Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Essay: Comparative between Agricultural law in Hammurabi Code and Magna Carta

Agricultural law is the law that urges the farmers to responsible for their obligations and rights of individual. This law also guarantees the individuals’ properties and liberties in which they are equal before the law, and no one can not take their rights of. However, what about the agricultural law in Hammurabi and Magna Carta? Do these shape the individual rights, properties and liberties? And what made them different?

Firstly, the agricultural law in Hammurabi is the written laws which stated clearly in each article. These laws focus on the rights and obligations of individual. If any man does not respect the law and pay less obligations or duties to what he had done in the fields or do not so understand about the field, cultivation, he would have lost his properties or possessions in that year and owe debts. For example, in one article the law said “If any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does not to keep it; if then the dam break and all the be flooded, then shall he in whose dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the money shall replace the corn which he has caused to be ruined.” It means that if anyone did not responsible to keep the dam in good condition; and if, it is broken to destroy his neighbor’s crops, then his crop shall be sold and pay to his neighbor. This article is emphasize on his duties keep the dam in proper condition, and it also stress about the rights of his neighbors that could order him to compensate for their loses. Another example is that if any one owes a debt for a loan, and a storm postrates the grain, or the harvest fail, or the grain does not grow for lack of water; in that year he need not give his creditor any grain, he washes his debt-tablet in water and pays no rent for this year.” It says that there is no payment for the debt of a loan for the year he rent because the grain was floated away and his debt was cleaned by the water or storm. Another word is not the tiller’s fault, but it caused by nature. Furthermore, it is a fair and just law creates to preserve social order because the lawmakers thought that the tiller is already poor if he is still charged, he become poorer. Thus, refer to the above statement and example, we would like to say that even though this law did force to capital punishment, but it still made farmer respect because it is a kind of business between the land owner and the tiller. In business it must consist of lost and benefit. So, if any farmer does not respect and not so focus on his duties, he may get nothing and sometime he might loss his possession. In contrast, there is a fair judgment that the law is written like in the case of natural disaster, storm, rain and drought. These kinds of disasters, any debt that would be paid in the contract year would have released through the water or storm.

Secondly, the agricultural law in Magna Carta is created by barons to ensure the rights and liberties of individual and protect the king not use his absolute power to seize any property of a freeman and to maintain that every judgment must be conducted by law and every person must equal. Moreover, the must be bound by law, in which no royal officer use his power to abuse the rights of freeman. For instance, in one article stated that “to any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without lawful judgment of his equals, we will at once restore these. In cases of dispute the matter shall be resolved by the judgment of the twenty five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace. In cases, however, where a man was deprived or dispossessed of something without the lawful judgment of his equals by our father king Henry or our brothers king Richard, and it remains in our hands or is hell by other under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless the lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the cross as a Crusader. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once renter justice in full.” It means that this law warranties the right of the people. If any one‘s lands, castles, liberties or rights have been taken without the law confirm then the law must claim for them and return them to the owners’ properties. Hence, this law creates to protect the lands, properties and rights of people and to limit the power of king for any kind of seizing. But in the fact that this law not created to prevent all individuals’ benefits; in contrast, the law created to give benefits to the barons because only barons that hold the big land and properties.

In conclusion, we can draw a comparison that the law in Hammurabi is more proper than the law which was created by barons, Magna Carta because the Hammurabi Code of agriculture is applied to every individual in the whole society, but Magna Carta created to give benefit to a group of people in society, barons. However, these two kinds of laws maintain the ideas of democracy and human rights in that period. For instance, the law in Hammurabi does not force people to respect it, but they must obligate to respect the law, and this law tells people to use their rights in the right way by not harm to the others’ rights. The law in Magna Carta; for example, limit the king’s power and create law to preserve the social justice. Even though, the law benefit to the barons, but it apply to all people, and that people have rights to claim for what they lost without lawful judgment. But we have to remember one of the most remarkable point is that the Hammurabi Code cannot be amended because it written on the rock, and Magna Carta have more chance to amend some clauses deem necesary.

Assigned Group: Moen Savoeun
Vong Dara

1 comment:

Stan Starygin said...

Why do you think that is that there are fewer agriculture-related provisions in MC?