70 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session coerced act merely make it more difficult for the coerced State to comply with the obligation. the coerced State in circumstances where the coercing State is not itself bound by the obligation in question. (3) Though coercion for the purpose of article 18 is narrowly defined, it is not limited to unlawful coercion.300 As a practical matter, most cases of coercion meeting the requirements of the article will be unlawful, e.g. because they involve a threat or use of force contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, or because they involve intervention, i.e. coercive interference, in the affairs of another State. Such is also the case with countermeasures. They may have a coercive character, but as is made clear in article 49, their function is to induce a wrongdoing State to comply with obligations of cessation and reparation towards the State taking the countermeasures, not to coerce that State to violate obligations to third States.301 However, coercion could possibly take other forms, e.g. serious economic pressure, provided that it is such as to deprive the coerced State of any possibility of conforming with the obligation breached. (7) State practice lends support to the principle that a State bears responsibility for the internationally wrongful conduct of another State which it coerces. In the RomanoAmericana case, the claim of the United States Government in respect of the destruction of certain oil storage and other facilities owned by a United States company on the orders of the Government of Romania during the First World War was originally addressed to the British Government. At the time the facilities were destroyed, Romania was at war with Germany, which was preparing to invade the country, and the United States claimed that the Romanian authorities had been “compelled” by Great Britain to take the measures in question. In support of its claim, the United States Government argued that the circumstances of the case revealed “a situation where a strong belligerent for a purpose primarily its own arising from its defensive requirements at sea, compelled a weaker Ally to acquiesce in an operation which it carried out on the territory of that Ally”.302 The British Government denied responsibility, asserting that its influence over the conduct of the Romanian authorities “did not in any way go beyond the limits of persuasion and good counsel as between governments associated in a common cause”.303 The point of disagreement between the Governments of the United States and of Great Britain was not as to the responsibility of a State for the conduct of another State which it has coerced, but rather the existence of “compulsion” in the particular circumstances of the case.304 (4) The equation of coercion with force majeure means that in most cases where article 18 is applicable, the responsibility of the coerced State will be precluded vis-àvis the injured third State. This is reflected in the phrase “but for the coercion” in subparagraph (a) of article 18. Coercion amounting to force majeure may be the reason why the wrongfulness of an act is precluded vis-à-vis the coerced State. Therefore, the act is not described as an internationally wrongful act in the opening clause of the article, as is done in articles 16 and 17, where no comparable circumstance would preclude the wrongfulness of the act of the assisted or controlled State. But there is no reason why the wrongfulness of that act should be precluded vis-à-vis the coercing State. On the contrary, if the coercing State cannot be held responsible for the act in question, the injured State may have no redress at all. (5) It is a further requirement for responsibility under article 18 that the coercing State must be aware of the circumstances which would, but for the coercion, have entailed the wrongfulness of the coerced State’s conduct. The reference to “circumstances” in subparagraph (b) is understood as reference to the factual situation rather than to the coercing State’s judgement of the legality of the act. This point is clarified by the phrase “circumstances of the act”. Hence, while ignorance of the law is no excuse, ignorance of the facts is material in determining the responsibility of the coercing State. (6) A State which sets out to procure by coercion a breach of another State’s obligations to a third State will be held responsible to the third State for the consequences, regardless of whether the coercing State is also bound by the obligation in question. Otherwise, the injured State would potentially be deprived of any redress, because the acting State may be able to rely on force majeure as a circumstance precluding wrongfulness. Article 18 thus differs from articles 16 and 17 in that it does not allow for an exemption from responsibility for the act of 300 P. Reuter, Introduction to the Law of Treaties, 2nd rev. ed. (London, Kegan Paul International, 1995), paras. 271–274. 301 See article 49, para. 2, and commentary. Article 19. Effect of this chapter This chapter is without prejudice to the international responsibility, under other provisions of these articles, of the State which commits the act in question, or of any other State. Commentary (1) Article 19 serves three purposes. First, it preserves the responsibility of the State which has committed the internationally wrongful act, albeit with the aid or assistance, under the direction and control or subject to the coercion of another State. It recognizes that the attribution of international responsibility to an assisting, directing or coercing State does not preclude the responsibility of the assisted, directed or coerced State. (2) Secondly, the article makes clear that the provisions of chapter IV are without prejudice to any other basis for establishing the responsibility of the assisting, directing or coercing State under any rule of international law defining particular conduct as wrongful. The phrase “under 302 Note from the United States Embassy in London, dated 16 February 1925, in Hackworth, op. cit. (footnote 142 above), p. 702. 303 Note from the British Foreign Office dated 5 July 1928, ibid., p. 704. 304 For a different example involving the coercion of a breach of contract in circumstances amounting to a denial of justice, see C. L. Bouvé, “Russia’s liability in tort for Persia’s breach of contract”, AJIL, vol. 6, No. 2 (April 1912), p. 389.