[1] Aside from its use as a general descriptor,[2] the term is typically used to imply the existence of a common point of view towards such matters as specific issues of human rights.
The term is also commonly used to imply legitimacy and consensus for a point of view on a disputed issue,[4][6] e.g., to enhance the credibility of a majority vote in the United Nations General Assembly.
[8] President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Paik Jin-hyun and co-authors Lee Seokwoo and Kevin Tan argue that it could refer to "some 20 affluent states", giving the example of those not members of the Non-Aligned Movement,[3] while Professor Peter Burnell of the University of Warwick suggests that a number of very important states, such as China, Russia and those of the Arab and Islamic worlds, are often distant from the concept of the "international community" and do not necessarily endorse every initiative associated with it, for example, by abstaining from key votes in the United Nations Security Council.
[9][10][11] British journalist Martin Jacques says: "We all know what is meant by the term 'international community', don't we?
Using the term 'international community' is a way of dignifying the west, of globalising it, of making it sound more respectable, more neutral, and high-faluting.