On November 27, 2017, U.S. Department of State published a short article about Proposals Affecting the Independence of the Judiciary in Romania (emphasis mine):
The United States notes with concern that the Parliament of Romania is considering legislation that could undermine the fight against corruption and weaken judicial independence in Romania. This legislation, which was originally proposed by the Ministry of Justice, threatens the progress Romania has made in recent years to build strong judicial institutions shielded from political interference. We urge the Parliament of Romania to reject proposals that weaken the rule of law and endanger the fight against corruption.
This article covers the context under which this press release was made (emphasis mine):
US is one of Romania’s most important international allies. The two countries have a strategic partnership for security and economic development.
US Ambassador to Romania Hans Klemm made a similar statement on Monday, after a new massive protest in Bucharest and other Romanian cities on Sunday evening against the proposed changes to the justice laws [...]
The initial draft provided that the president would be removed from the process of naming chief prosecutors and that the Judicial Inspection, the institution in charge of investigating magistrate misconduct, would be placed under the Justice Ministry’s authority. The changes have been criticized for placing the judiciary under political control.
Some parliament members argued that this press release means interference with legislative process of another country:
“We want to point out that in any discussion with our partners we have to start from a fundamental constitutional principle, the same in the US and Romania, according to which the debates, decisions and votes in the Parliament take place in the name of the sovereignty of the people and cannot be the object of any form of pressure,” reads the quoted communiqué issued by the heads of the two Chambers.
On the other hand, many political analysts and politicians argue that the "strategic partnership" can justify such reactions:
The communique in which the U.S. State Department is asking Parliament not to adopt the amendments to the judicial laws is “unprecedented and grave,” this “imperative request” coming from our strategic partner being in the interest of Romanians [...]
Question: Under what conditions can US can influence legislative process in another country?