80 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session not seem necessary to extend the scope of distress beyond threats to life itself. In situations in which a State agent is in distress and has to act to save lives, there should however be a certain degree of flexibility in the assessment of the conditions of distress. The “no other reasonable way” criterion in article 24 seeks to strike a balance between the desire to provide some flexibility regarding the choices of action by the agent in saving lives and the need to confine the scope of the plea having regard to its exceptional character. (7) Distress may only be invoked as a circumstance precluding wrongfulness in cases where a State agent has acted to save his or her own life or where there exists a special relationship between the State organ or agent and the persons in danger. It does not extend to more general cases of emergencies, which are more a matter of necessity than distress. (8) Article 24 only precludes the wrongfulness of conduct so far as it is necessary to avoid the life-threatening situation. Thus, it does not exempt the State or its agent from complying with other requirements (national or international), e.g. the requirement to notify arrival to the relevant authorities, or to give relevant information about the voyage, the passengers or the cargo.371 (9) As in the case of force majeure, a situation which has been caused or induced by the invoking State is not one of distress. In many cases the State invoking distress may well have contributed, even if indirectly, to the situation. Priority should be given to necessary life-saving measures, however, and under paragraph 2 (a), distress is only excluded if the situation of distress is due, either alone or in combination with other factors, to the conduct of the State invoking it. This is the same formula as that adopted in respect of article 23, paragraph 2 (a).372 (10) Distress can only preclude wrongfulness where the interests sought to be protected (e.g. the lives of passengers or crew) clearly outweigh the other interests at stake in the circumstances. If the conduct sought to be excused endangers more lives than it may save or is otherwise likely to create a greater peril it will not be covered by the plea of distress. For instance, a military aircraft carrying explosives might cause a disaster by making an emergency landing, or a nuclear submarine with a serious breakdown might cause radioactive contamination to a port in which it sought refuge. Paragraph 2 (b) stipulates that distress does not apply if the act in question is likely to create a comparable or greater peril. This is consistent with paragraph 1, which in asking whether the agent had “no other reasonable way” to save life establishes an objective test. 371 See Cashin and Lewis v. The King, Canada Law Reports (1935), p. 103 (even if a vessel enters a port in distress, it is not exempted from the requirement to report on its voyage). See also the “Rebecca”, Mexico-United States General Claims Commission, AJIL, vol. 23, No. 4 (October 1929), p. 860 (vessel entered port in distress; merchandise seized for customs offence: held, entry reasonably necessary in the circumstances and not a mere matter of convenience; seizure therefore unlawful); the “May” v. The King, Canada Law Reports (1931), p. 374; the “Queen City” v. The King, ibid., p. 387; and Rex v. Flahaut, Dominion Law Reports (1935), p. 685 (test of “real and irresistible distress” applied). 372 See paragraph (9) of the commentary to article 23. The words “comparable or greater peril” must be assessed in the context of the overall purpose of saving lives. Article 25. Necessity 1. Necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding the wrongfulness of an act not in conformity with an international obligation of that State unless the act: (a) is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril; and (b) does not seriously impair an essential interest of the State or States towards which the obligation exists, or of the international community as a whole. 2. In any case, necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding wrongfulness if: (a) the international obligation in question excludes the possibility of invoking necessity; or (b) the State has contributed to the situation of necessity. Commentary (1) The term “necessity” (état de nécessité) is used to denote those exceptional cases where the only way a State can safeguard an essential interest threatened by a grave and imminent peril is, for the time being, not to perform some other international obligation of lesser weight or urgency. Under conditions narrowly defined in article 25, such a plea is recognized as a circumstance precluding wrongfulness. (2) The plea of necessity is exceptional in a number of respects. Unlike consent (art. 20), self-defence (art. 21) or countermeasures (art. 22), it is not dependent on the prior conduct of the injured State. Unlike force majeure (art. 23), it does not involve conduct which is involuntary or coerced. Unlike distress (art. 24), necessity consists not in danger to the lives of individuals in the charge of a State official but in a grave danger either to the essential interests of the State or of the international community as a whole. It arises where there is an irreconcilable conflict between an essential interest on the one hand and an obligation of the State invoking necessity on the other. These special features mean that necessity will only rarely be available to excuse non-performance of an obligation and that it is subject to strict limitations to safeguard against possible abuse.373 (3) There is substantial authority in support of the existence of necessity as a circumstance precluding wrongful373 Perhaps the classic case of such an abuse was the occupation of Luxembourg and Belgium by Germany in 1914, which Germany sought to justify on the ground of necessity. See, in particular, the note presented on 2 August 1914 by the German Minister in Brussels to the Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs, in J. B. Scott, ed., Diplomatic Documents relating to the Outbreak of the European War (New York, Oxford University Press, 1916), part I, pp. 749–750, and the speech in the Reichstag by the German Chancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg, on 4 August 1914, containing the well-known words: wir sind jetzt in der Notwehr; und Not kennt kein Gebot! (we are in a state of self-defence and necessity knows no law), Jahrbuch des Völkerrechts, vol. III (1916), p. 728.