Interpretive Principles in the Possibility and Conflict of Abrogation and Appropriation

One of the cases of using interpretative principles is in the possibility of repealing a legal article or generalizing it, as well as in the conflict between repealing a legal article and generalizing it. Although scholars try to resolve the conflict between two articles as much as possible by referring to the rules of general, but sometimes there is no possibility of allocation and it is necessary to reject the opinion. So, the main research question in this regard is which interpretive principles are applicable in the possibility of repealing the legal article or its public appropriation and also in the conflict between the repeal of the legal article and its public appropriation? The necessity of conducting this research, in addition to being useful in revising laws, is that no one has done it yet. The research method in examining and finding the answer to the question is descriptive and analytical, and the research in answering the question has come to the conclusion that the principle is in the possibility of abrogation, non-abrogation, and the principle in the possibility of allocation, non-allocation, and also the authenticity of the general public, and the process of obtaining the validity of the law In the possibility of revocation and validity, the general public is in favor of the possibility of allocation, but in the conflict between revocation and allocation, the principle of preference of allocation prevails over revocation, provided that the conditions of allocation are met, otherwise revocation will take precedence over allocation.