عنوان مقاله [English]
One of the issues of law revision is related to distinguishing abrogation) especially implied abrogation) from allocation. The present study seeks to answer the following question: how is implied abrogation distinguished from allocation? The findings of this descriptive and analytical research show that there are eight criteria for distinguishing implied abrogation from allocation:
In choosing between implied abrogation and allocation, allocation has priority over abrogation.
If a new reason arrives before acting for the first reason, this case will be allocation and if it arrives after the action, it will be abrogation.
Abrogation removes the sentence but allocation limits it to some people of the subject.
The abrogator is always separated from the abrogated and if they are connected, it will be a general and specific example, not an abrogator and abrogated.
Abrogation removes the time continuity of the sentence, but allocation changes the legislator's usual intention to his serious intention.
Although allocating the law with rational and customary reasons is possible, but abrogation is possible only by the authority that established it.
The present study made a difference between the allocation of most common cases and the allocation of all common cases, and accepted that abrogation in the allocation of all common cases, but rejected the abrogation in the case of the most common cases.
In this research, it was proved that if the reason for general issuance is certain and the reason for special issuance is suspicious, priority is by allocation.