W A R . . .

I. INTRODUCTION

Throughout history war has been the source of serious moral questions. Although many ancient nations and some modern ones have viewed war as noble, over the sweep of history, concerns about the morality of war have gradually increased.

Today, war is seen by some as undesirable and morally problematic. At the same time, many view war, or at least the preparation and readiness and willingness to engage in, as necessary for the defense of their country and therefore a just war. Pacifists believe that war is inherently immoral and that no war should ever be fought.

II. WAR DEFINED

Viewed in the former sense, WAR may be defined as an armed contention between the public of states or other belligerent communities, implying the employment of violence among the parties as a means of enforcing their respective demands upon each other (Cruz, Isagani A. 2003).

WAR was originally accepted as a legitimate means of compulsion, provided, according to some writers, that it was a creation to an international delict.

WAR is a reciprocated, armed conflict, between two or more non-congruous entities, aimed at reorganizing a subjectively designed, geo-politically desired result (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/war).

III. LAWS OF WAR

The important laws of war that are supposed to be observed in the conduct of armed hostilities. Among these are the following:

1. The Declaration of Paris of 1856, concerning warfare at sea.
2. The Hague Conventions of 1899, concerning the use of expanding bullets and asphyxiating gases.
3. The Hague Conventions of 1907, concerning the opening of hostilities.
4. The Geneva Convention of 1925, concerning the use of asphyxiating, poisonous and other gases and of bacteriological methods of warfare.
5. The Geneva Convention of 1929, concerning the treatment of the sick and wounded and of prisoners of war.
6. The Declaration of London of 1936, concerning the use of submarines against merchant vessels.
7. The Geneva Convention of 1949, concerning the amelioration of the sick and wounded on land.
8. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The commonly accepted sanction is to protest lodged by one belligerent, usually accompanied or followed by an appeal to world opinion against the unlawful acts of warfare committed by the other belligerent.

IV. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF WAR

1. Principle of Military Necessity - belligerents may employ any amount and kind of force to compel the complete submission of the enemy with the least possible loss of lives, time and money;
2. Principle of Humanity - prohibits the use of any measure that is not absolutely necessary for purposes of war; and
3. Principle of Chivalry - basis of such rules as those that require belligerents to give proper warning before launching a bombardment or prohibit the use of perfidy (treachery) in the conduct of hostilities.

V. RIGHTS OF A PRISONER OF WAR

1. To be treated humanely;
2. Not subject to torture;
3. Allowed to communicate with his family;
4. Receive food, clothing, religious articles, medicine;
5. Bare minimum of information;
6. Keep personal belongings;
7. Proper burial;
8. Group according to nationality;
9. Establishment of an information bureau;
10. Repatriation for the sick and wounded (1949 Geneva Convention).

VI. TERMINATION OF WAR

1. Simple cessation of hostilities;
2. Conclusion of a negotiated treaty of peace; and
3. Defeat of one of the belligerents.

VII. EFFECTS OF WAR

On soldiers. Psychiatric disturbances in varying degrees.
On civilians. Many wars have been accompanied by significant depopulations.
On the economy. Once a war has ended, losing nations are sometimes required to pay repartition to the victorious nations. In certain cases, land is ceded to the victorious nations. For example, the territory of Alsace-Lorraine has been traded between France and Germany on three different occasions.

VIII. UTI POSSIDETIS

Allows retention of property or territory in the belligerent’s actual possession at the time of the cessation of hostilities.

International law recognizes only two cases for a legitimate war:

1. Wars of defense: when one nation is attacked by an aggressor, it is considered legitimate for a nation along with its allies to defend itself against the aggressor.
2. Wars sanctioned by the UN Security Council: when the United Nations as a whole acts as a body against a certain nation. Examples include various peacekeeping operations around the world.

ABAYA vs. EBDANE

Facts:

The Government of Japan and the Philippines, through their respective representatives, namely, Mr. Yoshihisa Ara, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the Republic of the Philippines, and Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Domingo L. Siazon, had reached an understanding concerning Japanese loans to be extended to the Philippines. These loans were aimed to promote our country’s economic stabilization and development efforts.

The assailed resolution recommended the award to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation of the contract for the implementation of civil works for Contract Package No. I (CP I), which consists of the improvement/rehabilitation of the San Andres (Codon)-Virac-Jct. Bago-Viga road, with the length of 79.818 kilometers, in the island province of Catanduanes.The DPWH caused the publication of the “Invitation to Prequalify and to Bid” for the implementation of the CP I project, in two leading national newspapers, namely, the Manila Times and Manila Standard on November 22 and 29, and December 5, 2002.

The bid goes to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation was corrected from the original P993,183,904.98 (with variance of 34.45% from the ABC) to P952,564,821.71 (with variance of 28.95% from the ABC) based on their letter clarification dated April 21, 2004.

The petitioners anchor the instant petition on the contention that the award of the contract to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation violates RA 9184, particularly Section 31.

The petitioners insist that Loan Agreement is neither an international nor an executive agreement that would bar the application of RA 9184. They point out that to be considered a treaty, an international or an executive agreement, the parties must be two sovereigns or States whereas in the case of Loan Agreement No. PH-P204, the parties are the Philippine Government and the JBIC, a banking agency of Japan, which has a separate juridical personality from the Japanese Government.

Issue :

Whether or not the the loan agreement violates RA 9184.

Ruling:

The court ruled in favor of the respondents.

Significantly, an exchange of notes is considered a form of an executive agreement, which becomes binding through executive action without the need of a vote by the Senate or Congress. executive agreements, They sometimes take the form of exchange of notes and at other times that of more formal documents denominated “agreements” or “protocols”.

LIM vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Facts:

Personnel from the Armed Forces of the United States of America started arriving in Mindanao to take part, in conjunction with the Philippine military, in “Balikatan 02-1.” It is a simulation of military maneuvers pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty, a bilateral defense agreement entered into by the Philippines and the United States since 1951. Its aim is to enhance the strategic and technological capabilities of our armed forces through joint training with its American counterparts. The “Balikatan” is the largest training exercise directly supporting the MDT’s objectives. It is this treaty in which the VFA adverts and the obligations thereunder seeks to reaffirm.

On February 1, 2002, petitioners Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, attacking the constitutionality of the joint exercise.

Issue:

Whether “Balikatan 02-1” activities covered by the Visiting Forces Agreement?

Ruling:

The VFA permits United States personnel to engage on an impermanent basis, in “activities.” The sole encumbrance placed on its definition is couched in the negative, in that United States personnel must “abstain from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of this agreement, and in particular, from any political activity.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Articles 31 and 32 contains provisos governing interpretations of international agreements. It clearly provides that the cardinal rule of interpretation must involve an examination of the text, which is presumed to verbalize the parties’ intentions. The Convention likewise dictates what may be used as aids to deduce the meaning of terms, which it refers to as the context of the treaty, as well as other elements may be taken into account alongside the context.

Under these auspices, the VFA gives legitimacy to the current Balikatan exercises. It is only logical to assume that .’Balikatan 02-1,” a “mutual anti- terrorism advising, assisting and training exercise,” falls under the umbrella of sanctioned or allowable activities in the context of the agreement.

BAYAN vs. ZAMORA

Facts:

On August 30, 1951, the Philippines and the United States entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty to further strengthen their defense and security relationship. Under the said treaty, the parties agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their territory, armed forces, public vessels, and aircraft.

On September 16, 1991, the Philippine Senate rejected the proposed RP-US Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Security which, in effect, would have extended the presence of US military bases in the Philippines.

On July 18, 1997 RP and US exchanged notes and discussed, among other things, the possible elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).This resulted to a series of conferences and negotiations which culminated on January 12 and 13, 1998. Thereafter, President Fidel Ramos approved the VFA, which was respectively signed by Secretary Siazon and United States Ambassador Thomas Hubbard.

On October 5, 1998, President Joseph E. Estrada, through respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs, ratified the VFA. On October 6, 1998, the President, acting through respondent Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora, officially transmitted to the Senate of the Philippines,the Instrument of Ratification, the letter of the President and the VFA, for concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

Petitions for certiorari and prohibition, petitioners – as legislators, non-governmental organizations, citizens and taxpayers – assail the constitutionality of the VFA and impute to herein respondents grave abuse of discretion in ratifying the agreement.

Petitioner contends, under they provision cited, the “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities” may be allowed in the Philippines unless the following conditions are sufficiently met: a) it must be a treaty,b) it must be duly concurred in by the senate, ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum held for that purpose if so required by congress, and c) recognized as such by the other contracting state.

Issue:

Whether or not VFA governed by provisions of Section 21 of Article VII or Section 25 of Article XVIII of the Constitution.

Ruling:

The 1987 Philippine Constitution contains two provisions requiring the concurrence of the Senate on treaties or international agreements. Sec. 21 Art. VII, which respondent invokes, reads: “No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the Members of the Senate. Sec. 25 Art. XVIII provides : “After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the RP and the US concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in and when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the Senate by the other contracting state”.

The first cited provision applies to any form of treaties and international agreements in general with a wide variety of subject matter. All treaties and international agreements entered into by the Philippines, regardless of subject matter, coverage or particular designation requires the concurrence of the Senate to be valid and effective.In contrast, the second cited provision applies to treaties which involve presence of foreign military bases, troops and facilities in the Philippines. Both constitutional provisions share some common ground. The fact that the President referred the VFA to the Senate under Sec. 21 Art. VII, and that Senate extended its concurrence under the same provision is immaterial.

WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, ET AL.
vs.
EDGARDO ANGARA, ET AL.

Facts:

As the WTO opens its access to foreign markets, major trading partners, experienced through reduction of tariffs on its exports specifically on agricultural and industrial products. It further associates with exporting and more investment in the country. The signatory Senators viewed this agreement as a “free market” system since there would be more investment and exporting activities with in the member countries. The “Filipino First Policy” of the Constitution was set aside as it gives way to foreign trading. Thus, this petition.


Issue:

Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence of the WTO agreement.

Ruling:

By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered automatically part of our own laws. In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the Constitution “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.

With WTO, the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be considered as absolute because it is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. The Senate only did their part in the valid exercise of authority. It remains as the only viable structure for multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development of international trade law. Its alternative is isolation, stagnation if not economic self-destruction. Thus, the people are allowed, through their duly elected officers to make their free choice.

Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

PIMENTEL, JR.
vs.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

FACTS :

The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court which “shall have the power to exercise its jurisdition over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern xxx and shall be complementary to the national criminal jurisdictions.” Its jurisdiction covers the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression as defined in the Statute. The Philippines signed the Statute on December 28, 2000. Its provisions, however, require that it be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the signatory states.

Hence this petition for mandamus filed by petitioners to compel the Office of the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to the Senate of the Philippines for its concurrence in accordance with Sec. 21, Art. VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Petitioners contend that ratification of a treaty, under domestic law and international law, is a function of the Senate and it is the duty of the executive department to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute to the Senate to allow it to exercise its discretion with respect to ratification of treaties. Respondents, however argue that it has no duty to transmit the copy of Rome Statute to Senate for concurrence.

ISSUE :

Whether or not the Executive Secretary and the DFA have a ministerial duty to transmit to the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute.

RULING :

In our system of government, the President, being the head of the state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country’s sole representative with foreign nations. As chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country’s mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact business of foreign relations. In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states.

Petition is dismissed.

THE WORLD OF FALLACIES...

FALLACY defined

- A false notion.
- A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
- Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
- The quality of being deceptive.
- A component of an argument which, being demonstrably flawed in its logic or form, renders the whole argument invalid.

- In Philosophy, fallacy, any error of reasoning. Reasoning may fail in many ways, and a great variety of fallacies have been distinguished and named.

- In Logic, a term used to characterize an invalid argument. Strictly speaking, it refers only to the transition from a set of premises to a conclusion, and is distinguished from falsity, a value attributed to a single statement.

TYPES OF FALLACIES

In logical arguments, fallacies are either formal or informal. Because the validity of a deductive argument depends on its form, a formal fallacy is a deductive argument that has an invalid form, whereas an informal fallacy is any other invalid mode of reasoning whose flaw is not in the form of the argument.

Beginning with Aristotle, informal fallacies have generally been placed in one of several categories, depending on the source of the fallacy. There are fallacies of relevance, fallacies involving causal reasoning, and fallacies resulting from ambiguities (or equivocations).

Recognizing fallacies in actual arguments may be difficult since arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical connections between assertions. Fallacies may also exploit the emotional or intellectual weaknesses of the interlocutor. Having the capability of recognizing logical fallacies in arguments reduces the likelihood of such an occurrence.

A different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies is provided by argumentation theory; see for instance the van Eemeren, Grootendorst reference below. In this approach, an argument is regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals which attempts to resolve a disagreement. The protocol is regulated by certain rules of interaction, and violations of these rules are fallacies. Many of the fallacies in the list below are best understood as being fallacies in this sense.

Fallacious arguments involve not only formal logic but also causality. Others may involve psychological ploys such as use of power relationships between proposer and interlocutor to establish necessary intermediate (explicit or implicit) premises for an argument. Fallacies often have unstated assumptions or implied premises in arguments that are not always obvious at first glance.

Note that providing a critique of an argument has no relation to the truth of the conclusion. The conclusion could very well be true, while the argument as to why the conclusion is true is not valid. See argument from fallacy. banana. Apple.

MATERIAL FALLACIES

The classification of material fallacies widely adopted by modern logicians and based on that of Aristotle, Organon (Sophistici elenchi), is as follows:

Fallacy of Accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid)--makes a generalization that disregards exceptions (e.g., Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals.)

Converse Fallacy of Accident (also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, or a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter)--argues from a special case to a general rule (e.g., Every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white.)

Irrelevant Conclusion (also called Ignoratio Elenchi)--diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly. This is sometimes referred to as a "red herring".

Subsets include:

purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem),

popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum--appeal to the majority),

fear (argumentum ad baculum),

conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam--appeal to authority)

Affirming the Consequent--draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Q implies P on the basis that P implies Q (e.g., If a person runs barefoot, then his feet hurt. Socrates' feet hurt. Therefore, Socrates ran barefoot. Other things, such as tight sandals, can result in sore feet.)

Denying the antecedent--draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Not P implies Not Q on the basis that P implies Q (e.g., If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I do not have the flu. Therefore, I do not have a sore throat. Other illnesses may cause sore throat.)

Begging the question (also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando--arguing in a circle, or assuming the answer)--demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion (e.g., Paul must be telling the truth, because I have heard him say the same thing many times before. Paul may be consistent in what he says, but he may have been lying the whole time.)

Fallacy of False Cause or Non Sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow")--incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another (e.g., Our nation will prevail because God is great.)

A special case of this fallacy also goes by the Latin term post hoc ergo propter hoc--the fallacy of believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation.

Another special case is given by the Latin term cum hoc ergo propter hoc -- the fallacy of believing that happenstance implies causal relation (aka as fallacy of causation versus correlation: assumes that correlation implies causation).

Fallacy of Many Questions (Plurium Interrogationum)--groups more than one question in the form of a single question (e.g., Is it true that you no longer beat your wife? A yes or no answer will still be an admission of guilt to wife-beating.)

Example

The following argument is posited:

Cake is food.
Food is delicious.
Therefore, cake is delicious.

This argument claims to prove that cake is delicious. This particular argument has the form of a

categorical syllogism. Any argument must have premises as well as a conclusion. In this case we need to ask what the premises are—that is, the set of assumptions the proposer of the argument can expect the interlocutor to grant. The first assumption is almost true by definition: cake is a foodstuff edible by humans. The second assumption is less clear as to its meaning.

Since the assertion has no quantifiers of any kind, it could mean any one of the following:

All food is delicious.
One particular type of food is delicious.
Most food is delicious.
To me, all food is delicious.
Some food is delicious.

In all but the first interpretation, the above syllogism would then fail to have validated its second premise. The person may try to assume that his interlocutor believes that all food is delicious; if the interlocutor grants this then the argument is valid. In this case, the interlocutor is essentially conceding the point to that person. However, the interlocutor is more likely to believe that some food is disgusting, and in this case the person is not much better off than he was before he formulated the argument, since he now has to prove the assertion that cake is a unique type of universally delicious food, which is a disguised form of the original thesis. From the point of view of the interlocutor, the person commits the logical fallacy of begging the question.

VERBAL FALLACIES

Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words. They are generally classified as follows.

Equivocation consists in employing the same word in two or more senses, e.g. in a syllogism, the middle term being used in one sense in the major and another in the minor premise, so that in fact there are four not three terms ("All heavy things have a great mass; This is heavy fog; therefore this fog has a great mass").

Connotation fallacies occur when a dysphemistic word is substituted for the speaker's actual quote and used to discredit the argument. It is a form of attribution fallacy.

Amphibology is the result of ambiguity of grammatical structure, e.g. of the position of the adverb "only" in careless writers ("He only said that," in which sentence, the adverb has been intended to qualify any one of the other three words).

Fallacy of Composition "From Each to All". Arguing from some property of constituent parts, to the conclusion that the composite item has that property e.g. "all the band members (constituent parts) are highly skilled, therefore the band (composite item) is highly skilled". This can be acceptable with certain arguments such as spatial arguments e.g. "all the parts of the car are in the garage, therefore the car is in the garage"

Division, the converse of the preceding, arguing from a property of the whole, to each constituent part e.g. "the university (the whole) is 700 years old, therefore, all the staff (each part) are 700 years old".

Proof by verbosity, sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.

Accent, which occurs only in speaking and consists of emphasizing the wrong word in a sentence. e.g., "He is a fairly good pianist," according to the emphasis on the words, may imply praise of a beginner's progress, or an expert's deprecation of a popular hero, or it may imply that the person in question is a deplorable pianist.

Figure of Speech, the confusion between the metaphorical and ordinary uses of a word or phrase.

Fallacy of Misplaced Concretion, identified by Whitehead in his discussion of metaphysics, this refers to the reification of concepts which exist only in discourse.

Example 1

Tom argues:
Joe is a good tennis player.
Therefore, Joe is 'good', that is to say a morally good person.

Here the problem is that the word good has different meanings, which is to say that it is an ambiguous word. In the premise, Tom says that Joe is good at some particular activity, in this case tennis. In the conclusion, Tom states that Joe is a morally good person. These are clearly two different senses of the word "good". The premise might be true but the conclusion can still be false: Joe might be the best tennis player in the world but a rotten person morally. However, it is not legitimate to infer he is a bad person on the ground there has been a fallacious argument on the part of Tom. Nothing concerning Joe's moral qualities is to be inferred from the premise. Appropriately, since it plays on an ambiguity, this sort of fallacy is called the fallacy of equivocation, that is, equating two incompatible terms or claims.

Example 2

One posits the argument:
Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
Eating a hamburger is better than nothing.
Therefore, eating a hamburger is better than eternal happiness.

This argument has the appearance of an inference that applies

transitivity of the two-placed relation is better than, which in this critique we grant is a valid property. The argument is an example of syntactic ambiguity. In fact, the first premise semantically does not predicate an attribute of the subject, as would for instance the assertion.

A potato is better than eternal happiness.
In fact it is semantically equivalent to the following universal quantification:

Everything fails to be better than eternal happiness.
So instantiating this fact with eating a hamburger, it logically follows that
Eating a hamburger fails to be better than eternal happiness.

That the premise A hamburger is better than nothing does not provide anything to this argument. This fact really means something such as

Eating a hamburger is better than eating nothing at all.

Thus this is a fallacy of composition.

These sort of fallacies are firmly tied to English language and how the words are used in ambiguous ways in several expressions. The phrase "nothing is better than X" actually means "Such a thing that would be better than X does not exist". If the arguments mentioned in this article were to be translated to other languages, they would suddenly make no sense at all since the word "nothing" would be translated differently in different sentences.

DEDUCTIVE FALLACY

In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy : a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.

However, it is often used more generally in informal discourse to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason, and thus encompasses informal fallacies as well as formal fallacies. – valid but unsound claims or bad nondeductive argumentation – .

The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion (see fallacy fallacy). Both may actually be true, or even more probable as a result of the argument (e.g. appeal to authority), but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one; for instance an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy.

Reference: http://www.answers.com/topic/fallacy