Classified information [COSMIC TOP SECRET (CTS)] The International Union

 

 

 

Classified information

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Jump to: navigation, search

 

“Top Secret” redirects here. For other uses, see Top Secret (disambiguation).

“State secret” redirects here. For the 1950 British film, see State Secret.

This article is about information restricted by law or regulation. For the music album, see Unclassified (album). For the evidentiary rule, see State secrets privilege.

A typical classified document. Page 13 of a U.S. National Security Agency report^[1] on the USS Liberty incident, partially declassified and released to the public in July 2004. The original overall classification of the page, “top secret”, and the Special Intelligence code word “umbra,” are shown at top and bottom. The classification of individual paragraphs and reference titles is shown in parentheses – there are six different levels on this page alone. Notations with leader lines at top and bottom cite statutory authority for not declassifying certain sections.

Classified information is a categorization applied to information that a government claims is sensitive information. Access is restricted by law or regulation to particular groups of persons. A formal security clearance is often required to handle classified documents or access classified data. The clearance process requires a satisfactory background investigation. There are typically several levels (classes) of sensitivity, with differing clearance requirements. This sort of hierarchical system of secrecy is used by virtually every national government. The act of assigning the level of sensitivity to data is called data classification. Although the root sense of the word “classified” is simply synonymous with “categorized“, it has developed a sense synonymous with “censored” in the context of classified information.

A distinction could be made between formal security classification and privacy markings such as “Commercial in confidence”.

Some corporations and non-government organizations also assign sensitive information to multiple levels of protection, either from a desire to protect trade secrets, or because of laws and regulations governing various matters such as personal privacy, sealed legal proceedings and the timing of financial information releases.

Contents  [hide]  1 Government classification 1.1 Classification levels 1.1.1 Top Secret (TS) 1.1.2 Secret 1.1.3 Confidential 1.1.4 Restricted 1.1.5 Unclassified 1.2 Clearance 1.3 Compartmented information 1.4 Nuclear information 1.5 Sharing classified information between countries 1.5.1 NATO classifications 1.5.2 International organisations 1.6 By country 1.6.1 Australia 1.6.2 Brazil 1.6.3 Canada 1.6.3.1 Background and hierarchy 1.6.3.2 Special operational information 1.6.3.3 Classified information 1.6.3.4 Designated information 1.6.4 People’s Republic of China 1.6.5 France 1.6.6 Hong Kong 1.6.7 New Zealand 1.6.8 Russian Federation 1.6.9 Sweden 1.6.10 United Kingdom 1.6.11 United States 1.7 Table of equivalent classification markings in various countries 2 Corporate classification 3 Traffic Light Protocol 4 See also 5 References 6 External links

[edit] Government classification

The purpose of classification is to protect information from being used to damage or endanger national security. Classification formalises what constitutes a “state secret” and accords different levels of protection based on the expected damage the information might cause in the wrong hands.

However, classified information is frequently ‘leaked’ to reporters by officials for political purposes. Several US presidents have leaked sensitive information to get their point across to the public.^[2][3]

[edit] Classification levels

Although the classification systems vary from country to country, most have levels corresponding to the following British definitions (from the highest level to lowest)

[edit] Top Secret (TS)

The highest level of classification of material on a national level. Such material would cause “exceptionally grave damage” to national security if made publicly available.

[edit] Secret

“It is desired that no document be released which refers to experiments with humans and might have adverse effect on public opinion or result in legal suits. Documents covering such work field should be classified `secret’.”

April 17, 1947 Atomic Energy Commission memo from Colonel O.G. Haywood, Jr. to Dr. Fidler at the Oak Ridge Laboratory in Tennessee^[4]

Such material would cause “serious damage” to national security if it were publicly available.

[edit] Confidential

Such material would cause “damage” or be “prejudicial” to national security if publicly available.

[edit] Restricted

Such material would cause “undesirable effects” if publicly available. Some countries do not have such a classification.

[edit] Unclassified

Technically not a classification level, but is used for government documents that do not have a classification listed above. Such documents can sometimes be viewed by those without security clearance.

There are a plethora of pseudo-classifications under this category. Please see the articles on Sensitive but unclassified and Controlled Unclassified Information for more information. Some government prosecutors have retro-actively changed unclassified information into classified information after charging someone with a crime; see the Thomas Andrews Drake case for example.

[edit] Clearance

Depending on the level of classification there are different rules controlling the level of clearance needed to view such information, and how it must be stored, transmitted, and destroyed. Additionally, access is restricted on a “need to know” basis. Simply possessing a clearance does not automatically authorize the individual to view all material classified at that level or below that level. The individual must present a legitimate “need to know” in addition to the proper level of clearance.

[edit] Compartmented information

In addition to the general risk-based classification levels above, often there are additional constraints on access, such as (in the U.S.) Special Intelligence (SI), which protects intelligence sources and methods, No Foreign dissemination (NOFORN), which restricts dissemination to U.S. nationals, and Originator Controlled dissemination (ORCON), which ensures that the originator can track possessors of the information. Documents in some compartments are marked with specific “code words” in addition to the classification level.

[edit] Nuclear information

See also: CNWDI

Government information about nuclear weapons such as nuclear warheads often has an additional marking to show it contains such information.

[edit] Sharing classified information between countries

When a government agency or group shares information between an agency or group of other country’s government they will generally employ a special classification scheme that both parties have previously agreed to honour.

For example the marking ATOMAL, is applied to U.S. RESTRICTED DATA or FORMERLY RESTRICTED DATA and United Kingdom ATOMIC information that has been released to NATO. ATOMAL information is marked COSMIC TOP SECRET ATOMAL (CTSA), NATO SECRET ATOMAL (NSAT), or NATO CONFIDENTIAL ATOMAL (NCA).

In cases where a country wishes to share classified information bilaterally (or multilaterally) with a country that has a sharing agreement, the information is with the countries it can be shared with. Those countries would have to maintain the classification of the document at the level originally classified (TOP-SECRET, SECRET, etc.) with the appropriate caveat (USNZ, AUSGE, CANUK, etc.).

[edit] NATO classifications

For example, sensitive information shared amongst NATO allies has four levels of security classification; from most to least classified:

1. COSMIC TOP SECRET (CTS),
2. NATO SECRET (NS),
3. NATO CONFIDENTIAL (NC), and
4. NATO RESTRICTED (NR).

A special case exists with regard to NATO UNCLASSIFIED (NU) information. Documents with this marking is NATO property (copyright) and must not be made public without NATO permission. In general documents with this classification, aren’t cleared for internet-transmission either, unless clearly marked with RELEASABLE FOR INTERNET TRANSMISSION. Documents that can be made public however, should be clearly marked with NON SENSITIVE INFORMATION RELEASABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

In addition to the above classification levels NATO operates with

1. COSMIC TOP SECRET – A

This level is given to people who need to have access to the joined Atomic program of NATO. This level is never given permanently to anyone, regardless of jobtitle – e.g. President of the U.S.A. etc. It is only given for short periods of time, when needed.

[edit] International organisations

• European Commission, has 5 levels, EU TOP SECRET, EU SECRET, EU CONFIDENTIAL, EU RESTRICTED, and EU COUNCIL / COMMISSION.^[5] (Note that usually the French term is used)
• OCCAR, a European defence organisation, has three levels of classification: OCCAR SECRET, OCCAR CONFIDENTIAL, OCCAR RESTRICTED.^[6]

[edit] By country

Facsimile of the cover page from an East German operation manual for the M-125 Fialka cipher machine. The underlined classification markings can be translated as “Cryptologic material! Secret classified material” de:Verschlusssache.

Most countries employ some sort of classification system for certain government information. For example, in Canada, information that the U.S. would classify SBU (Sensitive but Unclassified) is called “protected” and further subcategorised into levels A, B, and C.

[edit] Australia

On 19 July 2011, the National Security (NS) classification marking scheme and the Non-National Security (NNS) classification marking scheme in Australia was unified into one structure.

The Australian Government Security Classification system now comprises TOP SECRET, SECRET, CONFIDENTIAL and PROTECTED. A new dissemination limiting markers (DLMs) scheme was also introduced for information where disclosure may be limited or prohibited by legislation, or where it may otherwise require special handling. The DLM marking scheme comprises For Official Use Only (FOUO), Sensitive, Sensitive: Personal, Sensitive: Legal, and Sensitive Cabinet. ^[7]

Documents marked Sensitive Cabinet, relating to discussions in Federal Cabinet, are treated as PROTECTED at minimum due to its higher sensitivity.

Background checks for access to TOP SECRET material are carried out at either of two levels: at TOP SECRET NEGATIVE VETTING (TSNV), or at the more stringent and expensive TOP SECRET POSITIVE VETTING (TSPV) level, depending on the extent of required access to TOP SECRET material and on the potential damage to national security should such material be disclosed to unauthorised parties. Most background checks for access to TOP SECRET material are carried out at the TOP SECRET NEGATIVE VETTING level.

[edit] Brazil

In Brazil, a top secret (Ultrassecreto) government-issued document may be classified for a period of 25 years, which may be extended up to another 25 years. Thus, no document remains classified for more than 50 years. This is mandated by the 2011 Information Access Law (Lei de Acesso à Informação), a change from the previous rule, under which documents could have their classification time length renewed indefinitely, effectively shuttering state secrets from the public. The new law applies retroactively to existing documents.

[edit] Canada

Further information: Security Clearances in Canada

[edit] Background and hierarchy

There are 2 main type of sensitive information designation used by the Government of Canada: Classified and Designated. The access and protection of both types of information is governed by the Security of Information Act, effective December 24, 2001, replacing the Official Secrets Act 1981.^[8] To access the information, a person must have the appropriate level of clearance and a Need to know.

[edit] Special operational information

SOI is not a classification of data per se. It is defined under the Security of Information Act, and unauthorised release of such information constitutes a higher breach of trust, with penalty of life imprisonment.

SOIs include:

• military operations in respect of a potential, imminent or present armed conflict
• the identity of confidential source of information, intelligence or assistance to the Government of Canada
• tools used for information gathering or intelligence
• the object of a covert investigation, or a covert collection of information or intelligence
• the identity of any person who is under covert surveillance
• encryption and cryptographic systems
• information or intelligence to, or received from, a foreign entity or terrorist group

[edit] Classified information

Classified information can be designated Top Secret, Secret or Confidential. These classifications are only used on matters of national interest.

• Top Secret: This applies when compromise might reasonably cause exceptionally grave injury to the national interest. The possible impact must be great, immediate and irreparable.
• Secret: This applies when compromise might reasonably cause serious injury to the national interest.
• Confidential: When disclosure might reasonably cause injury to the national interest.

[edit] Designated information

Designated information is not classified. Designated information pertains to any sensitive information that does not relate to national security and cannot be disclosed under the access and privacy legislation because of the possible injury to particular public or private interests.^[9][10]

• Protected C (Extremely Sensitive designated information): is used to protect extremely sensitive information if compromised, could reasonably be expected to cause extremely grave injury outside the national interest. Examples could include bankruptcy, identities of informants in criminal investigations, etc.
• Protected B (Particularly Sensitive designated information): is used to protect information that could cause severe injury or damage to the people or group involved if it was released. Examples include medical records, annual personnel performance reviews, etc.
• Protected A (Low-Sensitive designated information): is applied to low sensitivity information that should not be disclosed to the public without authorisation and could reasonably be expected to cause injury or embarrassment outside the national interest. Example of Protected A information could include employee number, pay deposit banking information, etc.

Federal Cabinet (Queen’s Privy Council for Canada) papers are either designated (i.e. overhead slides prepared to make presentations to Cabinet) or classified (draft legislations, certain memos).^[11]

[edit] People’s Republic of China

A building in Wuhan housing provincial offices for dealing with foreign countries etc. The red slogan says, “Protection of national secrets is a duty of every citizen”

The Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (which is not operative in the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macao) makes it a crime to release a state secret. Regulation and enforcement is carried out by the National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets.

Under the 1989 “Law on Guarding State Secrets,”^[12] state secrets are defined as those that concern:

1. Major policy decisions on state affairs;
2. The building of national defence and in the activities of the armed forces;
3. Diplomatic activities and in activities related to foreign countries and those to be maintained as commitments to foreign countries;
4. National economic and social development;
5. Science and technology;
6. Activities for preserving state security and the investigation of criminal offences; and
7. Any other matters classified as “state secrets” by the national State Secrets Bureau.^[13]

Secrets can be classified into one of three categories:

• Top secret (绝密): Defined as “vital state secrets whose disclosure would cause extremely serious harm to state security and national interests”;
• Highly secret (机密): Defined as “important state secrets whose disclosure would cause serious harm to state security and national interests”; and
• Secret (秘密): Defined as “ordinary state secrets whose disclosure would cause harm to state security and national interests”.^[13]

[edit] France

In France, classified information defined by article 413-9 of the Penal Code.^[14] The three levels of military classification are

• Confidentiel Défense (Confidential Defence): Information deemed potentially harmful to national defence, or that could lead to uncovering an information classified at a higher level of security.
• Secret Défense (Secret Defence): Information deemed very harmful to national defence. Such information cannot be reproduced without authorisation from the emitting authority, except in exceptional emergencies.
• Très Secret Défense (Very Secret Defence): Information deemed extremely harmful to national defence, and relative to governmental priorities in national defence. No service or organisation can elaborate, process, stock, transfer, display or destroy information or protected supports classified at this level without authorisation from the Prime Minister or the national secretary for National Defence. Partial or exhaustive reproduction is strictly forbidden.

Less sensitive information is “protected”. The levels are

• Non Protégé (unprotected)
• Diffusion restreinte administrateur (“administrative restricted information”)
• Diffusion restreinte (“restricted information”)
• Confidentiel personnels Sous-Officiers (“Confidential non-commissioned officers”)
• Confidentiel personnels Officiers (“Confidential officers”)

A further mention, “spécial France” (reserved France) restricts the document to French citizens (in its entirety or by extracts). This is not a classification level.

Declassification of documents can be done by the Commission consultative du secret de la défense nationale (CCSDN), an independent authority. Transfer of classified information is done with double envelopes, the outer layer being plastified and numbered, and the inner in strong paper. Reception of the document involves examination of the physical integrity of the container and registration of the document. In foreign countries, the document must be transferred through specialised military mail or diplomatic bag. Transport is done by an authorised convoyer or habilitated person for mail under 20 kg. The letter must bear a seal mentioning “PAR VALISE ACCOMPAGNEE-SACOCHE“. Once a year, ministers have an inventory of classified information and supports by competent authorities.

Once their usage period is expired, documents are transferred to archives, where they are either destroyed (by incineration, crushing or electrical overtension), or stored.

In case of unauthorized release of classified information, competent authorities are the Ministry of Interior, the Haut fonctionnaire de défense et de sécurité (“high civil servant for defence and security”) of the relevant ministry, and the General secretary for National Defence. Violation of such secrets is an offence punishable with 7 years of imprisonment and a 100 000 Euro fine; if the offence is committed by imprudence or negligence, the penalties are 3 years of imprisonment and a 45 000 Euro fine.

[edit] Hong Kong

The Security Bureau is responsible for developing policies in regards to the protection and handling of confidential government information. In general, the system used in Hong Kong is very similar to the UK system, developed from the Colonial Hong Kong era.

Four classifications exists in Hong Kong, from highest to lowest in sensitivity:^[15]

• Top Secret (高度機密)
• Secret (機密)
• Confidential (保密)
  • Temporary Confidential (臨時保密)
• Restricted (限閱文件/內部文件)
  • Restricted (staff) (限閱文件(人事))
  • Restricted (tender) (限閱文件 (投標))
  • Restricted (administration) (限閱文件 (行政))

Restricted documents are not classified per se, but only those who have a need to know will have access to such information, in accordance with the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance.^{[16][dead link]}

[edit] New Zealand

New Zealand uses the Restricted classification, which is lower than Confidential. People may be given access to Restricted information on the strength of an authorisation by their Head of Department, without being subjected to the background vetting associated with Confidential, Secret and Top Secret clearances. New Zealand’s security classifications and the national-harm requirements associated with their use are roughly similar to those of the United States.

In addition to national security classifications there are two additional security classifications, In Confidence and Sensitive, which are used to protect information of a policy and privacy nature. There are also a number of information markings used within ministries and departments of the government, to indicate, for example, that information should not be released outside the originating ministry.

Because of strict privacy requirements around personal information, personnel files are controlled in all parts of the public and private sectors. Information relating to the security vetting of an individual is usually classified at the In Confidence level.

[edit] Russian Federation

Main article: Classified information in Russia

In the Russian Federation, a state secret (Государственная тайна) is information protected by the state on its military, foreign policy, economic, intelligence, counterintelligence, operational and investigative and other activities, dissemination of which could harm state security.

[edit] Sweden

The Swedish classification has been updated due to increased NATO/PfP co-operation. All classified defence documents will now have both a Swedish classification (Kvalificerat Hemlig or Hemlig), and an English classification (Top Secret, Secret, Confidential or Restricted).^{[citation needed]}

[edit] United Kingdom

Main article: Classified information in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom currently uses five levels of classification — from lowest to highest, they are: PROTECT, RESTRICTED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET and TOP SECRET (formerly MOST SECRET). Those working with such material should have the relevant security clearance and often are required to sign to confirm their understanding and acceptance of the Official Secrets Acts 1911 to 1989, although the Act applies in the same way regardless of signature. PROTECT is not in itself a security protective marking level (such as RESTRICTED or greater), but is used to indicate information which should not be disclosed because, for instance, the document contains tax, or national insurance or other personal information.

Government documents without a classification may be marked as UNCLASSIFIED or NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED.^[17]

[edit] United States

Main article: Classified information in the United States

The U.S. classification system is currently established under Executive Order 13292 and has three levels of classification — Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret. The U.S. had a Restricted level during World War II but no longer does. U.S. regulations state that information received from other countries at the Restricted level should be handled as Confidential. A variety of markings are used for material that is not classified, but whose distribution is limited administratively or by other laws, e.g., For Official Use Only (FOUO), or Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU). The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 provides for the protection of information related to the design of nuclear weapons. The term “Restricted Data” is used to denote certain nuclear technology. Information about the storage, use or handling of nuclear material or weapons is marked “Formerly Restricted Data.” These designations are used in addition to level markings (Confidential, Secret and Top Secret). Information protected by the Atomic Energy Act is protected by law and information classified under the Executive Order is protected by Executive privilege.

[edit] Table of equivalent classification markings in various countries

(State)	Top Secret	Secret	Confidential	Restricted
Albania	Teper Sekret	Sekret	Konfidencial	I Kufizuar
Argentina	Estrictamente Secreto y Confidencial	Secreto	Confidencial	Reservado
Australia	Top Secret	Secret	Confidential	Protected
Austria	Streng Geheim	Geheim	Vertraulich	Eingeschränkt
Belgium (Dutch)	Zeer Geheim	Geheim	Vertrouwelijk	Beperkte Verspreiding
Belgium (French)	Très Secret	Secret	Confidentiel	Diffusion restreinte
Bolivia	Supersecreto or Muy Secreto	Secreto	Confidencial	Reservado
Bosnia	Strogo Povjerljivo	Tajno	Konfidencialno	Restiktirano
Brazil	Ultra Secreto	Secreto	Confidencial	Reservado
Bulgaria	Строго секретно	Секретно	Поверително	За служебно ползване
Cambodia	Sam Ngat Bamphot	Sam Ngat Roeung	Art Kambang	Ham Kom Psay
Canada	Top Secret/Très secret	Secret/Secret	Confidential/Confidentiel	Protected A, B or C / Protégé A, B ou C
Chile	Secreto	Secreto	Reservado	Reservado
China, People’s Republic of	Juémì (绝密)	Jīmì (机密)	Mìmì (秘密)	Nèibù (内部)
China, Republic of	“Absolutely” Secret (絕對機密)	“Extremely” Secret (極機密)	Secret (機密)	no direct equivalent
Colombia	Ultrasecreto	Secreto	Confidencial	Reserva del sumario
Costa Rica	Alto Secreto	Secreto	Confidencial
Croatia	Vrlo tajno	Tajno	Povjerljivo	Ograničeno
Czech Republic	Přísně tajné	Tajné	Důvěrné	Vyhrazené
Denmark	Yderst Hemmeligt	Hemmeligt	Fortroligt	Til Tjenestebrug Foreign Service: Fortroligt (thin Black border)
Ecuador	Secretisimo	Secreto	Confidencial	Reservado
Egypt	Sirriy lil-Ġāyah سري للغاية	Sirriy Ǧiddan سري جداً	Khāṣ خاص	Maḥzūr محظور
El Salvador	Ultra Secreto	Secreto	Confidencial	Reservado
Estonia	Täiesti salajane	Salajane	Konfidentsiaalne	Piiratud
Ethiopia	Yemiaz Birtou Mistir	Mistir	Kilkil
European Union (EU)	TRES SECRET UE / EU TOP SECRET	SECRET UE / EU SECRET	CONFIDENTIEL UE / EU CONFIDENTIAL	RESTREINT UE / EU RESTRICTED
European Union (Western) (WEU)	FOCAL TOP SECRET	WEU SECRET	WEU CONFIDENTIAL	WEU RESTRICTED
Euratom	EURA TOP SECRET	EURA SECRET	EURA CONFIDENTIAL	EURA RESTRICTED
Finland	Erittäin salainen (TLL I)	Salainen (TLL II)	Luottamuksellinen (TLL III)	Viranomaiskäyttö (TLL IV)
France	Très secret défense	Secret défense	Confidentiel défense	Diffusion restreinte
Germany	Streng Geheim	Geheim	VS-Vertraulich	VS-Nur für den Dienstgebrauch
Greece	Άκρως Απόρρητον	Απόρρητον	Εμπιστευτικόν	Περιορισμένης Χρήσης
Guatemala	Alto Secreto	Secreto	Confidencial	Reservado
Haiti	Top Secret	Secret	Confidential	Reserve
Honduras	Super Secreto	Secreto	Confidencial	Reservado
Hong Kong	Top Secret, 高度機密	Secret, 機密	Confidential, 保密	Restricted, 內部文件/限閱文件
Hungary	Szigorúan Titkos	Titkos	Bizalmas	Korlátozott Terjesztésű
India (Hindi)	परम गुप्त (Param Gupt)	गुप्त (Gupt)	गोपनीय (Gopniya)	प्रतिबंधित/सीमित (Pratibandhit/seemit)
India (English)	Top Secret	Secret	Confidential	Restricted
Indonesia	Sangat Rahasia	Rahasia	Rahasia Dinas	Terbatas
Iran	Fararaz فَراراز	Raz راز	Sar-be-moher سـَر به مـُهر	Sarbaste سَربسته
Iraq	Sirriy lil-Ġāyah سري للغاية	Sirriy سري	Khāṣ خاص	Maḥdūd محدود
Iceland	Algert Leyndarmál	Leyndarmál	Trúnaðarmál	Þjónustuskjal
Ireland (Irish language)	An-sicreideach	Sicreideach	Runda	Srianta
Israel	Sodi Beyoter סודי ביותר	Sodi סודי	Shamur שמור	Mugbal מוגבל
Italy	Segretissimo	Segreto	Riservatissimo	Riservato
Japan	Kimitsu, 機密	Gokuhi, 極秘	Hi, 秘	Toriatsukaichuui, 取り扱い注意
Jordan	Maktūm Ǧiddan مكتوم جداً	Maktūm مكتوم	Sirriy سري	Maḥdūd محدود
Korea, South	I(Il)-Kup Bi Mil, 1급비밀	II(I)-Kup Bi Mil, 2급비밀	III(Sam)-Kup Bi Mil, 3급비밀	Dae Woi Bi, 대외비
Korea, North	Unknown, 익명의	Unknown, 익명의	Unknown, 익명의	Unknown, 익명의
Laos	Lup Sood Gnod	Kuam Lup	Kuam Lap	Chum Kut Kon Arn
Latvia	Sevišķi slepeni	Slepeni	Konfidenciāli	Dienesta vajadzībām
Lebanon	Tres Secret	Secret	Confidentiel
Lithuania	Visiškai Slaptai	Slaptai	Konfidencialiai	Riboto Naudojimo
Malaysia	Rahsia Besar	Rahsia	Sulit	Terhad
Mexico	Ultra Secreto	Secreto	Confidencial	Restringido
Montenegro	Strogo Tajno	Tajno	Povjerljivo	Interno
Netherlands[18]	STG. Zeer Geheim	STG. Geheim	STG. Confidentieel	Departementaal Vertrouwelijk
New Zealand	Top Secret	Secret	Confidential	Restricted
Nicaragua	Alto Secreto	Secreto	Confidencial	Reservado
Norway	STRENGT HEMMELIG	HEMMELIG	KONFIDENSIELT	BEGRENSET
Pakistan (Urdu)	Intahai Khufia	Khufia	Sigh-e-Raz	Barai Mahdud Taqsim
Pakistan (English)	Top Secret	Secret	Confidential	Restricted
Paraguay	Secreto	Secreto	Confidencial	Reservado
Peru	Estrictamente Secreto	Secreto	Confidencial	Reservado
Philippines	Top Secret	Secret	Confidential	Restricted
Poland	Ściśle tajne	Tajne	Poufne	Zastrzeżone
Portugal	Ultra Secreto	Secreto	Confidencial	Reservado
Romania	Strict Secret de Importanţă Deosebită	Strict Secret	Secret	Secret de serviciu
Russia	Особой важности (вариант: Совершенно Секретно (Sovershenno Sekretno))	Совершенно секретно (вариант: Секретно (Sekretno))	Секретно (вариант: Не подлежит оглашению (Конфиденциально) (Ne podlezhit oglasheniyu (Konfidentsial’no))	Для Служебного Пользования (ДСП) (Dlya Sluzhebnogo Pol’zovaniya)
Saudi Arabia	Saudi Top Secret	Saudi Very Secret	Saudi Secret	Saudi Restricted
Serbia	Latin: Državna tajna Cyrillic: Државна тајна	Latin: Strogo poverljivo Cyrillic: Строго поверљиво	Latin: Poverljivo Cyrillic: Поверљивo	Latin: Interno Cyrillic: Интерно
Singapore	Top Secret	Secret	Confidential	Restricted
Slovak Republic	Prísne tajné	Tajné	Dôverné	Vyhradené
Slovenija	Strogo tajno	Tajno	Zaupno	Interno
Spain	Secreto	Reservado	Confidencial	Difusión Limitada
Sweden	Kvalificerat Hemlig (KH); Hemlig/Top Secret (H/TS)	Hemlig (H); Hemlig/Secret H/S)	Hemlig/Confidential (H/C)	Hemlig/Restricted (H/R)
Switzerland		Geheim / Secret	Vertraulich / Confidentiel	Dienstlich / Interne au service
Tanzania (Swahili)	SIRI KUU	SIRI	STIRI	IMEZUILIWA
Thailand	Lap thi sut (ลับที่สุด)	Lap mak (ลับมาก)	Lap (ลับ)
Turkey	Çok Gizli	Gizli	Özel	Hizmete Özel
South Africa (English)	Top Secret	Secret	Confidential	Restricted
South Africa (Afrikaans)	Uiters Geheim	Geheim	Vertroulik	Beperk
Ukraine	Особливої важливості	Цілком таємно	Таємно	Для службового користування
United Kingdom	TOP SECRET	SECRET	CONFIDENTIAL	RESTRICTED
United States	Top Secret	Secret	Confidential	For Official Use Only
Uruguay	Ultra Secreto	Secreto	Confidencial	Reservado
Vietnam	Tuyệt Mật	Tối Mật	Mật	Phổ Biến Hạn Chế

Original source: NISPOM Appendix B^[19] ¹ In addition, Finland uses label Salassa pidettävä, “to be kept secret” for information that is not classified but must not be revealed on some other basis than national security. (E.g. privacy, trade secrets etc.)

[edit] Corporate classification

Private corporations often require written confidentiality agreements and conduct background checks on candidates for sensitive positions.^[20] In the U.S. the Employee Polygraph Protection Act prohibits private employers from requiring lie detector tests, but there are a few exceptions. Policies dictating methods for marking and safeguarding company-sensitive information (e.g. “IBM Confidential”) are common and some companies have more than one level. Such information is protected under trade secret laws. New product development teams are often sequestered and forbidden to share information about their efforts with un-cleared fellow employees, the original Apple Macintosh project being a famous example. Other activities, such as mergers and financial report preparation generally involve similar restrictions. However, corporate security generally lacks the elaborate hierarchical clearance and sensitivity structures and the harsh criminal sanctions that give government classification systems their particular tone.

[edit] Traffic Light Protocol

The Traffic Light Protocol^[21][22] was developed by the G8 countries to enable the sharing of sensitive information between government agencies and corporations. This protocol has now been accepted as a model for trusted information exchange by over 30 other countries. The protocol provides for four “information sharing levels” for the handling of sensitive information.

[edit] See also

• Economic Espionage Act of 1996
• Espionage
• Espionage Act of 1917
• Freedom of information legislation
• Illegal number
• Official Secrets Act (UK, India, Ireland, Malaysia, New Zealand)
• Security of Information Act (Canada)
• State Secrets Privilege (US)
• Wassenaar Arrangement
• Wikileaks

[edit] References

1. ^ http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/uss_liberty/attack_sigint.pdf
2. ^ Burn Before Reading, Stansfield Turner, 2006
3. ^ Classified Information in Woodward’s “Obama’s Wars”, September 29, 2010, Jack Goldsmith, Lawfare, via stephenkim.org
4. ^ Atomic Energy Commission’s Declassification Review of Reports on Human Experiments and the Public Relations and Legal Liability Consequences, presented as evidence during the 1994 ACHRE hearings.
5. ^ http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/access_documents/docs/guide_citoyen/en.pdf
6. ^ http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/306652_CM6554.pdf
7. ^ http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(689F2CCBD6DC263C912FB74B15BE8285)~Australian+Government+information+security+management+guidelines-+Australian+Government+Security+classification+system.pdf/$file/Australian+Government+information+security+management+guidelines-+Australian+Government+Security+classification+system.pdf
8. ^ Security of Information Act^{[dead link]}
9. ^ Non-Insured Health Benefits Program Privacy Code^{[dead link]}
10. ^ Security Policy – Manager’s Handbook^{[dead link]}
11. ^ Confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada^{[dead link]}
12. ^ Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, “Law on Guarding State Secrets” (中华人民共和国保守国家秘密法), promulgated 1988 and effective 1989.
13. ^ ^{a b} Translation per Human Rights in China, State Secrets: China’s Legal Labyrinth, (2007).
14. ^ Article 413-9, Legifrance
15. ^ [1]^{[dead link]}
16. ^ LCQ3: Equal Opportunities Commission^{[dead link]}
17. ^ “[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Understanding the Security Policy Framework & frequently asked questions”. Cabinetoffice.gov.uk. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/spf/faqs.aspx. Retrieved 2012-06-01. 
18. ^ [2]^{[dead link]}
19. ^ [3]^{[dead link]}
20. ^ “Employment Background Checks: A Jobseeker’s Guide | Privacy Rights Clearinghouse”. Privacyrights.org. http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs16-bck.htm. Retrieved 2011-12-12. 
21. ^ http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/10/40761118.pdf
22. ^ “‘Re: OpenSSH security advisory: cbc.adv’ – MARC”. Marc.info. http://marc.info/?l=bugtraq&m=122754275122010&w=2. Retrieved 2011-12-12. 

[edit] External links

• US “NISPOM” manual, explaining rules on classified information among other things – full title is “National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual”.
• Marking Classified National Security Information ISOO booklet PDF
• Defence Vetting Agency. Carries out national security checks in the UK.
• Los Alamos table of equivalent US and UK classifications
• The Black Vault – a database of more than a half million declassified pages on many different topics, all acquired through the FOIA
• The National Security Archive – a collection of declassified documents acquired through the FOIA
• Lerner, Brenda Wilmoth & K. Lee Lerner, eds. Terrorism: essential primary sources. Thomson Gale, 2006. ISBN 978-1-4144-0621-3 Library of Congress. Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms LC Control Number: 2005024002.
• Peter Galison, Removing Knowledge in Critical Inquiry n°31 (Autumn 2004)
• Parlament of Serbia, Law on confidentiality of data. (Serbian)
• Parlament of Montenegro, Law on confidentiality of data. (Serbian)
• Christopher Moran, Classified: Secrecy and the State in Modern Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classified_information&oldid=502332266“

View page ratings

Rate this page

Rate this page

Page ratings

What’s this?

Current average ratings.

 

Trustworthy

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objective

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complete

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well-written

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have a relevant college/university degree

It is part of my profession

It is a deep personal passion

The source of my knowledge is not listed here

I would like to help improve Wikipedia, send me an e-mail (optional)

We will send you a confirmation e-mail. We will not share your e-mail address with outside parties as per our feedback privacy statement.

 

Submit ratings

Saved successfully

Your ratings have not been submitted yet

 

Your ratings have expired

Please reevaluate this page and submit new ratings.

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.

Please take a moment to complete a short survey.

 

Start surveyMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.

Do you want to create an account?

An account will help you track your edits, get involved in discussions, and be a part of the community.

Create an accountorLog inMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.

Did you know that you can edit this page?

 

Edit this pageMaybe later

 

 

Categories:

• Classified information
• Information sensitivity

Hidden categories:

• All articles with dead external links
• Articles with dead external links from December 2011
• Articles with dead external links from June 2010
• All articles with unsourced statements
• Articles with unsourced statements from June 2008
• Articles containing Arabic language text
• Articles with Serbian language external links

 

The Word of God_Universal law_Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Universal declaration of human rights)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Eleanor Roosevelt with the Spanish version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Created	1948
Ratified	December 10, 1948
Location	Palais de Chaillot, Paris
Authors	John Peters Humphrey (Canada), Rene Cassin (France), P. C. Chang (China), Charles Malik (Lebanon), Eleanor Roosevelt (United States), among others
Purpose	Human rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris). The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law.^[1]

Contents [hide] 1 History 1.1 Precursors 1.2 Drafting 1.3 Adoption 2 Structure 3 Preamble 4 Commemoration: International Human Rights Day 5 Significance and legal effect 5.1 Significance 5.2 Legal effect 6 Reaction 6.1 Praise 6.2 Criticism 6.2.1 Islamic criticism 6.2.2 Libertarian criticism 6.2.3 Education 6.2.4 The Right to Refuse to Kill 6.3 Bangkok Declaration 7 See also 7.1 Human Rights 7.2 Non-binding agreements 7.3 National human rights law 7.4 International human rights law 7.5 Other 8 Notes and references 9 Further reading 10 External links 10.1 Audiovisual Materials

[edit] History

[edit] Precursors

Franklin Delano Roosevelt	State of the Union (Four Freedoms) (January 6, 1941) Franklin Delano Roosevelt‘s January 6, 1941 State of the Union Address introducing the theme of the Four Freedoms (starting at 32:02)
Problems listening to this file? See media help.

Main article: History of human rights

During the Second World War the allies adopted the Four Freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from fear and freedom from want, as their basic war aims. The United Nations Charter “reaffirmed faith in fundamental human rights, and dignity and worth of the human person” and committed all member states to promote “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”.^[2]

When the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany became apparent after the Second World War, the consensus within the world community was that the United Nations Charter did not sufficiently define the rights it referenced.^[3][4] A universal declaration that specified the rights of individuals was necessary to give effect to the Charter’s provisions on human rights.^[5]

[edit] Drafting

Main article: Drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Canadian John Peters Humphrey was called upon by the United Nations Secretary-General to work on the project and became the Declaration’s principal drafter. At the time Humphrey was newly appointed as Director of the Division of Human Rights within the United Nations Secretariat.^[6] The Commission on Human Rights, a standing body of the United Nations, was constituted to undertake the work of preparing what was initially conceived as an International Bill of Rights. The membership of the Commission was designed to be broadly representative of the global community with representatives of the following countries serving: Australia, Belgium, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Chile, China, Egypt, France, India, Iran, Lebanon, Panama, Philippines, United Kingdom, United States, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.^[7] Well known members of the Commission included Eleanor Roosevelt of the United States, who was Chairman, Jacques Maritain and René Cassin of France, Charles Malik of Lebanon, and P. C. Chang of China,^[8] among others. Humphrey provided the initial draft which became the working text of the Commission.

According to Globalizing Family Values, the Declaration’s pro-family phrases were the result of the Christian Democratic movement’s influence on Cassin and Malik.^[9]

[edit] Adoption

The Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 by a vote of 48 in favour, 0 against, with 8 abstentions (all Soviet Bloc states [i.e., Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine and The USSR],Yugoslavia, South Africa and Saudi Arabia).^[10]

The following countries voted in favour of the Declaration: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.^[11]

Despite the central role played by Canadian John Humphrey, the Canadian Government at first abstained from voting on the Declaration’s draft, but later voted in favour of the final draft in the General Assembly.^[12]

[edit] Structure

The underlying structure of the Universal Declaration was introduced in its second draft which was prepared by Rene Cassin. Cassin worked from a first draft prepared by John Peters Humphrey. The structure was influenced by the Code Napoleon, including a preamble and introductory general principles.^[13] Cassin compared the Declaration to the portico of a Greek temple, with a foundation, steps, four columns and a pediment. Articles 1 and 2 are the foundation blocks, with their principles of dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood. The seven paragraphs of the preamble, setting out the reasons for the Declaration, are represented by the steps. The main body of the Declaration forms the four columns. The first column (articles 3-11) constitutes rights of the individual, such as the right to life and the prohibition of slavery. The second column (articles 12-17) constitutes the rights of the individual in civil and political society. The third column (articles 18-21) is concerned with spiritual, public and political freedoms such as freedom of religion and freedom of association. The fourth column (articles 22-27) sets out social, economic and cultural rights. In Cassin’s model, the last three articles of the Declaration provide the pediment which binds the structure together. These articles are concerned with the duty of the individual to society and the prohibition of use of rights in contravention of the purposes of the United Nations.^[14]

[edit] Preamble

The Universal Declaration begins with a preamble consisting of seven paragraphs followed by a statement “proclaiming” the Declaration.

Each paragraph of the preamble sets out a reason for the adoption of the Declaration. The first paragraph asserts that the recognition of human dignity of all people is the foundation of justice and peace in the world. The second paragraph observes that disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind and that the four freedoms: freedom of speech, belief, freedom from want, and freedom from fear – which is “proclaimed as the highest aspiration” of the people. The third paragraph states that so that people are not compelled to rebellion against tyranny, human rights should be protected by rule of law. The fourth paragraph relates human rights to the development of friendly relations between nations. The fifth paragraph links the Declaration back to the United Nations Charter which reaffirms faith in fundamental human rights and dignity and worth of the human person. The sixth paragraph notes that all members of the United Nations have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The seventh paragraph observes that “a common understanding” of rights and freedoms is of “the greatest importance” for the full realization of that pledge.^[15]

These paragraphs are followed by the “proclamation” of the Declaration as a “common standard of achievement” for “all peoples and all nations”, so that “all individuals” and “all organs of society” should by teaching and education, promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, secure their universal and effective recognition and observance.^[15]

[edit] Commemoration: International Human Rights Day

Main article: Human Rights Day

The adoption of the Universal Declaration is a significant international commemoration marked each year on 10 December and is known as Human Rights Day or International Human Rights Day. The commemoration is observed by individuals, community and religious groups, human rights organisations, parliaments, governments and the United Nations. Decadal commemorations are often accompanied by campaigns to promote awareness of the Declaration and human rights. 2008 marked the 60th anniversary of the Declaration and was accompanied by year-long activities around the theme “Dignity and justice for all of us”.^[16]

[edit] Significance and legal effect

[edit] Significance

The Guinness Book of Records describes the UDHR as the “Most Translated Document”^[17] in the world. In the preamble, governments commit themselves and their people to progressive measures which secure the universal and effective recognition and observance of the human rights set out in the Declaration. Eleanor Roosevelt supported the adoption the UDHR as a declaration rather than as a treaty, because she believed that it would have the same kind of influence on global society as the United States Declaration of Independence had within the United States. In this, she proved to be correct. Even though it is not legally binding, the Declaration has been adopted in or has influenced most national constitutions since 1948. It has also served as the foundation for a growing number of national laws, international laws, and treaties, as well as regional, national, and sub-national institutions protecting and promoting human rights.

[edit] Legal effect

While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words “fundamental freedoms” and “human rights” appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states. For this reason the Universal Declaration is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations. Many international lawyers, in addition, believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law and is a powerful tool in applying diplomatic and moral pressure to governments that violate any of its articles. The 1968 United Nations International Conference on Human Rights advised that it “constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community” to all persons. The declaration has served as the foundation for two binding UN human rights covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the principles of the Declaration are elaborated in international treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and many more. The Declaration continues to be widely cited by governments, academics, advocates and constitutional courts and individual human beings who appeal to its principles for the protection of their recognised human rights.

[edit] Reaction

[edit] Praise

The Universal Declaration has received praise from a number of notable people. Charles Malik, Lebanese philosopher and diplomat, called it “an international document of the first order of importance,”^[18] while Eleanor Roosevelt, first chairwoman of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) that drafted the Declaration, stated that it “may well become the international Magna Carta of all men everywhere.”^[19] 10 December 1948. In a speech on 5 October 1995, Pope John Paul II called the UDHR “one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time”.^{[citation needed]} And in a statement on 10 December 2003 on behalf of the European Union, Marcello Spatafora said that “it placed human rights at the centre of the framework of principles and obligations shaping relations within the international community.”^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Criticism

[edit] Islamic criticism

Islamist countries such as Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its perceived failure to take into the account the cultural and religious context of Islamic countries because they claimed their governments were based on the Sharia.^[20] In 1982, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, said that the UDHR was “a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition”, which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.^[21] On 30 June 2000, Muslim nations that are members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (now the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,^[22] an alternative document that says people have “freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah”, without any discrimination on grounds of “race, colour, language, sex, religious belief, political affiliation, social status or other considerations.”^[23] However, the Cairo Declaration has been criticized for failing to fully recognize freedom of religion as a “fundamental and non-derogable right”.^[24]

[edit] Libertarian criticism

Libertarians and some conservatives believe the positive rights that must be provided by others through forceful extraction (for example taxation) negate other peoples’ inalienable rights.^[25] In reference to Article 25’s declaration of a right to free medical care, Andrew Bissell (a supporter of objectivism)^[26] argued that “Health care doesn’t simply grow on trees; if it is to be made a right for some, the means to provide that right must be confiscated from others…no one will want to enter the medical profession when the reward for years of careful schooling and study is not fair remuneration, but rather, patients who feel entitled to one’s efforts, and a government that enslaves the very minds upon which patients’ lives depend.”^[27]

[edit] Education

Many proponents of alternative education, particularly unschooling, take issue with Article 26 where it stipulates that “…education shall be compulsory.” In the philosophies of John Holt and others, compulsory education itself violates the right of a person to peacefully follow his or her own interests:

No human right, except the right to life itself, is more fundamental than this. A person’s freedom of learning is part of his freedom of thought, even more basic than his freedom of speech. If we take from someone his right to decide what he will be curious about, we destroy his freedom of thought. We say, in effect, you must think not about what interests you and concerns you, but about what interests and concerns us.

— John Holt, Escape from Childhood

This instance of the word “compulsory” is the only one in the entire document. The word “compel” is used twice, however, both times with negative connotations.

[edit] The Right to Refuse to Kill

Groups such as Amnesty International^[28] and War Resisters International^[29] have advocated for “The Right to Refuse to Kill” to be added to the UDHR. War Resisters International has stated that the right to conscientious objection to military service is primarily derived from, but not yet explicit in, Article 18 of the UDHR: the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.^[29]

Steps have been taken within the United Nations to make this right more explicit; but those steps have been limited to secondary, more “marginal” United Nations documents. That is why Amnesty International would like to have this right brought “out of the margins” and explicitly into the primary document, namely the UDHR itself.^[28]

To the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights one more might, with relevance, be added. It is “The Right to Refuse to Kill.”^[30]

— Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, and Nobel Peace Laureate, Sean MacBride, 1974 Nobel Lecture

[edit] Bangkok Declaration

In the Bangkok Declaration adopted by Ministers of Asian states meeting in 1993 in the lead up to the World Conference on Human Rights, Asian governments reaffirmed their commitment to the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They stated their view of the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights and stressed the need for universality, objectivity and non-selectivity of human rights. At the same time, however, they emphasized the principles of sovereignty and noninterference, calling for greater emphasis on economic, social, and cultural rights, particularly the right to economic development, over civil and political rights. The Bangkok Declaration is considered to be a landmark expression of the Asian Values perspective, which offers an extended critique of human rights universalism.^[31]

[edit] See also

[edit] Human Rights

• History of human rights
• Human Rights
• Portal: Human rights
• Timeline of young people’s rights in the United Kingdom
• Timeline of young people’s rights in the United States

[edit] Non-binding agreements

• Cyrus Cylinder, Ancient Persia, 559-530 BC
• United States Declaration of Independence, July 1776
• Declaration of Sentiments, 1848
• Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, 1990
• Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, 1993
• United Nations Millennium Declaration, 2000

[edit] National human rights law

• Cáin Adomnáin, 697
• Magna Carta, England, 1215
• Golden Bull, Hungary, 1222
• English Bill of Rights and Scottish Claim of Right, 1689
• Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 1776
• United States Bill of Rights, completed in 1789, approved in 1791
• Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, France 1789
• Constitution of the Soviet Union, first 1918, but did not guarantee rights to the middle class
• Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982

[edit] International human rights law

• European Convention on Human Rights, 1950
• Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1954
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1969
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1976
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1981
• Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1990
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000

[edit] Other

• Command responsibility
• Declaration on Great Apes, an as-yet unsuccessful effort to extend some human rights to great apes
• John Peters Humphrey & film PSA Histori.ca short
• Racial equality proposal,1919
• Khutbatul Wada’, 632

[edit] Notes and references

1. ^ Paul Williams, Ed., “The International Bill of Human Rights”, Entwhistle, 1981. This is the first book edition (ISBN 0-034558-07-8) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with a foreword by Jimmy Carter.
2. ^ United Nations Charter, preamble and article 56
3. ^ Overview
4. ^ UDHR50: Didn’t Nazi tyranny end all hope for protecting human rights in the modern world?
5. ^ UDHR – History of human rights
6. ^ Johannes Morsink, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, University of Pennsylvania Press, p 5
7. ^ Morsink, p 4
8. ^ The Declaration was drafted during the Chinese Civil War. P.C. Chang was appointed as a representative by the Republic of China, then recognised government of China, which was driven from mainland China and was later to become the government of Taiwan and nearby islands.
9. ^ Carlson, Allan (12 January 2004. Globalizing Family Values.
10. ^ See http://www.unac.org/rights/question.html under “Who are the signatories of the Declaration?”
11. ^ Yearbook of the United Nations 1948-1949 p 535
12. ^ Schabas, William (1998). “Canada and the Adoption of Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (fee required). McGill Law Journal 43: 403.
13. ^ Glendon, pp 62-64
14. ^ Mary Ann Glendon, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Chapter 10
15. ^ ^{a b} Universal Declaration of Human Rights, preamble
16. ^ “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 1948-2008”. United Nations. Retrieved 15 February 2011.
17. ^ “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human rights. Archived from the original on 2008-05-02.
18. ^ Statement by Charles Malik as Representative of Lebanon to the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the Universal Declaration, 6 November 1948^{[dead link]}
19. ^ Eleanor Roosevelt: Address to the United Nations General Assembly
20. ^ Price, DE (1999). Islamic political culture, democracy, and human rights: a comparative study. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 163.
21. ^ Littman, D (February/March 1999). “Universal Human Rights and Human Rights in Islam”. Midstream. Archived from the original on 2006-05-12.
22. ^ “Resolution No 60/27-P”. Organisation of the Islamic Conference. 2000-06-27. Retrieved 2011-06-02.
23. ^ The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam(5 Aug 1990)
24. ^ Kazemi, F (2002). “Perspectives on Islam and Civil Society”. In Hashmi SH. Islamic Political Ethics: Civil Society, Pluralism and Conflict. Princeton University Press. pp. 50. ISBN 0-691-11310-6.
25. ^ See Capitalism Magazine – United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Destroys Individual Rights Retrieved 22 June 2006.
26. ^ Author Page: Andrew Bissell
27. ^ Right To Health Care (archived from the original on 2008-05-14).
28. ^ ^{a b} Amnesty International “Out of the margins: the right to conscientious objection to military service in Europe: An announcement of Amnesty International’s forthcoming campaign and briefing for the UN Commission on Human Rights” 1 April 1997. Amnesty International, Worldwide Sites, Library, Europe and Central Asia. Retrieved 9 May 2008 [1]
29. ^ ^{a b} War Resisters International A Conscientious Objector’s Guide to the UN Human Rights System, Parts 1, 2 & 3, Background Information on International Law for COs, Standards which recognise the right to conscientious objection, In treaties. [2] retrieved 9 May 2008
30. ^ Sean MacBride “The Imperatives of Survival” Nobel Lecture, 12 December 1974. [3] retrieved 9 May 2008 from The Nobel Foundation – Official website of the Nobel Foundation. (English index page; hyperlink to Swedish site.) From Nobel Lectures, [4] Peace 1971–1980, Editor-in-Charge Tore Frängsmyr, Editor Irwin Abrams, World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 1997
31. ^ Final Declaration Of The Regional Meeting For Asia Of The World Conference On Human Rights

[edit] Further reading

• Johannes Morsink, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting & Intent” (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999).
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights pages at Columbia University (Centre for the Study of Human Rights), including article by article commentary, video interviews, discussion of meaning, drafting and history.
• John Nurser, “For All Peoples and All Nations. Christian Churches and Human Rights.”. (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2005).

[edit] External links

Wikisourcehas original text related to this article: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Look up universal declaration of human rights in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

• Text of the UDHR (English)
• Official translations of the UDHR
• Plain Language version of the UDHR
• Questions and answers about the Universal Declaration
• WORLD CONFERENCES ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND MILLENNIUM DECLARATION
• Text, Audio, and Video excerpt of Eleanor Roosevelt’s Address to the United Nations on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• UDHR – Education
• Revista Envío – A Declaration of Human Rights For the 21st Century
• Educational Choice “on the Side of the Child”: Liberalism and Libertarian Education
• Maryland Law UDHR 60 Conference – October 23–25, 2008
• UDHR 60 Connecticut Conference – December 2008
• Know Your Rights 2008
• Youth Celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the UDHR CASHRA, the John Humphrey Centre and TakingITGlobal join forces

[edit] Audiovisual Materials

• Librivox: Human-read audio recordings in several Languages
• Text, Audio, and Video excerpt of Eleanor Roosevelt’s Address to the United Nations on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• Animated presentation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by Amnesty International, from Youtube (English, 20 minutes and 23 seconds)
• Audio: Statement by Charles Malik as Representative of Lebanon to the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the Universal Declaration, 6 November 1948.
• UN Department of Public Information introduction to the drafters of the Declaration.
• Videos introducing each article of the UDHR from RRRT Pacific.
• Video add for UDHR article 1 from Youth for Human Rights International.

[show]v · d · eArticles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[show]v · d · eHuman rights

View page ratings

Rate this page

What’s this?

Trustworthy

Objective

Complete

Well-written

type=”checkbox” value=”general” disabled=”disabled” />I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)

Categories: 1948 in law | Human rights | Human rights instruments | United Nations General Assembly resolutions | History of human rights

The War of the Worlds (radio)

The War of the Worlds (radio)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The War of the Worlds

Genre	episode of a radio show
Running time	60 minutes
Country	[unreliable source?]
Home station	CBS (radio)
Starring	Orson Welles Frank Readick Kenny Delmar Ray Collins
Announcer	Dan Seymour
Writers	Howard W. Koch (adaptation of the H.G. Wells novel)
Directors	Orson Welles
Producers	John Houseman Orson Welles
Exec. producers	Davidson Taylor (for CBS)
Narrated by	Orson Welles
Recording studio	Columbia Broadcasting Building, 485 Madison Avenue, New York
Air dates	since October 30, 1938
Opening theme	Piano Concerto No. 1, by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
Ending theme	same as opening theme

The War of the Worlds was an episode of the American radio drama anthology series Mercury Theatre on the Air. It was performed as a Halloween episode of the series on October 30, 1938 and aired over the Columbia Broadcasting System radio network. Directed and narrated by Orson Welles, the episode was an adaptation of H. G. Wells‘ novel The War of the Worlds.
The first two thirds of the 60-minute broadcast were presented as a series of simulated “news bulletins“, which suggested to many listeners that an actual alien invasion by Martians was currently in progress. Compounding the issue was the fact that the Mercury Theatre on the Air was a ‘sustaining show‘ (it ran without commercial breaks), thus adding to the program’s quality of realism. Although there were sensationalist accounts in the press about a supposed panic in response to the broadcast, the precise extent of listener response has been debated. In the days following the adaptation, however, there was widespread outrage. The program’s news-bulletin format was decried as cruelly deceptive by some newspapers and public figures, leading to an outcry against the perpetrators of the broadcast, but the episode secured Orson Welles’ fame.
Welles’ adaptation was one of the Radio Project‘s first studies.

Contents [show] 1 Background 2 Plot summary 3 Public reaction 4 Aftermath 5 Conspiracy theory 6 Remakes and re-airings 7 Influence 8 Possible influence on Welles 9 References in fiction 10 See also 11 Sources 12 Further reading 13 External links 14 References

[edit] Background

Monument erected October 1998 commemorating where the Martians in the story landed in Van Nest Park, Grover’s Mill, NJ.

H. G. Wells’ original novel relates the story of an alien invasion of Earth at the end of the 19th century. The radio play’s story was adapted by and written primarily by Howard Koch, with input from Orson Welles and the staff of CBS‘s Mercury Theatre On The Air. The action was transferred to contemporary Grover’s Mill, an unincorporated village in West Windsor Township, New Jersey in the United States. The program’s format was to simulate a live newscast of developing events. To this end, Welles played recordings of Herbert Morrison‘s radio reports of the Hindenburg disaster for actor Frank Readick and the rest of the cast, to demonstrate the mood he wanted.
The first two thirds of the 55½ minute play was a contemporary retelling of events of the novel, presented as news bulletins. This approach was not new. Fr. Ronald Knox‘s satirical newscast of a riot overtaking London over the British Broadcasting Company in 1926 had a similar approach (and created much the same effect on its audience). Welles had been influenced by the Archibald MacLeish dramas The Fall of The City and Air Raid, the former of which had used Welles himself in the role of a live radio news reporter. But the approach had never been done with as much continued verisimilitude and the innovative format has been cited as a key factor in the confusion that followed.

[edit] Plot summary

The program, broadcast from the 20th floor at 485 Madison Avenue in New York City, starts with an introduction from the novel, describing the intentions of the aliens and noting that the adaptation was set in 1939, a year ahead of the actual broadcast date. The program continues as a weather report, then as an ordinary dance band remote featuring “Ramon Raquello and His Orchestra” (actually the CBS orchestra under the direction of Bernard Herrmann) that is interrupted by news flashes about strange explosions on Mars. Welles makes his first appearance as (the fictional) famous astronomer and Princeton professor Richard Pierson, who refutes speculation about life on Mars.
The news grows more frequent and increasingly ominous as a cylindrical meteorite lands in Grover’s Mill, New Jersey. A crowd gathers at the site and events are related by reporter Carl Phillips (portrayed by Frank Readick). The meteorite unscrews, revealing itself as a rocket machine, and onlookers catch a glimpse of a tentacled, pulsating, barely mobile Martian before it incinerates the crowd with Heat-Rays. Phillips’ shouts about incoming flames are cut off in mid-sentence. (Later surveys indicate that many listeners heard only this portion of the show before contacting neighbors or family to enquire about the broadcast. Many contacted others in turn, leading to rumors and confusion.)
Regular programming breaks down as the studio struggles to keep up with casualty updates, firefighting developments and the like. A shaken Pierson speculates about Martian technology. The New Jersey state militia declares martial law and attacks the cylinder; a message from their field headquarters goes on about the overwhelming force of properly equipped infantry and the helplessness of the Martians in Earth’s gravity until a tripod alien fighting machine rears up from the pit.
The studio returns to establish the Martians as an invading army with the obliteration of the militia force. Emergency response bulletins give way to damage reports and evacuation instructions while millions of refugees clog the roads. Three Martian tripods from the cylinder destroy power stations and uproot bridges and railroads, reinforced by three others from a second cylinder as gas explosions continue. An unnamed Secretary of the Interior advises the nation. (The secretary was originally intended to be a portrayal of Franklin D. Roosevelt, then President, but CBS insisted this detail, among others, be changed. The secretary did, however, sound like Roosevelt as the result of directions to actor Kenny Delmar by Welles.)
A live connection is established to a field artillery battery. Its gun crew reports damaging one machine and a release of black smoke/poison gas before fading in to the sound of coughing. The lead plane of a wing of bombers broadcasts its approach and remains on the air as their engines are burned by the Heat-Ray and the plane dives on the invaders. Radio operators go active and fall silent, most right after reporting the approach of the black smoke. The planes destroyed one machine, but cylinders are falling all across the country.
This section ends famously: a news reporter (played by Ray Collins), broadcasting from atop the CBS building, describes the Martian invasion of New York City — “five great machines” wading across the Hudson River, poison smoke drifting over the city, people running and diving into the East River “like rats”, others “falling like flies” — until he, too, succumbs to the poison gas. Finally, a despairing ham radio operator is heard calling, “2X2L calling CQ. Isn’t there anyone on the air? Isn’t there anyone on the air? Isn’t there…. anyone?”
After an intermission for station identification, in which announcer Dan Seymour mentions the show’s fictionality, the last third is a monologue and dialogue, with Welles returning as Professor Pierson, describing the aftermath of the attacks. The story ends, as does the novel, with the Martians falling victim to earthly germs and bacteria.
After the play, Welles informally breaks character to remind listeners that the broadcast was a Halloween concoction (the equivalent, as he puts it, “of dressing up in a sheet and saying, ‘Boo!'”). Popular mythology holds this “disclaimer” was hastily added to the broadcast at the insistence of CBS executives as they became aware of panic inspired by the program; in fact, it had appeared in Koch’s working script for the play, as detailed in his 1970 book The Panic Broadcast.

[edit] Public reaction

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2008)

New York Times headline from October 31, 1938

Some listeners heard only a portion of the broadcast, and in the atmosphere of tension and anxiety just prior to World War II, took it to be a news broadcast. Newspapers reported that panic ensued, people fleeing the area, others thinking they could smell poison gas or could see flashes of lightning in the distance.
Richard J. Hand cites studies by unnamed historians who “calculate[d] that some six million heard the CBS broadcast; 1.7 million believed it to be true, and 1.2 million were ‘genuinely frightened'”.^[1] While Welles and company were heard by a comparatively small audience (in the same period, NBC’s audience was an estimated 30 million), the uproar was anything but minute: within a month, there were 12,500 newspaper articles about the broadcast or its impact, while Adolf Hitler cited the panic, as Hand writes, as “evidence of the decadence and corrupt condition of democracy.”^[1]
Later studies suggested this panic was less widespread than newspapers suggested. During this period, many newspapers were concerned that radio, a new medium, would render the press obsolete. In addition, this was a time of yellow journalism, and as a result, journalists took this opportunity to demonstrate the dangers of broadcast by embellishing the story, and the panic that ensued, greatly.^[2]
Robert E. Bartholomew suggests that hundreds of thousands were frightened in some way, but notes that evidence of people taking action based on this fear is “scant” and “anecdotal”.^[3] Indeed, contemporary news articles indicate that police were swamped with hundreds of calls in numerous locations, but stories of people doing anything more than calling the authorities typically involve groups of ones or tens and were often reported by people who were panicking themselves.
Later studies indicate that many missed the repeated notices that the broadcast was fictional, partly because the Mercury Theatre (an unsponsored cultural program with a relatively small audience) ran opposite the popular Chase and Sanborn Hour over the Red Network of NBC, hosted by Don Ameche and featuring comic ventriloquist Edgar Bergen and singer Nelson Eddy, three of the most popular figures in broadcasting. About 15 minutes into the Chase and Sanborn program the first comic sketch ended and a musical number began, and many listeners began tuning around the dial at that point. According to the American Experience program The Battle Over Citizen Kane, Welles knew the schedule of the Chase and Sanborn show, and scheduled the first report from Grover’s Mill at the 12-minute mark to heighten the audience’s confusion. As a result, some listeners happened upon the CBS broadcast at the point the Martians emerge from their spacecraft.
Many listeners were apparently confused. It must be noted that the confusion cannot be credited entirely to naïveté. Though many of the actors’ voices should have been recognizable from other radio shows, nothing like The War of the Worlds broadcast had been attempted in the United States, so listeners were accustomed to accepting newsflashes as reliable.
The problem is that the working script had only three statements concerning the fictional nature of the program: at the beginning, at 40 minutes, and at the end. In fact, the warning at the 40-minute mark is the only one after the actors start speaking in character, and before Welles breaks character at the end. This structure is similar to earlier Mercury Theatre broadcasts: due to the lack of sponsorship (which often included a commercial message at the 30-minute mark during an hour-long show), Welles and company were able to schedule breaks at will, depending on the pacing of a narrative. Furthermore, the show’s technique of jumping between scenes and narratives made it hard for the audience to distinguish between fact and fiction, so it is understandable that they were no more likely to perceive the three statements of the fictional nature of the program as being ‘outside’ the narrative, than they were to perceive the introduction (and subsequent interruption) of the music as being ‘inside’ the narrative.
While War of the Worlds was in progress, some residents in northeastern cities went to ask neighbors what was happening (many homes still did not have telephones). As the story was repeated, rumors began and caused some panic.^{[citation needed]}
Contemporary accounts spawned urban legends, many of which have come to be accepted through repetition. Several people reportedly rushed to the scene of the events in New Jersey to see the unfolding events, including a few geologists from Princeton University who went looking for the meteorite that was said to have fallen near their school. Some people, who had brought firearms, reportedly mistook a farmer’s water tower for a Martian Tripod and shot at it.^[4]
Initially Grover’s Mill was deserted, but crowds developed. Eventually police were sent to control the crowds. To people arriving later in the evening, the scene really did look like the events being narrated, with panicked crowds and flashing police lights streaming across the masses.^{[citation needed]}
Some people called CBS, newspapers or the police in confusion over the realism of the news bulletins. There were instances of panic throughout the US as a result of the broadcast, especially in New York and New Jersey.^[5]
Future Tonight Show host Jack Paar did announcing duties that night for Cleveland CBS affiliate WGAR. When the phone lines to the studio started to light up with panicking listeners calling in, Paar attempted to calm them on the phone and on-air by saying, “The world is not coming to an end. Trust me. When have I ever lied to you?” When the frightened listeners started charging Paar with ‘covering up the truth’, he then called WGAR’s station manager for help. Oblivious to the situation, the manager advised Paar to calm down, saying it was “all a tempest in a teapot.”^[6]
Seattle CBS affiliate stations KIRO and KVI broadcast Orson Welles’ radio drama. While this broadcast was heard around the country, it made a deep impact in Concrete, Washington. At the point where the Martian invaders were invading towns and the countryside with flashes of light and poison gases and the lights were going down, there was a loud explosion and a power failure plunged almost the entire town of 1,000 into darkness. Some listeners fainted while others grabbed their families to head into the mountains. Others headed for the hills to guard their moonshine stills. One was said to have jumped up out of his chair and, in bare feet, run two miles to the center of town. Some men grabbed their guns, and one Catholic businessman got his wife into the car, drove to the nearest service station and demanded gasoline. Without paying the attendant, he rushed to Bellingham, Washington (50 miles away) to see his priest for a last-minute absolution of sins. He reportedly told the gas-station attendant that paying for the gas “[wouldn’t] make any difference, everyone is going to die!”
Because phone lines as well as electricity were out, residents were unable to call neighbors, family or friends to calm their fears. Of course, the real story was not as fantastic as the radio drama: all that had occurred was that the Superior Portland cement company’s sub-station suffered a short-circuit with a flash of brilliant light, and the town’s lights went dark. The more conservative radio-listeners in Concrete (who had been listening to Edgar Bergen’s program on another station) calmed neighbors by assuring that they hadn’t heard about any disaster. Reporters heard soon after of the coincidental blackout of Concrete and sent the story over the newswire and soon the town of Concrete was known worldwide.^[7]
Edgar Bergen and Don Ameche, who were continuing their Chase and Sanborn Hour broadcast on NBC, are often credited with “saving the world”. It is said many listeners were reassured by hearing their tones on a neighboring station.

[edit] Aftermath

In the aftermath of the reported panic, a public outcry arose, but CBS informed officials that listeners were reminded throughout the broadcast that it was a performance. Welles and the Mercury Theatre escaped punishment, but not censure, and CBS is believed to have had to promise never again to use “we interrupt this program” for dramatic purpose.^{[citation needed]} However, many radio commercials to this day do start with the phrase “We interrupt this program”.
A study by the Radio Project discovered that some who panicked presumed that Germans — not Martians — had invaded. Other studies suggest that the extent of the panic was exaggerated by contemporary media^{[citation needed]}.
When a meeting between H.G. Wells and Orson Welles was broadcast on Radio KTSA San Antonio on October 28, 1940, Wells expressed a lack of understanding of the apparent panic and it was, perhaps, only pretense, like the American version of Halloween, for fun. The two men and their radio interviewer joked about the matter, though with embarrassment. KTSA, as a CBS affiliate, had carried the broadcast.
War of the Worlds and the panic have become examples of mass hysteria and the delusions of crowds.
In 1988, during the weekend nearest the 50th anniversary of the broadcast, West Windsor Township, in which Grovers Mills is located, held a Martian festival. Designed to attract tourist revenue, this included “Martians” firing “Heat Rays” and carnival rides and hucksters’ stalls. The New Yorker magazine review began “It’s not every day we get to see the Martian Women invade…”

Heaven Uranus Uranium

Heaven Uranus Uranium

G3772 ïšñáíüò   Perhaps from the same as G3735 (through the idea of elevation); the sky; by extension heaven (as the abode of God); by implication happiness, power, eternity; specifically the Gospel (Christianity):—air, heaven ([-ly]), sky.

Belief in outer space life

José Gabriel Funes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

José Gabriel Funes
Born	January 31, 1963  ARG Córdoba
Residence	VAT
Fields	astrophysics
Institutions	Vatican Observatory

Fr. José Gabriel Funes, S.J. (born January 31, 1963 in Córdoba), an Argentine Jesuit priest and astronomer, is the current director of the Vatican Observatory.

Contents [show]

[edit] Biography

He has a master’s degree in Astronomy from the Universidad Nacional de Córdoba in Argentina and a doctorate from the University of Padua in Italy. He has also a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from University del Salvador in Argentina and a bachelor’s degree in theology from Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. A member of the Society of Jesus, he was ordained a priest in 1995. He joined the Vatican Observatory as a researcher in 2000, and was named its director on August 19, 2006 replacing Fr. George Coyne.

[edit] Selected Papers

Author	Title	Journal	Year
LAPASSET E. and FUNES J.G.	The peculiar behaviour of the photometric variability of V508 Ophiuchi.	Astrophys. Space Sci., 113, 83-87	1985
CORSINI E.M., PIZZELLA A., FUNES J.G., VEGA BELTRAN J.C. and BERTOLA F.	The circumnuclear ring of ionized gas in NGC 3593.	Astron. Astrophys., 337, 80-84	1998
VEGA BELTRAN J.C., ZEILINGER W.W., AMICO P., SCHULTHEIS M., CORSINI E.M., FUNES J.G., BECKMAN J. and BERTOLA F.	Mixed early and late-type properties in the bar of NGC 6221: Evidence for evolution along the Hubble sequence?	Astron. Astrophys., Suppl. Ser., 131, 105-114	1998
BERTOLA F., CAPPELLARI M., FUNES J.G., CORSINI E.M., PIZZELLA A. and VEGA BELTRAN J.C.	Circumnuclear Keplerian disks in galaxies.	Astrophys. J., 509, L93-L96	1998
CORSINI E.M., PIZZELLA A., SARZI M., CINZANO P., VEGA BELTRAN J.C., FUNES J.G., BERTOLA F., PERSIC M. and SALUCCI P.	Dark matter in early-type spiral galaxies: the case of NGC 2179 and of NGC 2775.	Astron. Astrophys., 342, 671-686	1999
BERTOLA F., CORSINI E.M., VEGA BELTRAN J.C., PIZZELLA A., SARZI M., CAPPELLARI M. and FUNES J.G.	The bulge-disk orthogonal decoupling in galaxies: NGC 4698.	Astrophys. J., 519, L127-L130	1999
SARZI M., CORSINI E.M., PIZZELLA A., VEGA BELTRAN J.C., CAPPELLARI M., FUNES J.G. and BERTOLA F.	NGC 4672: A new case of an early-type disk galaxy with an orthogonally decoupled co re.	Astron. Astrophys., 360, 439-446	2000
FUNES J.G. and CORSINI E.M.	Galaxy disks and disk galaxies. (Conference highlights).	Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 112, 1510-1511	2000
VEGA BELTRAN J.C., PIZZELLA A., CORSINI E.M., FUNES J.G., ZEILINGER W.W., BECKMAN J.E. and BERTOLA F.	Kinematic properties of gas and stars in 20 disc galaxies.	Astron. Astrophys., 374, 394-411	2001
VENNIK J., FUNES J.G., RAFANELLI P. and RICHTER G.M.	Structure of the Seyfert 2 galaxy Mkn 955.	Astron. Gesellschaft Abstract Ser., 18, 210-210	2001
SARZI M., BERTOLA F., CAPPELLARI M., CORSINI E.M., FUNES J.G., PIZZELLA A. and VEGA BELTRAN J.C.	The orthogonal bulge-disc decoupling in NGC 4698.	Astrophys. Space Sci., 276, 467-473	2001
VEGA BELTRAN J.C., ZEILINGER W.W., PIZZELLA A., CORSINI E.M., BERTOLA F., FUNES J.G. and BECKMAN J.E.	Kinematics of gas and stars in 20 disc galaxies.	Astrophys. Space Sci., 276, 1201-1210	2001
PIGNATELLI E., VEGA BELTRAN J.C., BECKMAN J.E., CORSINI E.M., PIZZELLA A., SCARLATA C., BERTOLA F., FUNES J.G. and ZEILINGER W.W.	Modeling gas and stellar kinematics in disc galaxies NGC 772, NGC 3898 and NGC 7782.	Astrophys. Space Sci. Suppl., 277, 493-494	2001
PIGNATELLI E., CORSINI E.M., VEGA BELTRAN J.C., SCARLATA C., PIZZELLA A., FUNES J.G., ZEILINGER W.W., BECKMAN J.E. and BERTOLA F.	Modelling gaseous and stellar kinematics in the disc galaxies NGC 772, 3898 and 7782.	Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 323, 188-210	2001
PIZZELLA A., BERTOLA F., SARZI M., CORSINI E.M., VEGA BELTRAN J.C., CAPPELLARI M. and FUNES J.G.	NGC 4672: a new case of an early-type disk galaxy with an orthogonally decoupled core.	Mem. Soc. Astron. Ital., 72, 797-800	2001
FUNES J.G.	Kinematics of the ionized gas in the inner regions of disk galaxies. (Dissertation summary).	Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 113, 257-257	2001
FUNES J.G., CORSINI E.M., CAPPELLARI M., PIZZELLA A., VEGA BELTRAN J.C., SCARLATA C. and BERTOLA F.	Position-velocity diagrams of ionized gas in the inner regions of disk galaxies.	Astron. Astrophys., 388, 50-67	2002
FUNES J.G., REJKUBA M., MINNITI D., AKIYAMA S. and KENNICUTT R.C.	Star formation in the disk of NGC 5128.	American Astron. Soc. meeting, 201, #20.23	2002
COCCATO L., CORSINI E.M., PIZZELLA A., MORELLI L., FUNES J.G. and BERTOLA F.	Minor-axis velocity gradients in disk galaxies’.	Astron. Astrophys., 416, 507-514	2004
LEE J.C., KENNICUTT R.C., FUNES J.G., SAKAI S., TREMONTI C.A. and VAN ZEE L.	11HUGS: The 11 Mpc H-{alpha} and ultraviolet galaxy survey.	American Astron. Soc. meeting, 205, #60.04	2004
KENNICUTT R.C., LEE J.C., AKIYAMA S., FUNES J.G. and SAKAI S.	An H-{alpha} imaging survey of galaxies in the local 11 Mpc volume.	American Astron. Soc. meeting, 205, #60.05	2004
KRALL C. and FUNES J.G.	H-alpha and UBR imaging of elliptical galaxies with dust lanes.	American Astron. Soc. meeting, 205, #92.04	2004
MINNITI D., REJKUBA M., FUNES J.G. and AKIYAMA S.	Optical counterparts of X-ray point sources observed by Chandra in NGC 5128: 20 new globular cluster X-ray sources.	Astrophys. J., 600, 716-728	2004
MINNITI D., REJKUBA M., FUNES J.G. and KENNICUTT R.C.Jr	The most exciting massive binary cluster in NGC 5128: clues to the formation of globular clusters.	Astrophys. J., 612, 215-221	2004
VILLEGAS D., MINNITI D. and FUNES J.G.	HST photometry of the binary globular cluster Sersic 13N-S in NGC 5128.	Astron. Astrophys., 442, 437-442	2005
GUTIERREZ C.M., ALONSO M.S., FUNES J.G. and RIBEIRO M.B.	Star formation in satellite galaxies.	Astron. J., 132, 596-607	2006
LEE J.C., KENNICUTT R.C., FUNES J.G., SAKAI S. and AKIYAMA S.	The star formation demographics of galaxies in the Local Volume.	Astrophys. J., 671, L113-L116	2007

[edit] Extraterrestrials

In an interview in May 2008^{[1] [2]} he stated that the possible existence of intelligent extraterrestrials did not contradict church teaching^[3][4] and ruling out the existence of aliens would be like “putting limits” on God’s creative freedom.^[5] He has speculated that such alien life forms could even be “free from Original Sin … [remaining] in full friendship with their creator.”^[6] Funes’ statements have clearly similar points to what the Vatican’s Corrado Balducci also previously has expressed.

[edit] References

1. ^ “L’extraterrestre è mio fratello” L’Osservatore romano, 14 May 2008 Full text of the original interview (in Italian) conserved on the Vatican’s Website
2. ^ Full text of L’Osservatore Romano interview translated into English.
3. ^ L’Osservatore Romano: The extraterrestrial is my brother, Vatican astronomer says believing in aliens does not contradict faith in God.
4. ^ “Vatican says aliens could exist”. BBC. 13 May 2008

   . Retrieved 13 May 2008.

5. ^ “It’s OK To Believe in Aliens”. Associated Press. 13 May 2008. Retrieved 14 May 2008.
6. ^ mental_floss Blog » “Aliens Are Our Brothers,” says Vatican.

[edit] See also

• List of Jesuit scientists

[edit] External links

• Curriculum Vitae