Public Law
Ali Reza Nasrollahi; Mostafa Mansourian
Abstract
The detailed domain of public rights has different and even conflicting ambiguities. Looking at the legal and judicial opinions about the realm of public rights and interest, they can be framed in two general and competing approaches. On the one hand, there are opinions that, with the orientation and ...
Read More
The detailed domain of public rights has different and even conflicting ambiguities. Looking at the legal and judicial opinions about the realm of public rights and interest, they can be framed in two general and competing approaches. On the one hand, there are opinions that, with the orientation and priority of narrow interpretation, push the realm of revitalization of public rights towards limitation in times of doubt. On the other hand, there are opinions that believe in the broadness of public law and its inclusion in interpretations and examples with a wider scope. Examining these two approaches due to the existence of many differences of opinions and also the need to provide a methodical platform for understanding, it is necessary to pay attention to the valid interpretation approach of the legal system. Objective purposive interpration as one of the interpretation methods with normative support provides a valid tool for evaluating these two approaches. In this way, the present article examines this question with an analytical method and using library sources: "Which one of the two narrow or broad approaches to the realm of the restoration of public rights and interests is acceptable from the perspective of objectivepurposive interpration
