69 / 536
55
CYIL 7 ȍ2016Ȏ SOME CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE EXTENDED USE OF MILITARY FORCE…
that this aproach “remains an act of usurpation of Council powers and a resort to
force is prohibited under international law.”
15
Nevertheless, she is trying to analyse
“the limits of unilateral enforcement” of non-Security Council authorized military
intervention, such as that of NATO in Kosovo, in “the light of the evolution of UN
peace maintenance.” Gowlland-Debbas is convinced that the implementation of “UN
collective machinery” (resort to military action) can, within these limits, be “delegated
or contracted out” to individual actors. In her view, “there is room for non-collectively
authorized unilateral action to the execution of collective decisions” to the “extent to
which such unauthorized unilateral measures can constitute precedents which have
impact on the evolution of the United Nations Charter.”
16
This statement probably
encourages questions about interpretations of notions like “unilateral action”, “non–
collectively authorized unilateral action”, “collective decisions”. The term “unilateral
use of force” or “unilateral intervention”, which may be interpreted presumably as an
action by only one state, is used here for a group states or international organizations.
The term “unilateral” as a rule means in an “unauthorized” intervention.
17
There is an increasing tendency among states to use “collectively” organized
armed actions to escape from unilateral involvement in military conflicts and
from international political and legal responsibility, as the case may be. The term
“international community” is often interpreted very narrowly in the meaning of
a limited group of states only. The concept of international community has been
developed as a legal construct, embracing all or nearly all (or at least a majority)
of existing states of the world. It is not an exception to denominate only a group
of states thus (e.g. NATO), mainly by politicians and by media standing close
to them. Sometimes a “synergy” of UN peaceful activities and those of NATO
in the maintaining of international peace is mentioned.
18
But such a claim is not
always justifiable. Member states have often sought authorization from the UNSC
where they have deemed their actions contrary to international law. A number of
arguments have also been invented to justify unilateral armed actions without express
authorization by the UNSC.
Ryan Goodman even concluded that lifting the prohibition on unilateral
humanitarian intervention would be likely to “reduce the aggregate number of wars
by aggressor states.”
19
It has been often argued that the activity of the UNSC was
paralyzed, that the UNSC has a primary but not exclusive responsibility for the
maintenance of international peace and security etc. The states are seeking to justify
the use of military force by e.g. so-called “implied authorization” or “implied powers
15
GOWLLAND-DEBBAS, V. The Limits of Unilateral Enforcement of Community Objectives in the
Framework of UN Peace Maintenance.
EJIL
. Vol. 11, 2000, No. 2, p. 361.
16
Ibid
.. p. 366.
17
SIMMA, B. supra note 2, p. 5.
18
Supra note 15, p. 370.
19
GOODMAN, R. Humanitarian Intervention and Pretexts for war.
AJIL.
Vol. 100, 2006, No. 1, p. 141.