The distinction between procedural legal principles and procedural rules and techniques is one of the famous arguments in Iranian law. The argument may be astonishing for lawyers of different background. It comes from some statutory provisions authorizing the court to ignore the procedural rules in reviewing the case but at the same time to comply strictly with the procedural principles. In this essay, after introducing of the concepts of both rules and principles of procedural law, the idea of distinction between them is examined in terms of possibility or otherwise feasibility of simultaneous withdrawal of rules and compliance with principles.

The purpose of this study was to contently analyze the training textbooks used in teacher training centers based on declarative and procedural knowledge. This research was of a content analysis type and quantitative content analysis method was used, here. All training courses used in teacher training centers were chosen as the statistical population. The sample and the population were equal in terms of the number. Data, then, was analyzed by means of descriptive statistics as percentage, frequency, and chi- square. The findings showed that general psychology book has the highest level of declarative knowledge and the least amount of procedural knowledge; whereas, mathematics teaching book has the highest level of procedural knowledge and the least amount of declarative knowledge.

It is well known that the procedural rules should be interpreted narrowly. This idea has its own foundations, most important of which is the maintenance of order, but the question is whether these rules can be interpreted in the light of certain goals? There are approaches based on which the procedural rules can be interpreted on specific purposes and goals. Such an approach is not alien for different legal systems, even it is legal dynamics and agility of justice requirement. The philosophers of law, through the relationship of procedural rules to fundamental rights, society and, in general, connecting individuals to states through these rules, have set goals for such an interpretation, such as the accuracy of the results, Utilitarianism, efficiency and procedural rights.

The defense against plaintiff can be done in two deferent ways: denial of claim and challenging it (substantive defense) and objection to violation of procedural laws (formal or procedural defence). Each of these methods has its own nature and consequences. The subject of this paper is determination the scope of procedural defense and finding a criterion recognizing it from substantive defense. Taking it to consideration that the base of procedural defense is violation of formal rules, the criterion of recognition must be followed in the merit of these rules. Thus, the deference between procedural and substantive defense refers to the issue that whenever judge based on defense can express his opinion about substance we are facing with a substantive defense. But if the defense does not enable the judge to recognize the beneficial party, it will be a procedural defense. Lack of attention to this criterion has obscured recognition of defense methods in the legal provision, judicial procedure and doctrine.

The concept of procedural rules apparently is obvious, but, you can say, features of procedural rules not analyzed properly. Indeed, the nature of these rules is questioned. Bentham as one of very old philosophers has defined the concept of procedural rules. In his view, procedural rules are the means of enforcing substantive rules. Procedural rules in goals, features, and functions are different from the substantive rules. These rules are the means of applying sovereignty, serving procedural rights. They are voluntary, supremacy on substantive rules, and technical concepts. With special ways they are harmonized between personal rights and sovereignty, and do order between people themselves as well as people with sovereignty.