130 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session Commentary (1) Article 49 describes the permissible object of countermeasures taken by an injured State against the responsible State and places certain limits on their scope. Countermeasures may only be taken by an injured State in order to induce the responsible State to comply with its obligations under Part Two, namely, to cease the internationally wrongful conduct, if it is continuing, and to provide reparation to the injured State.744 Countermeasures are not intended as a form of punishment for wrongful conduct, but as an instrument for achieving compliance with the obligations of the responsible State under Part Two. The limited object and exceptional nature of countermeasures are indicated by the use of the word “only” in paragraph 1 of article 49. (2) A fundamental prerequisite for any lawful countermeasure is the existence of an internationally wrongful act which injured the State taking the countermeasure. This point was clearly made by ICJ in the Gabčíkovo Nagymaros Project case, in the following passage: In order to be justifiable, a countermeasure must meet certain conditions … In the first place it must be taken in response to a previous international wrongful act of another State and must be directed against that State.745 (3) Paragraph 1 of article 49 presupposes an objective standard for the taking of countermeasures, and in particular requires that the countermeasure be taken against a State which is responsible for an internationally wrongful act in order to induce that State to comply with its obligations of cessation and reparation. A State taking countermeasures acts at its peril, if its view of the question of wrongfulness turns out not to be well founded. A State which resorts to countermeasures based on its unilateral assessment of the situation does so at its own risk and may incur responsibility for its own wrongful conduct in the event of an incorrect assessment.746 In this respect, there is no difference between countermeasures and other circumstances precluding wrongfulness.747 744 For these obligations, see articles 30 and 31 and commentaries. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (see footnote 27 above), p. 55, para. 83. See also “Naulilaa” (footnote 337 above), p. 1027; “Cysne” (footnote 338 above), p. 1057. At the 1930 Hague Conference, all States which responded on this point took the view that a prior wrongful act was an indispensable prerequisite for the adoption of reprisals; see League of Nations, Conference for the Codification of International Law, Bases of Discussion … (footnote 88 above), p. 128. 746 The tribunal’s remark in the Air Service Agreement case (see footnote 28 above), to the effect that “each State establishes for itself its legal situation vis-à-vis other States” (p. 443, para. 81) should not be interpreted in the sense that the United States would have been justified in taking countermeasures whether or not France was in breach of the Agreement. In that case the tribunal went on to hold that the United States was actually responding to a breach of the Agreement by France, and that its response met the requirements for countermeasures under international law, in particular in terms of purpose and proportionality. The tribunal did not decide that an unjustified belief by the United States as to the existence of a breach would have been sufficient. 747 See paragraph (8) of the introductory commentary to chapter V of Part One. 745 (4) A second essential element of countermeasures is that they “must be directed against”748 a State which has committed an internationally wrongful act, and which has not complied with its obligations of cessation and reparation under Part Two of the present articles.749 The word “only” in paragraph 1 applies equally to the target of the countermeasures as to their purpose and is intended to convey that countermeasures may only be adopted against a State which is the author of the internationally wrongful act. Countermeasures may not be directed against States other than the responsible State. In a situation where a third State is owed an international obligation by the State taking countermeasures and that obligation is breached by the countermeasure, the wrongfulness of the measure is not precluded as against the third State. In that sense the effect of countermeasures in precluding wrongfulness is relative. It concerns the legal relations between the injured State and the responsible State.750 (5) This does not mean that countermeasures may not incidentally affect the position of third States or indeed other third parties. For example, if the injured State suspends transit rights with the responsible State in accordance with this chapter, other parties, including third States, may be affected thereby. If they have no individual rights in the matter they cannot complain. The same is true if, as a consequence of suspension of a trade agreement, trade with the responsible State is affected and one or more companies lose business or even go bankrupt. Such indirect or collateral effects cannot be entirely avoided. (6) In taking countermeasures, the injured State effectively withholds performance for the time being of one or more international obligations owed by it to the responsible State, and paragraph 2 of article 49 reflects this element. Although countermeasures will normally take the form of the non-performance of a single obligation, it is possible that a particular measure may affect the performance of several obligations simultaneously. For this reason, paragraph 2 refers to “obligations” in the plural. For example, freezing of the assets of a State might involve what would otherwise be the breach of several obligations to that State under different agreements or arrangements. Different and coexisting obligations might be affected by the same act. The test is always that of proportionality, and a State which has committed an internationally wrongful act does not thereby make itself the target for any form or combination of countermeasures, irrespective of their severity or consequences.751 (7) The phrase “for the time being” in paragraph 2 indicates the temporary or provisional character of countermeasures. Their aim is the restoration of a condition of legality as between the injured State and the responsible 748 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (see footnote 27 above), pp. 55– 56, para. 83. 749 In the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project case ICJ held that the requirement had been satisfied, in that Hungary was in continuing breach of its obligations under a bilateral treaty, and Czechoslovakia’s response was directed against it on that ground. 750 On the specific question of human rights obligations, see article 50, paragraph (1) (b), and commentary. 751 See article 51 and commentary. In addition, the performance of certain obligations may not be withheld by way of countermeasures in any circumstances: see article 50 and commentary.