Although that was a lot of reading, I enjoyed reading the first half of the documents. However, when it came to the UN charter and declarations, those were quite redundant and the diction not quite as enthralling. From the Magna Carta up until the U.S. Constitution, I had studied most (except the Declaration of Rights of Man) in history classes back in high school, so it was a bit pitiful to realize how much I had forgotten.
To begin with, the Magna Carta was a little more difficult to read, but I found parts of it interesting-like how Jews and widows are specifically referred to. I also was surprised to read that no horses or carts can be taken against the will of a freeman. Even though these aren’t quite the same circumstances, I believe that today at least in the U.S. cops can commandeer civilian cars if necessary in an emergency. The concept behind this is that all citizens can be compelled to assist in the capture of suspected criminals. However, perhaps there existed a mutual understanding that if a knight needs your horse in an emergency you still are required to give it to him regardless of the law. I’m not too sure. Anyway, I also really liked #40: “To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.”
On the subject of defining rights, specifically the rights referred to as natural, Creator-given, or unalienable, it was interesting to note the different combinations listed. While the Declaration of Independence lists “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the French Declaration of Rights of Man lists “liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression,” and finally the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states “life, liberty, and security of person.” The French right to property listed right after liberty surprised me as being progressive.
Finally, I also was intrigued by the idea of a listed Bill of Rights as being dangerous. In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton seems to argue against one because a list is exclusive- it can’t include all rights. Therefore, some people might try to claim more rights than are reasonably given to any one person, and thus limit another’s rights. As I continued the readings, it seemed that many of the more recent documents included safeguard type of clauses for existing human rights. For example, something like: nothing already written in the document should be used to limit Human Rights. It is fascinating how this concern has been repeated over time.
