JOSEF MRÁZEK CYIL 7 ȍ2016Ȏ The inability of the UNSC to mount an armed force to intervene when human rights and basic human values are at stake, however, excites a strong tendency among states to act unilaterally without UNSC approval. The permanent members have many times abstained, from voting, so permitting an armed action to be carried out. Very often, with regard to Art. 39, the inadequacy of waiting for an “armed attack” has been stressed. Under Art. 39 the UNSC “shall make recommendation”, or “decide” what measures shall be taken. The expanded international protection of human rights and “democratic values” have serious impact on Chapter VII relating to action with respect to threat to the peace, breaches of peace and acts of aggression. Niels Blokker characterized the right of the UNSC to adopt resolutions authorizing member states to use armed force as an “implied power” for the Security Council. He maintains that both the Charter system and “principles of delegation” reject “carte blanche” delegation. He is in favour of authorization which respects authority and also the responsibility of the UNSC in the framework of the UN security system. 14 Authorization resolutions are the main instrument which provides states with the right to use armed forces within the UNSC powers. An ex post authorization to take armed action may probably for many actors serve as legitimization and even legalization of previously unlawful unilateral actions. The UNSC is bound by international law in making its decisions. A hypothetical question may arise as to what happens when authorization would be effected in violation of basic rules of international law. No solution is contained in the UN Charter, and this situation is in reality probably excluded. In any case, the decisions of the UNSC may not have priority over the UN Charter and basic principles of general international law. In practice many even “authorized” armed actions have been carried out or supported in the pursuit of the political, economic, historical and military interests of some states. In a number of military actions the UNSC early lost its control over “authorized” armed actions. The UNSC should therefore be very self-restrained or, better said, refuse to provide a state or international organization with “a blank cheque” for indiscriminate use of force. 2.3 Unilateral use of military force Unilateral military use of force without authorization of the UNSC, realized only on the basis of “collective” or “international community” decisions, often contravene the UN Charter prohibition under Art. 2 (4) and contravene the ideas and intentions of its founders as well. Various “theories” or “doctrines” are trying to bring legal justification of unauthorized unilateral actions on the basis of implied authorization, the implied powers doctrine, legitimization ex post facto and new emerging norms on “humanitarian intervention”. Gowlland-Debbas comes to the main conclusion 14 BLOKKER, N. Is the Authorization Authorized? Powers and Practice of the UN Security Council to Authorize the Use of Force by “Coalitions of the Able and Willing”. EJIL . Vol. 11, 2000, No. 3, pp. 541, 554.