|
چکیده
|
Coinciding with the rise of legal principle among legal norms, controversial debates on function and the concept of principles have been emerged. Notwithstanding scholars have placed the concept of principle under scrutiny, a noteworthy feature was remained neglected: the legal proposition. All rules are legal proposition, whereas, principles are described by them; therefore, legal proposition forms the substance of rules and the accident of principle. This underlying assumption brings out many disparate features in rules and principles, successively, makes their function different. Rules, regarding to normative hierarchical system, always function in the light of subsumption whereas principles got to be strenuous in the law of balancing in command competition with each other. Hereupon, this paper with a focus on legal proposition, through figuring some cardinal differences between principle and rule, strives to provide a convincing answer for this main question that How they are functioning in a legal order via balancing or subsumption workmanship.
|