68 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session (b) the act would be internationally wrongful if committed by that State. Commentary (1) Article 17 deals with a second case of derived responsibility, the exercise of direction and control by one State over the commission of an internationally wrongful act by another. Under article 16, a State providing aid or assistance with a view to the commission of an internationally wrongful act incurs international responsibility only to the extent of the aid or assistance given. By contrast, a State which directs and controls another in the commission of an internationally wrongful act is responsible for the act itself, since it controlled and directed the act in its entirety. (2) Some examples of international responsibility flowing from the exercise of direction and control over the commission of a wrongful act by another State are now largely of historical significance. International dependency relationships such as “suzerainty” or “protectorate” warranted treating the dominant State as internationally responsible for conduct formally attributable to the dependent State. For example, in Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco,287 France commenced proceedings under the Optional Clause in respect of a dispute concerning the rights of United States nationals in Morocco under French protectorate. The United States objected that any eventual judgment might not be considered as binding upon Morocco, which was not a party to the proceedings. France confirmed that it was acting both in its own name and as the protecting power over Morocco, with the result that the Court’s judgment would be binding both on France and on Morocco,288 and the case proceeded on that basis.289 The Court’s judgment concerned questions of the responsibility of France in respect of the conduct of Morocco which were raised both by the application and by the United States counterclaim. (3) With the developments in international relations since 1945, and in particular the process of decolonization, older dependency relationships have been terminated. Such links do not involve any legal right to direction or control on the part of the representing State. In cases of representation, the represented entity remains responsible for its own international obligations, even though diplomatic communications may be channelled through another State. The representing State in such cases does not, merely because it is the channel through which communications pass, assume any responsibility for their content. This is not in contradiction to the British Claims in the Spanish Zone of Morocco arbitration, which affirmed that “the responsibility of the protecting State … proceeds … from the fact that the protecting State alone represents 287 Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (see footnote 108 above), p. 176. 288 Ibid., I.C.J. Pleadings, vol. I, p. 235; and vol. II, pp. 431–433; the United States thereupon withdrew its preliminary objection: ibid., p. 434. 289 See Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (footnote 108 above), p. 179. the protected territory in its international relations”,290 and that the protecting State is answerable “in place of the protected State”.291 The principal concern in the arbitration was to ensure that, in the case of a protectorate which put an end to direct international relations by the protected State, international responsibility for wrongful acts committed by the protected State was not erased to the detriment of third States injured by the wrongful conduct. The acceptance by the protecting State of the obligation to answer in place of the protected State was viewed as an appropriate means of avoiding that danger.292 The justification for such an acceptance was not based on the relationship of “representation” as such but on the fact that the protecting State was in virtually total control over the protected State. It was not merely acting as a channel of communication. (4) Other relationships of dependency, such as dependent territories, fall entirely outside the scope of article 17, which is concerned only with the responsibility of one State for the conduct of another State. In most relationships of dependency between one territory and another, the dependent territory, even if it may possess some international personality, is not a State. Even in cases where a component unit of a federal State enters into treaties or other international legal relations in its own right, and not by delegation from the federal State, the component unit is not itself a State in international law. So far as State responsibility is concerned, the position of federal States is no different from that of any other State: the normal principles specified in articles 4 to 9 of the draft articles apply, and the federal State is internationally responsible for the conduct of its component units even though that conduct falls within their own local control under the federal constitution.293 (5) Nonetheless, instances exist or can be envisaged where one State exercises the power to direct and control the activities of another State, whether by treaty or as a result of a military occupation or for some other reason. For example, during the belligerent occupation of Italy by Germany in the Second World War, it was generally acknowledged that the Italian police in Rome operated under the control of the occupying Power. Thus, the protest by the Holy See in respect of wrongful acts committed by Italian police who forcibly entered the Basilica of St. Paul in Rome in February 1944 asserted the responsibility of the German authorities.294 In such cases the occupying State is responsible for acts of the occupied State which it directs and controls. (6) Article 17 is limited to cases where a dominant State actually directs and controls conduct which is a breach of an international obligation of the dependent State. International tribunals have consistently refused to infer responsibility on the part of a dominant State merely because 290 British Claims in the Spanish Zone of Morocco (see footnote 44 above), p. 649. 291 Ibid., p. 648. 292 Ibid. 293 See, e.g., LaGrand, Provisional Measures (footnote 91 above). 294 See R. Ago, “L’occupazione bellica di Roma e il Trattato lateranense”, Comunicazioni e Studi (Milan, Giuffrè, 1945), vol. II, pp. 167–168.