Why is the expression 'general rules' used in legal discourse? General forms permit to distinguish between general rules and rules that are not general. General rules are the ones which target one or several legal entities, setting aside the individuals these entities refer to. Thus general forms merge with impersonal forms but are not limited to them: general forms have to be also considered in their material dimension, that is to say in relation no more to subjects but objects of the rule of law. There are two justifications for the distinction between general and particular rules. First of all general rules are considered a bulwark protecting citizens from the arbitrariness of those who govern them, the effect of this is particular laws being forbidden and particular rules being submitted to general rules. Secondly the public authorities have the exclusive right to produce general rules and such a right is delegated to devolved and decentralised public authorities with much difficulty, and with even more difficulty to private individuals. Eventually the dispute in general rules has an objective nature. General forms also permit to distinguish general rules and less general rules, special rules. The analysis of the value, then the scope of general rules compared to special rules leads to conclusions full of nuances. If the criterion of speciality entails prevailing rules over general rules, its field of enforcement is limited by the organic criterion, even a material criterion. Furthermore, the principles of the indivisibility of the French Republic and equality bear witness to the fact that French public law is attached to general rules insofar as they are a justification for some derogations. Moreover, general forms tend to reduce the scope of general rules. As a matter of fact, on the one hand a general rule implies the enactment of application rules. Nevertheless, the enforcement authorities have an irreducible margin of manoeuvre. On the other hand, general rules admits derogations and exceptions.
