Is America's agreement with Japan in this respect unique? It sounds something like Guantanamo Bay being both outside the purview of Cuban law but simultaneously not under the aegis of the Constitution.
Is America's agreement with Japan in this respect unique? It sounds something like Guantanamo Bay being both outside the purview of Cuban law but simultaneously not under the aegis of the Constitution.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cover-story-how-...
No. Each agreement with each country granting territory to US for military bases is somewhat unique - see for example all the trouble with Turkey and Saudi Arabia recently.
Obviously there are some guidelines and principles the US will always push for (typically that bases are considered US territory in respect of any jurisdiction claim the host country might have, that military personnel gets local immunity for their actions, etc etc), but that does not mean they are automatically considered US territory for the purposes of US law.