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.