1 Stellar Oklahoma City University’s undergraduate research journal Inside are 2008-09 research papers spanning many disciplines – including English, biology, dance, political science, music, religion, psychology, economics and education. These works represent the exceptional undergraduate research ongoing at OCU. Editor-in-Chief: Micah Gamino Faculty Advisor: Dr. Terry Phelps Stellar is published annually by Oklahoma City University. Opinions and beliefs herein do not necessarily reflect those of the university. Submissions are accepted from undergraduate students. Address all correspondence to: Stellar e/o The Learning Enhancement Center, 2501 N. Blackwelder Ave., Oklahoma City, OK 73106. All submissions are subject to editing. 2 Contents Collusion and Confusion: Evaluating the right of self-defense against private actors Zachary Newland……...………………………………………….……..3 Classification, Method, and Gender Influences On the Perception of Suicide Andria N. Robbins, Laura L. Sabolich and Amy E. Cataldi………………………………………………………………….29 A chantar: The Audacity of the Trobairitz Kate Stringer…………………………………………………………...40 Biochemical and Physiological Alterations Following Traumatic Brain Injury Jessica R. Casselman…………………………………………………..48 “Seven Messages to Seven Churches: One Message to the Church of Today” Rebekah A. Potter……………………………………………………...78 Cognitive Ability and Small Business Success Sara Treadwell…………………………………………………………94 Jack Cole and Jerome Robbins: Crossover Artists Leia Eubanks………………………………………………….………103 The Price of Hubris: General Douglas MacArthur and Korea Christopher E. Morrow……………………………………………….108 Kiss Me, Shakespeare: Cole Porter reached his pinnacle with Kiss Me, Kate Mary Elizabeth Godfrey……………………………………………...121 Finding Your Soul Mate Is Easier than You Think Chad Carman…………………………………………………………137 Pathogenic basis of cross reactivity in Autoimmunity Chandra Kroll………………………………………………................143 Pacific Northwest Ballet: Setting the Foundation Jenny Rice…………………………………………………………….155 Teacher Work Sample Assignment Mischa Yandell……………………………………………………….166 3 Collusion and Confusion: Evaluating the Right of Self-Defense Against Private Actors Zachary Newland Abstract At the dawn of the new millennium, public international law governing the use of military force is increasingly under assault from numerous potentially destabilizing emergent threats. Private armed groups, who, due to technological advances and widespread weapons proliferation, are capable of conducting destructive attacks of unprecedented complexity and gravity, arguably pose the most convoluted juridical challenges today. This essay examines the circumstances under which a state may legitimately use force in self-defense in response to attacks by private actors operating from abroad. Introduction At the dawn of the new millennium, public international law governing the use of military force is increasingly under assault from numerous potentially destabilizing emergent threats. Failed states, eroding sovereignty, and transnational terrorist organizations compose the avant-garde of the aforementioned unique pressures menacing the modern legal regime. Private armed groups who, due to technological advances and widespread weapons proliferation, are capable of conducting destructive attacks of unprecedented complexity and gravity, arguably pose the most convoluted juridical challenges today.1 The attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 violently illustrated the dramatically augmented striking capabilities of non-state groups. Traditional concepts of international relations governing armed attacks and self-defense were questioned because of the private armed group acts. Nevertheless, the U.S. responded to the terrorist attacks with the established time-honored reply: 1 D. Jinks, ―State Responsibility for the Acts of Private Armed Groups,‖ (2003) 83 Chicago Journal of International Law. 4 tactical air strikes. This raised an important question about the unilateral use of force by states: when can states legally employ their right of self-defense if attacked by private actors operating from abroad? The multifaceted enigma non-state armed groups2 create threatens to jeopardize the legitimacy of the international legal system. Responding to attacks from non-state entities within the framework of international law is neither simple nor straightforward, but will undoubtedly promote stability and serve the long-term interests of the global community by strengthening the normative regime. However, a canonical definition of the scope of those laws has yet to been reached, and this disagreement has prompted some commentators to advocate for the abolition of all regulations governing the use of force. Armed non-state actors and the legal conflagration they create are thrusting the jus ad bellum3 towards a breaking point. The circumstances allowing a state to legitimately use force against private armed groups under international law are the core subject of this research. Incredibly elusive, uncovering the substantive content of the jus ad bellum requires an examination of formal agreements, customary state practice, general principles of law recognized by all peoples, 2 The terms ―non-state armed groups,‖ and ―non-state actors,‖ are used interchangeably throughout this paper. Both terms are broad and have been used to describe paramilitaries, irregular forces, armed bands, guerilla groups, and terrorists. See Michael T. Klare, ―The Deadly Connection: Paramilitary Bands, Small Arms Diffusion, and State Failure,‖ in When States Fail: Causes and Consequences, (2004), 116-117. 3 Jus ad bellum refers to the corpus of international norms governing when a state may legitimately use armed force against another state. See Christopher C. Joyner, International Law in The 21st Century: Rules For Global Governance (Lanham: Rowman Littlefield Publishers, 2005), 162-165. 5 judicial decisions and scholarly writings.4 Furthermore, this work specifically analyzes: 1) the evolution of the modern laws of war; 2) contents of the current prohibition of force found in the United Nations Charter5; 3) conditional requirements to the exercise of the right of self-defense; and 4) proposed solutions for strengthening the law. The history and evolution of the laws governing the use of force provide context for any evaluation of the modern international legal regime. Since antiquity ideas of ‗just war‘ have persisted among scholars, but it was not until the early twentieth century that states began to codify restrictions on the use of force. After witnessing the devastation of the Second World War, the men who drafted the U.N. Charter sought to drastically curtail the use of war in international relations. The provisions for self-defense and the general prohibition of war in Article 2(4) together govern the modern use of force by states in international law. Since the only unilateral use of force allowed in the Charter‘s framework is that of self- defense, current debate now focuses on the extent of that right. Unremitting attacks by transnational non-state groups around the globe continue to underscore the importance of evaluating the norms governing the use of force. Contemporary State practice suggests the rules governing the use of force and self-defense are organically evolving to counter these threats.6 Deciphering the future of the normative regime regulating the use of force against non-state groups is essential to bolstering the legitimacy of today‘s international legal framework and promoting global security in the new millennium. Evolution Sixty years after the last major international conflict, the 21st century rules governing the use of force in international 4 Christopher C. Joyner, ―The Nature of International Legal Rules.‖ Chapter 1, 11-14, in International Law in the 21st Century: Rules for Global Governance. 5 Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945. 6 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda), 2005 I.C.J. 116, Par. 24 (Dec. 19). 6 relations are widely accepted and generally agreed upon. Although the complete prohibition of war found in the Charter is relatively new, the belief that states should only resort to war for a good or ―just‖ reason is almost as old as history. Originally known as the just war doctrine, or bellum justum, this principle has evolved gradually over time since being put forth in the teachings of St. Augustine.7 Between 1226-1274 CE, St. Thomas Aquinas expounded upon Augustine‘s idea of just war and enumerated three criteria for the use of force: 1) sovereign authority alone can declare war 2) any attack must have a just cause for resorting to war 3) and there must be a ―just‖ intent – the advancement of good or avoidance of harm.8 These criteria illustrate the continued efforts of theologians to resolve the conflicting ethical hurdles surrounding war and the church. After Aquinas, the laws of war remained largely a static field of jurisprudence until the 17th century. During this time Hugo Grotius‘ influential writings and the Treaty of Westphalia9 revolutionized relations between political entities and established the modern state system. The most important aspect of Grotius‘ writings on bellum justum was his recognition of the illegality10 of resorting to war without ―just‘ cause, thus challenging the absolute right of a sovereign to resort to war for the first time. 7 Augustine of Hippo, De Civitate Dei (The City of God) bk.19, at 7 (1958). See Ian Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force by States