Comparison of Universal Declaration and Hammurabi's Code: Examining the Evolution of Justice Systems

When comparing both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Hammurabi’s Code of Law, one of the first lines of the Preamble in the Declaration of Human Rights sums up the notion that there are very few comparisons to be made in terms of these two documents. It states: “Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people...” Essentially, this breaks down to explaining that never in history has the rights of humans been explicitly laid out, executed, and respected, and if they have, they’ve only done so in a handful of nations. Therefore, it is necessary to establish this document so that all nations are subject to equal human rights and that the fundamental freedoms and universal rights to which humans are granted are taken to heart for the first explicit time. Right away, without even reading the word-for-word document of Hammurabi’s code, I can recognize the substantial difference that exists between the two, as the Code of Law states situations where the law/an overpowering organization must be implied to resolve an issue and restore justice/peace/structure back into society--no where does it mention the concept of respecting, satisfying, and acting in behalf of people’s human rights. Although, in language, the two documents do have some comparisons. The Code of Law refers to people as “Man” or “Woman”, whereas the Declaration consistently refers to “Everyone”; the openness and un-classifications of the term everyone really advocates for the universality of the entitled document, giving a much more communal and appreciable document of establishment of order than the Code does. In terms of content, both document allude to marriage issues, work and occupational issues, property issues and assumption, concept of slavery and ownership, etc. Of course, though, the Code alludes to the darker, blatant, and cruel concepts and methods of resolving them whereas the Declaration merely states out the right which everyone has regarding that issue/characteristic of society. The one thing which the Code lacks and the Declaration exceeds in is the notion of equality and freedoms; the lone word “freedom” or “right” or “people” does not appear once in the code, but appears countless times in the Declaration. I think that this shows incredible progression of history in the sense of lawful intents and contents, as law documents began laying out x-y-z here is what to do and what not to do and what will happen if you do that, and thousand(s) of years later, law documents reside to the choice which everyone has to make, but regardless, everyone has rights which can protect/hurt them if used or violated. The evolution of justice and laws/human rights is certainly one not to be underestimated, as the drastic differences and slim similarities which arose when examining these to documents separated by thousands of years time show us so much not only about the changes which occurred in the law, but the changes that occur(ed) regarding ourselves as humans, part of a larger and greater society according to an ever-evolving system of law. That exact evolution and concept of change will allow us to see what our core values are, as when observing these documents and their similarities/differences, the things that are missing or we feel are essential but not included/alluded to enough tell us enough about our individual lawful values to develop our own code of law to abide by. Maybe that’s what’s next in history--individualized laws and right systems--but who knows?

The Progression of Human Rights: French Revolution Until Tonight

Throughout the entire unit, I have been waiting for the concept of human rights to make its way through the surface. I had begun to question why this section’s theme was entitled Law AND Human Rights, when we had just been discussing law, for the most part, and neglecting the role of human rights in the progression of legal and human history. Why was human rights even included in this unit? I hadn’t really thought about it until I had just read the section on The French Revolution in the textbook, but I had noticed it and thought about it before. I had been trying to make somewhat whimsical and outlandish connections between legal and lawful events/ideas we have been coming up with previously in class and human rights/its relevance in history--but realistically, at the time in history/chronologically, human rights and the concept of them had not even risen yet! I never thought about the complexity and relevance of the concept of human rights itself, let alone when they come into play in history! It is fair to say that my perspective from how we live today in the United States of America, and how I’ve grown up with the rightful practices of this unique nation greatly effected the way that I thought about human rights as a whole. I feel that I merely assumed that human rights were an institution in society just like anything else was, like the law; i.e. if the law existed, so did human rights. Well, now I know that was entirely off. The idea of human rights germinated in 1789 (officially and most effectually)--that’s incredibly modern; 300 years ago! It was in the French Revolution in which the desperate need of restructuring the social, political, and religious organization was called for by the people as the abusive, irrational, and non-enlightened government instilled structures in their society which greatly opposed with the ideas of the Enlightenment and therefore the ideas/ideals of the people which the society made up of; sounded like a great time for a revolution (especially because of the instability and outside pressure coming in on the governing structures in France at the time). So, the Declaration of the Rights of Man was the revolutionary document which introduced and instituted the concept of human rights into society as the people of France saw it was necessary so lay out their undeniable and acclaimed rights to which must be respected and recognized. Such a basic and (seemingly) unquestionable notion, this changed the face of the French Revolution and for history as a whole (legality, mostly), revolutionizing almost everything about human history. Not only did it turn the Revolution all over, redefining what it meant to be a part of the French society, but it redefined what it meant to be human. And from there on, the concept and details of human rights kept on evolving as new events and other revolutions presented themselves. Human rights has developed so much from when they were initiated in 1789 as they needed to be inscribed on a piece of paper, as today, I could barely even recognize that human rights existed before 300 years ago, and the fact that there was a time where humans or groups of people did not even have or understand the concept of a right. That transformation has, for the first time, really shown me what it meant when earlier in the chapter, the concept of evolution of laws and rights and the progress throughout history was discussed. It really went full circle for me when reading the French Revolution passage because now, I am finally able to confidently and accurately make connections between laws, human rights, and history, not to mention answer the question of why human rights was included in this theme.

Alexander Hamilton and his Thoughts on the Bill of Rights

Going into reading this document, I had thought that I was strongly going to disagree with Hamilton as the Bill of Rights passed for a reason, that reason being that it a) further enforced the Constitution to new levels and heights, b) amplified the Constitution’s and American government’s lawful intentions and c) introduced new concepts that should have been originally included in the Constitution but were missed. Although, after thoroughly reading this document, I find myself agreeing with Hamilton. From his perspective, it is safe to say that he has a little bit of bias in the sense that he is in a position of power and wants to use and maintain that position but doing so constitutionally, rationally, fairly, and for the benefit of the people which he is governing/has the responsibility for, politcally. But, it can be seen throughout history as a pattern that leaders and people in seats of power, however just and constitutional they may be, seem, or claim to be, have the human quality and desire to use that power to his advantage. I am not saying that Alexander Hamilton was unconstitutional and he governed unfairly--just that he did not want to forfeit his power and governmental position and used whatever means necessary in order to do so; in this case, according to the Constitution, that mean was through a process of voting, so his method was very well thought out, as he wrote to the public, the people who would be voting on him and his ideas, to extend his thoughts which would a) keep him in his position and b) represent his ideas. I agree with his claim that the Bill of Rights is in fact repetitive of the Constitution: “Does a bill of rights specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the new Constitution... Therefore, referring to what is meant by a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not to be found in the proposed Constitution. It may be said that it does not go far enough, though it will not be easy to make this point.” Basically, that is saying that the Constitution lays out the foundation of the ideas for the government to govern by and can be applied to almost any situation--as it may not lay out the specific orders by which people should act by, it consistently suggests how to go about solving those issues and why to do it in such a manner. In other words, that the Bill of Rights is repeating and suggesting falseness and the lacking of the Constitution--being something that he wrote himself, that would be logical that he would revoke anything else which would cause such degradation (not that drastically, but just a little) to such a powerful and encompassing document. But it makes sense, right? If the Bill of Rights extended the Constitution, that means that there is more lawful text and evidence to turn to and manipulate/make it do something that could hurt (or help) the government that was not intentional in writing such a document(s). More advantage would be given to the people to justify and overthrow/turn against the government and the Constitution, and had the potential to throw Hamilton and the rest of the foundational American government--which was doing very well for/at the time!--out of the power and governing position, which was not a situation they wanted to be put in. So, to me, that is why I agree with Hamilton as viewing it from his perspective (as I see it) proves valid arguments and reason to remain the Constitution as it was, alone, and allow the government to continue developing and empowering itself along with the uprising authoritative nation under the Constitution. 

A Common Thread in More Than Just History Class

The event and topic which we have covered in history class this year that has reoccured throughout my other classes at Parker has to be that of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in relation to the environment and environment-related history. Especially in science this year, we have focused on the sustainability of the planet and actually have referenced and referred to the Hierarchy of Needs as we were discussing how to sustain life and survive on an island (considering consuming renewable versus non-renewable sources, the rate of consumption of resources, etc.). As we were discussing the scenario of the small Islanders, we discussed how without their basic needs, as referred to earlier in the year during the environment unit and early civilizations including that of the Mohenjo Daro, Mesopotamia, etc., natural resources were essential in the survival of the people--all based off of and determined by the hierarchy of needs. I stated: on the island, as the population grew to a new high that the island had never seen before, the island did not have a big enough quantity of resources and materials to accommodate and sustain so many people. As the population increased, space as well as resources which the environment provided society with decreased as the demand for them to be supplied rose to an extreme hight. The island did not naturally have enough to supply each individual with the things they needed to sustain themselves, and without resources from their environment, the society and population decreased until it eventually disappeared completely. The smaller society before this expansive one preserved and maintained the environment so well in order to sustain themselves and provide their living style with the resources needed to survive. This is precisely applicable to what we studied earlier in the history year, as the civilizations earlier on did not accommodate for the essential and fundamental needs of the people involved, and therefore, led to a decline in population and ultimately making history. As civilizations got more modern, progressing over the next hundred years, we get to establishments like that of Hammurabi’s, where law is instituted in order to keep the fundamentals intact and not let society loose hold of them as it would cause much controversy and decline in population, resources, and ultimately the legal powers in place. Although, disregarding the legalities of the scenarios, throughout the year, sustainability has been a common thread in many of my other, non-historically focused classes, and inadvertently, the Hierarchy of Needs came up in the conversation/investigation as it proved to be such a fundamental property of the sustainability and progression of history, and now I see, scientific history and english history as well.