This agreement is an inevitable necessity for Japan`s accession to the U.S. military, on which the strictly pacifist country relies heavily as a deterrent. Unlike the agreements that Germany and Italy have concluded with the U.S. military under the United States. Status of Forces Agreement, Japanese laws, do not apply to U.S. troops in Japan. Japan`s Civil Aviation Act imposes minimum levels of safety set by government regulations to ensure the safety of people, goods and aircraft, but U.S. military aircraft are not subject to these minimum requirements. The Japanese government does not even have the power to insinuate U.S. military exercises and exercises. “This is probably the first time that a Japanese government has carried out field inspections of the status of the armed forces in other countries,” said Yujin Fuse, a Japanese journalist who has pledged to do so in defence. The central government of Japan should have been the one conducting such studies and making the results available to the public. The agreement has never been reviewed in the 60 years since it came into force, although such applications have been made.
Over the years, some improvements have been made in the form of complementary guidelines and agreements, but the framework itself has not been affected since its introduction in 1960. “A status of military agreement between equals serves as a test for the realization of democracy, but Japan does not take the form of a sovereign nation,” said Hiromori Maedomari, a professor at Okinawa International University and an expert in military economics, at Mainichi Shimbun. “The German and Italian governments have negotiated with the US military to guarantee the security and rights of their citizens. They are the opposite of the Japanese government, which is silent. In addition, certain features of the agreement create areas of perceived privilege for U.S. service members. For example, because SOFA excludes most U.S. military personnel from Japanese visa and passport laws, incidents have occurred in the past where U.S. military personnel were returned to the United States before being charged in Japanese courts.
In addition, the agreement requires that U.S. authorities, when a U.S. service provider is suspected of a crime but are not captured by Japanese authorities off a base, must remain in custody until the service member is formally charged by the Japanese.  Although the agreement also requires U.S. cooperation with Japanese authorities in investigations, Japanese authorities have often denounced the fact that they still do not have regular access to questions or interrogations of U.S. service providers, making it more difficult for Japanese prosecutors to prepare cases for indictment.  This situation is compounded by the singularity of the Japanese pre-charge hearings, which focus on access to confessions as a precondition for prosecution, often without a lawyer and can last up to 23 days.  Given the difference between this interrogation system and the U.S. system, the United States has argued that the extraterritoriality granted to its military under SOFA is necessary to grant them the same rights as those that exist under the U.S. criminal justice system. However, since the Okinawan rape case in 1995, the United States has agreed to consider putting suspects back in serious cases such as rape and murder before charge.
 On January 16, 2017, Japan and the United States of America