1.

) It is contrary to the purpose of International

Law
Article 2, Par (3) of the UN Charter:
All members shall settle their international disputes by
peaceful means in such a manner that international peace
and security, and justice are not endangered.
Article II, Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as
an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law
of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality,
justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
The above provision relates to three (3) parts:
1. Renunciation of warthe power to wage a defensive
war is of the very essence of sovereignty;
2. Adoption of the principles of international law;
3. Adherence to a policy of peace, equality, justice,
freedom, cooperation & amity.
1. What war does the Philippines
renounce?___
The Philippines renounces an aggressive war
because of its membership in the United
Nations whose charter renounces war as an
instrument of national policies of its member
States.
2. Does the Philippines renounce
defensive
war?___ No, because it is duty bound to defend
its
citizens. Under the Constitution, the prime duty
of the government is to serve and protect the
people.

According to Bruno Simma, a Jurist in the ICJ: armed

force is exclusively used for the limited purpose of
stopping the atrocities and restoring respect for human
rights, not for any goal going beyond this limited purpose.
Consequently, the use of force must be discontinued as
soon as this purpose is attained. xxx The more urgent the
situation of killings and atrocities, the more intensive and
immediate may be the military response thereto.
Conversely, military action would not be warranted in the
case of a crisis which is slowly unfolding and which still
presents avenues for diplomatic resolution aside from
armed confrontation.
Nicaragua v. US: there is a specific rule whereby selfdefence would warrant only measure which are
proportional to the armed attack and necessary to
respond to it, a rule well-established in customary
international law.
Hence, the entitlement to resort to self-defence under
Article 51 is subject to the conditions of necessity and
proportionality.

It only gives a defending country a valid reason to use

force proportional to the aggressors and exercised ONLY
TO REPEL SUCH AGRESSION BUT NOT
NECESSARILY SETTLE A DISPUTE.
2.) War is inconsistent with the preservation of life
and proliferation of mankind
In human terms, 224,000 to 258,000 people have died
directly from warfare, including 125,000 civilians in Iraq.
Many more have died indirectly, from the loss of clean
drinking water, healthcare, and nutrition. An additional
365,000 have been wounded and 7.8 million people -- equal
to the combined population of Connecticut and Kentucky -have been displaced.
-Brown Universitys Watson Institute for International Study
Estimates of casualty numbers for World War I vary to a
great extent; estimates of total deaths range from 9 million to
over 15 million.
-Matthew White
In WWII, Over 60 million people were killed, which was over
3% of the 1939 world population (est. 2 billion). The tables
below give a detailed country-by-country count of human
losses. World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of
total dead ranging from 50 million to more than 80 million.
-Encyclopedia, Britannica
Civilians killed in WWII totaled from 38 to 55 million,
including 19 to 25 million from war-related disease and
famine. Total military dead: from 22 to 25 million, including
deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war.
-Harvard University Press

3.) War is an expensive endeavor; The risk is far

greater than the remote possibility of
success
In the 10 years since U.S. troops went into Afghanistan to
root out the al Qaeda leaders behind the September 11,
2001, attacks, spending on the conflicts totaled $2.3
trillion to $2.7 trillion.
-Congressional Research
The White House says the total amount appropriated for
war-related activities of the Department of Defense,
intelligence and State Department since 2001 is about $1.3
trillion, and that would rise to nearly $1.4 trillion in 2012.
-Reuters, news

Cost of World War II

Financial Cost of World War II
1 U.S.

$341
would $3,582,143,803,399.78
billion
cost in 2005.
in 1945

$272
would $2,857,311,186,289.56
2 Germany billion
cost in 2005.
in 1945

time; the ground is fertile for

adoption of peaceful resolution of
disputes

Soviet
3
Union

$192
would $2,016,925,543,263.22
billion
cost in 2005.
in 1945

1. There are many modern success

stories of peaceful resolution

4 Britain

$120
would $1,260,578,464,539.51
billion
cost in 2005.
in 1945

5 Italy

$94
would $987,453,130,555.95 in
billion
cost 2005.
in 1945

6 Japan

$56
would $588,269,950,118.44 in
billion
cost 2005.
in 1945

Total

$1.075
would $11,292,682,078,166.46
trillion
cost in 2005.
in 1945

It's impossible to know for certain what war would bring.

No one really knows how act of war against another would
unfold, because it is unknowable. The price of war can be
used on better things. There is no shortage of humanitarian
suffering for us to address. injecting bombs and cruise
missiles into a civil war probably isn't the most cost effective
way to help people. It is certainly the sort of humanitarian
assistance most likely to make us bitter enemies, which
inevitably happens when you pick a side and start killing
some of the people on it.
Unlike earthquakes, floods and volcanic eruptions, war
is a disaster created entirely by people (It is not
inevitable), against people. It is never an accident: making
war is always somebody's decision. Nations spend vast
amounts of money on training soldiers to fight and kill. They
spend even more on devising and manufacturing weapons
and machinery for fighting and killing. That is not the only
expense. Huge sums are also needed for dealing with the
damage when a war is officially over.
CONCLUSION

Justifications regarding war

longer apply to the present

no

International Court has a successful record of

the settlement of disputes concerning territory
and
delimitation,
including
maritime
delimitation. (Actual figures and cases should
be cited)
There are great examples of nonviolent
resistance. In the 20th century, nonviolent
resistance was used successfully by Gandhi and
his followers to undermine the legitimacy of the
British colonial
government in India and by Martin Luther King,
Jr., to draw worldwide attention to the
oppression of African Americans in the United
States.
2. No one really wants war since
people understand that it risks the
future of the human race
The generally limited nature of warfare, even at
its most brutal, ended after World War II with
the development of nuclear weapons. Between
those and the vastly improved biological and
chemical weapons which have become standard
in the military arsenals of so many nations, the
destructive capacity of even a single conflict
has grown to such proportions that no one can
pretend to be uninvolved and unaffected. Thus,
the potential devastation means that wars
today are immoral acts that have a worldwide
effect. People are actually intent on preventing
war and thus, there is
much room for negotiation and prevention.
3. It is universally accepted that the
justice, if any, with such actions is
quickly offset whenVinnocent lives
are put at risk or even lost.
We must learn to overcome the conditioned
belief that armed force is an acceptable way of
dealing with disputes. It's a human weakness,
not a strength, to solve problems with cruelty,
brutality and murder. This is not a mere moral
or religious matter but easily quantifiable. Loss
of human life is an across the board a loss for all
perspectives.