or clarified more in one country than another.
For example, in questions related to the taxation of US forces or the customs clearance of joint or personal goods and products of the forces brought by them, the articles mostly correspond to each other in content.
Finland's agreement also mentions Åland's special status under international law separately.
#DCA #Agreement #Finnish #agreement #specific #Swedish #agreement #listed #key #differences
