This Article provides an in-depth analysis of Article 18 of the 2001 ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, which holds a coercing state indirectly responsible for an injurious act committed by a coerced state. Not only does this provision lack support from state practice, but the structural and logical flaws within the current formulation ensure that this provision does not significantly influence the evolution of state practice. Indeed, it would have been better for the ILC to have left Article 18 out of the Draft Articles, given that other, less problematic provisions could have covered such situations involving coercion. In reaching this conclusion, this Article explores the fascinating roles that coercion and causation play within the law of state responsibility.
James D. Fry,
Coercion, Causation, and the Fictional Elements of Indirect State Responsibility,
40 Vanderbilt Law Review
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vjtl/vol40/iss3/1