نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
استادیار گروه حقوق، دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج، ایران.
عنوان مقاله [English]
Since tow statements really do treat of precisely the same aspect of a single regulation (=order) conflict of those laws to happen. So the scholar must pursue his endeavors to archive an interpretation which will permit of the reconciliation, and thus of the application of both regulations. For, since each comes from legislator, neither is lightly to be set aside.
In common view, the principle of continuity (isteshab) of prior law between two conflicting law. That principle which presumes the state of affairs at a previous time (state qua ante), really come from proving state.so far, reconciliation conflicting laws is matter of interpretation.
It is perfectly clear that the idea of reconciliation is based on the "idea of rule of law" and principle of "separation of powers". So only legislator con repeal laws that himself enacted previous time. But, judge has no authority to do so. Because, his
in addition, many principles techniques of reconciling suggested in this respect is the idea of diagnosis subject matters of conflicting laws and application each law in its scope is essential rule for reconciliation contrary laws.