124 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session of the legal situation, it may not be clear whether they are claiming as injured States or as States invoking responsibility in the common or general interest under article 48. Indeed, in such cases it may not be necessary to decide into which category they fall, provided it is clear that they fall into one or the other. Where there is more than one injured State claiming compensation on its own account or on account of its nationals, evidently each State will be limited to the damage actually suffered. Circumstances might also arise in which several States injured by the same act made incompatible claims. For example, one State may claim restitution whereas the other may prefer compensation. If restitution is indivisible in such a case and the election of the second State is valid, it may be that compensation is appropriate in respect of both claims.707 In any event, two injured States each claiming in respect of the same wrongful act would be expected to coordinate their claims so as to avoid double recovery. As ICJ pointed out in its advisory opinion on Reparation for Injuries, “International tribunals are already familiar with the problem of a claim in which two or more national States are interested, and they know how to protect the defendant State in such a case”.708 Article 47. Plurality of responsible States 1. Where several States are responsible for the same internationally wrongful act, the responsibility of each State may be invoked in relation to that act. 2. Paragraph 1: (a) does not permit any injured State to recover, by way of compensation, more than the damage it has suffered; (b) is without prejudice to any right of recourse against the other responsible States. Commentary (1) Article 47 deals with the situation where there is a plurality of responsible States in respect of the same wrongful act. It states the general principle that in such cases each State is separately responsible for the conduct attributable to it, and that responsibility is not diminished or reduced by the fact that one or more other States are also responsible for the same act. (2) Several States may be responsible for the same internationally wrongful act in a range of circumstances. For example, two or more States might combine in carrying out together an internationally wrongful act in circumstances where they may be regarded as acting jointly in respect of the entire operation. In that case the injured State can hold each responsible State to account for the wrongful conduct as a whole. Or two States may act through a 707 Cf. Forests of Central Rhodopia, where the arbitrator declined to award restitution, inter alia, on the ground that not all the persons or entities interested in restitution had claimed (see footnote 382 above), p. 1432. 708 Reparation for Injuries (see footnote 38 above), p. 186. common organ which carries out the conduct in question, e.g. a joint authority responsible for the management of a boundary river. Or one State may direct and control another State in the commission of the same internationally wrongful act by the latter, such that both are responsible for the act.709 (3) It is important not to assume that internal law concepts and rules in this field can be applied directly to international law. Terms such as “joint”, “joint and several” and “solidary” responsibility derive from different legal traditions710 and analogies must be applied with care. In international law, the general principle in the case of a plurality of responsible States is that each State is separately responsible for conduct attributable to it in the sense of article 2. The principle of independent responsibility reflects the position under general international law, in the absence of agreement to the contrary between the States concerned.711 In the application of that principle, however, the situation can arise where a single course of conduct is at the same time attributable to several States and is internationally wrongful for each of them. It is to such cases that article 47 is addressed. (4) In the Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru case,712 Australia, the sole respondent, had administered Nauru as a trust territory under the Trusteeship Agreement on behalf of the three States concerned. Australia argued that it could not be sued alone by Nauru, but only jointly with the other two States concerned. Australia argued that the two States were necessary parties to the case and that in accordance with the principle formulated in Monetary Gold,713 the claim against Australia alone was inadmissible. It also argued that the responsibility of the three States making up the Administering Authority was “solidary” and that a claim could not be made against only one of them. The Court rejected both arguments. On the question of “solidary” responsibility it said: Australia has raised the question whether the liability of the three States would be “joint and several” (solidaire), so that any one of the three would be liable to make full reparation for damage flowing from any breach of the obligations of the Administering Authority, and not merely a one-third or some other proportionate share. This … is independent of the question whether Australia can be sued alone. The Court does not consider that any reason has been shown why a claim brought against only one of the three States should be declared inadmissible in limine litis merely because that claim raises questions of the administration of the Territory, which was shared with two other States. It cannot be denied that Australia had obligations under the Trusteeship Agreement, in its capacity as one of the three States forming the Administering Authority, and there is nothing in the character of that Agreement which debars the Court from considering a claim of a breach of those obligations by Australia.714 The Court was careful to add that its decision on jurisdiction “does not settle the question whether reparation 709 See article 17 and commentary. For a comparative survey of internal laws on solidary or joint liability, see T. Weir, loc. cit. (footnote 471 above), vol. XI, especially pp. 43–44, sects. 79–81. 711 See paragraphs (1) to (5) of the introductory commentary to chapter IV of Part One. 712 See footnote 230 above. 713 See footnote 286 above. See also paragraph (11) of the commentary to article 16. 714 Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru, Preliminary Objections (see footnote 230 above), pp. 258–259, para. 48. 710