November 29, 2004 

RE: TRIA Applicability to U.S. Military Bases Abroad 

Dear Mr. S: 

This is in response to your request for an interpretation of the Terrorism Risk 

Insurance Act1

 (TRIA) as applied to United States military bases abroad. We conclude, 

as explained below, that TRIA does not extend to an act of terrorism on a United States 

military base abroad. 

First, we determine that a United States military base abroad does not constitute 

the “premises of a[ny] United States mission,” as that phrase is used in TRIA sections 

102(1) (the definition of “act of terrorism”) and 102(5) (the definition of “insured loss”). 

Consequently, any act of violence giving rise to property damage, personal injury or 

death on such a military base could not be certified as an “act of terrorism” as defined by 

section 102(1) of TRIA, nor could it result in an “insured loss” as defined by TRIA 

section 102(5). 

In reaching this conclusion, we rely chiefly upon the meaning of “premises of the 

mission” in Article 1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which defines 

that phrase as “the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, 

irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission including the residence of 

the head of the mission.”2

 This is a relatively narrow definition that contemplates the 

offices where official diplomatic business is conducted and the residence of the head of 

the diplomatic mission as the “premises of the mission”. As a general matter, military 

personnel deployed on military bases abroad are not part of the diplomatic mission of the 

United States and thus the buildings and ancillary land they occupy are not part of the 

“premises of a United States mission”.3 We have consulted with representatives of the 

Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State, as well as the Office of the 

General Counsel at the Department of Defense, who concur with this view. 

Next we address whether a United States military base abroad could be 

considered a “territory or possession” of the United States under TRIA section 102(14), 

which provides that the term “State” means “any State of the United States, the District of 

Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, each of the United States Virgin Islands, and 

any territory or possession of the United States.” Legally, this is the more difficult 

question, because “the word ‘state’ ... can contain many meanings”4

 and similar 

 

1

 Pub. L. No. 107-297, 116 Stat. 2322, 15 USC § 6701 (hereafter “TRIA”). 

2

 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Optional Protocol on Disputes, April 18, 1961, 23 

U.S.T. 3227, TIAS 7502, passim. 3

 Since military personnel on military bases are not “the people sent by one state to another” as diplomatic 

representatives within the meaning of the Vienna Convention, the military bases housing such military 

personnel cannot be considered to be “the premises of any United States mission” under TRIA. 

4

 National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582, 587 (1949). 
2

ambiguities exist with the terms “territory” and “possession”.5

 Construction of these 

terms not only requires a consideration of the words themselves, but also how they are 

used to effectuate the purpose, character and aim of the law in which they appear.6

 

There are authorities applying the terms “territory” and “possession” differently to 

military bases in a number of different statutes, some of which conclude that a United 

States military base abroad is a United States territory or possession, and some of which 

conclude such a base is not.7 In each instance, the determination of whether the base in 

question is a territory or possession rests upon the particular language and purpose of the 

statute being reviewed. 

We conclude that the drafters of TRIA did not intend the terms “territory or 

possession” to have an expansive meaning. The territorial limitations of TRIA as set out 

in sections 102(1)(A), 102(5)(A) and (B), and 102(15) are specific and limited, and we 

find no indication, either in the language of the Act itself nor in its legislative history, that 

Congress intended to expand the geographical scope of TRIA outside the United States 

through the definition of “State.”8

 The purpose of TRIA is to ensure property and 

casualty insurance availability for terrorism risk within the United States, and to a small 

group of other specified interests. Any expansion upon these limited interests would be 

inconsistent with the purpose of TRIA. For this reason, we determine that United States 

military bases abroad are not “territories or possessions” for purposes of TRIA section 

102(14). 

* * * * 

This response addresses the application of the Act and regulations to the specific 

situation set forth in your request, as you have represented the facts to Treasury. If there 

is a change in any of the facts or assumptions presented, and such facts or assumptions 

are material to a conclusion presented in this response, then you may not rely on that 

 

5 See Construction of State Reporting Requirements in Section 404 of the Personal Responsibility and 

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, 1998 OLC LEXIS 4 (1998). 6 See Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (P.R.) Ltd., 302 U.S. 253, 258 (1937). 7 See, e.g., Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396, 1401 (6th Cir. 1993) (Interpreting the International Child 

Abduction Remedies Act, court holds “[a]s a threshold matter, a United States military base is not 

sovereign territory of the United States. The military base in Bad Aibling is on land which belongs to 

Germany and which the United States Armed Services occupy only at the pleasure of the German 

government.”); U.S. v. King Features Entertainment, Inc., 843 F.2d 391, 398 (9th Cir. 1988) (Contract to 

show cartoons on U.S. military bases does not necessarily include foreign bases because “[o]bjectively, 

United States ‘territories,’ described in Title 48 of the United States Code, are commonly known to include 

Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa,” but not obviously anything else). Customs Duties-Goods 

Brought into United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 35 Op. Atty. Gen. 536 (1929) (Tarrif 

law does not apply to Guantanamo Bay base because it is not a “possession” of the United States). 

Compare with, Vermilya-Brown Co. v. Connell, 335 U.S. 377, 390 (1948) ; Installation of Slot Machines on 

U.S.Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, 6 Op. Atty. Gen. 236, 1982 OLC Lexis 58 (March 29, 1982) (the 

Anti-Slot Machine Act applies to the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay as United States 

territory). 

8

 The Conference Report states that “the legislation only applies to U.S. risks, including domestic air 

carriers and flag vessels, U.S. territorial seas and continental shelf, and U.S. missions.” H.R. Rep. No. 107-

779, at 23 (2002). 
3

conclusion generally or as support for any proposed or subsequent activity. This 

response is provided by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program as a means of stating its 

current interpretation of the Act and regulations. The program may revise or revoke this 

interpretation upon its own initiative or upon the enactment of amendments to the Act or 

regulations. 

Sincerely yours, 

Jeffrey Bragg 

Executive Director 

Terrorism Risk Insurance Program