Responsibility of a State for the conduct of another State

== Definition ==
Responsibility of a State for the conduct of another State
A joint or collective wrongful act may result in a plurality of responsible States.See in detail Christian Dominicé, ‘Attribution of Conduct to Multiple States and the Implication of a State in the Act of Another State’ in James Crawford and others (eds), The Law of International Responsibility (OUP 2010) 282-284. According to the principle of independent responsibility, each State is responsible for its own internationally wrongful conduct.James Crawford, State Responsibility: The General Part (CUP 2013) 333; ILC Articles on State Responsibility, commentary to Part IV, para 1. However, a State may also be responsible for a wrongful act of another State if it is implicated in the conduct of the latter. International law recognizes several forms of derived international responsibility:James Crawford, State Responsibility: The General Part (CUP 2013) 336.
* Aid or assistance with a view to assisting in the commission of a wrongful act by another State;ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 16. This concept was applied by the ICJ in the Bosnian Genocide Case, see Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), ICJ, Judgement (2007) para 420.
* Direction or control over the commission of an internationally wrongful act of another State;ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 17. This form of indirect responsibility is rather rare, belligerent occupation being one of the few possible examples. Distinction must be made from the situation where an organ of one State has been placed at the disposal of another State - upon certain conditions, acts of this organ might be attributable to the latter State. See Tallinn Manual 2.0, Rule 16.
* Coercion of another State into the commission of an internationally wrongful act.ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 18.
In all three cases, the State is responsible if it acts with knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act.ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Arts 16(a), 17(a) and 18(b); See also Germany's national position.
These forms of implication have in common that the specific nature of the relationship between the State that is the actual author of the unlawful act and the implicated State causes the incurrence of responsibility of the latter.Christian Dominicé, ‘Attribution of Conduct to Multiple States and the Implication of a State in the Act of Another State’ in James Crawford and others (eds), The Law of International Responsibility (OUP 2010) 284.
The assisting State will typically not be responsible for the assisted wrongful actIn situations where aid or assistance is an essential and integral element of the assisted State´s operation, assisting State may be responsible for the assisted conduct. Responsibility of the assisting State therefore attaches for the extent of its contribution. See Tallinn Manual 2.0, commentary to Rule 18, para 6. but for a distinct wrongful act – i.e., for deliberately assisting another State in breaching an international obligation by which they are both bound.Christian Dominicé, ‘Attribution of Conduct to Multiple States and the Implication of a State in the Act of Another State’ in James Crawford and others (eds), The Law of International Responsibility (OUP 2010) 285; ILC Articles on State Responsibility, commentary to Art. 16, para 10. In contrast, the exercise of direction and control or coercion by one State over the commission of an internationally wrongful act by another incurs responsibility for the act itselfILC Articles on State Responsibility, commentary to Art. 17, para 1, commentary to Art. 18, paras 1 and 7; Tallinn Manual 2.0, commentary to Rule 18, para 6. towards the injured State.Christian Dominicé, ‘Attribution of Conduct to Multiple States and the Implication of a State in the Act of Another State’ in James Crawford and others (eds), The Law of International Responsibility (OUP 2010) 288. The coerced State might benefit from force majeure if the requirements are met.ILC Articles on State Responsibility, commentary to Art. 23, para 3. In that case, it would be solely the State exerting coercion that would bear responsibility.Christian Dominicé, ‘Attribution of Conduct to Multiple States and the Implication of a State in the Act of Another State’ in James Crawford and others (eds), The Law of International Responsibility (OUP 2010) 288-289.
Publicly available national positions that address this issue include:
 (2021),
 (2020).
==National positions==
===Germany (2021)===
===New Zealand (2020)===
== Appendixes ==
=== See also ===
* Scenario 21: Misattribution caused by deception
=== Notes and references ===
=== Bibliography and further reading ===
Category:Legal concepts
Category:Attribution