عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]چکیده [English]
The Concepts of General and Special are crucial issues in jurisprudence and statutes, that is, many provisions in statutes lay down on this basis. There is a well-known maxim which states that no General exits unless it is limited with a Special.The question of whether the general phrase is acceptable after narrow phrase and whether the ambiguity of special conveyed to general as well as fulfillment of suspicious via practical rules in subjective suspicious and in generality rule in non-suspicion at narrow phrase, is subject to great controversy and debates. This article deals with this issue by conducting a comparative study and considering the reasoning on which courts’ judgments are based. Then, it proposes some jurisprudential solutions for the purpose of convergence and finally, it concludes that there is obvious difference between collective general and floated general phrase and in subjective suspicion the wholly evidence, the wisdom as an independent source have value and no difference among other verbal specials.