In international responsibility law, the interplay between "coercion" and "shared responsibility" has grown complex due to the emergence of novel power dynamics and multifaceted harms. This article seeks to dissect the foundations of these two institutions and examine how coercion impacts the structure of shared responsibility within the framework of the 2001 International Law Commission Articles and the Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility. The primary aim is to propose a theoretical framework for attribution of responsibility in scenarios where international actors are subjected to asymmetric pressures. The main question is how coercion has transformed the structure of shared responsibility in contemporary case law, and what doctrinal reforms are essential to address accountability gaps in domains such as migration, the environment? The findings reveal that, although international tribunals frequently employ alternative criteria such as "effective control" to operationalize the concept of coercion, its explicit incorporation into the guiding principles fosters a more equitable framework. Analysis of cases like Hirsi Jamaa, Chagos, and Georgia v. Russia illustrates that an exclusive emphasis on operational control, without considering the causal chain of coercion, leads to incomplete attribution of responsibility and inequitable compensation for harms. Consequently, this article introduces a novel framework of "Coercive Causation" across three levels—direct, normative, and composite—and recommends grading the weight of coercion in the allocation of shared responsibility. This approach not only heightens the accountability of coercive states but also prevents coercion from serving as a shield for the powerful while ensuring victims' access to effective remedies.