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?