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 warbecause of its membership in the United Nations whose charter renounces war as aninstrument of national policies of its member States.2. Does the Philippines renounce defensive war?___ No, because it is duty bound to defend itscitizens. Under the Constitution, the prime duty of the government is to serve and protect thepeople.

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 self-defence 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 IIFinancial Cost of World War II

1U.S.$341 billion in 1945would cost$3,582,143,803,399.78 in 2005.

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

3Soviet Union$192 billion in 1945would cost$2,016,925,543,263.22 in 2005.

4Britain$120 billion in 1945would cost$1,260,578,464,539.51 in 2005.

5Italy$94 billion in 1945would cost$987,453,130,555.95 in 2005.

6Japan$56 billion in 1945would cost$588,269,950,118.44 in 2005.

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

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 no longer apply to the presenttime; the ground is fertile for adoption of peaceful resolution of disputes

1. There are many modern success stories of peaceful resolution

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 colonialgovernment in India and by Martin Luther King, Jr., to draw worldwide attention to theoppression 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 ismuch 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.