Repeal in the context of "Interpretation Act 1978"

Devolution is the statutory delegation of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to govern at a subnational level, such as a regional or local level. It is a form of administrative decentralization. Devolved territories have the power to make legislation relevant to the area, thus granting them a higher level of autonomy.

Devolution differs from federalism in that the devolved powers of the subnational authority may be temporary and are reversible, ultimately residing with the central government. Thus, the state remains de jure unitary. Legislation creating devolved parliaments or assemblies can be repealed or amended by central government in the same way as any statute. In federal systems, by contrast, sub-unit government is guaranteed in the constitution, so the powers of the sub-units cannot be withdrawn unilaterally by the central government (i.e. not without the process of constitutional amendment). The sub-units therefore have a lower degree of protection under devolution than under federalism.

Naskh (نسخ) is an Arabic word usually translated as "abrogation". In tafsir, or Islamic legal exegesis, naskh recognizes that one rule might not always be suitable for every situation. In the widely recognized and "classic" form of naskh, one ḥukm "ruling" is abrogated to introduce an exception to the general rule, but the text the ḥukm is based on is not repealed.

Some examples of Islamic rulings based on naskh include a gradual ban on consumption of alcohol (originally alcohol was not banned, but Muslims were told that the bad outweighed the good in drinking) and a change in the direction of the qibla, the direction that should be faced when praying salat (originally Muslims faced Jerusalem, but this was changed to face the Kaaba in Mecca).

Drug liberalization is a drug policy process of decriminalizing, legalizing, or repealing laws that prohibit the production, possession, sale, or use of prohibited drugs. Variations of drug liberalization include drug legalization, drug relegalization, and drug decriminalization. Proponents of drug liberalization may favor a regulatory regime for the production, marketing, and distribution of some or all currently illegal drugs in a manner analogous to that for alcohol, caffeine and tobacco.

Proponents of drug liberalization argue that the legalization of drugs would eradicate the illegal drug market and reduce the law enforcement costs and incarceration rates. They frequently argue that prohibition of recreational drugs—such as cannabis, opioids, cocaine, amphetamines and hallucinogens—has been ineffective and counterproductive and that substance use is better responded to by implementing practices for harm reduction and increasing the availability of addiction treatment. Additionally, they argue that relative harm should be taken into account in the regulation of drugs. For instance, they may argue that addictive or dependence-forming substances such as alcohol, tobacco and caffeine have been a traditional part of many cultures for centuries and remain legal in most countries, although other drugs which cause less harm than alcohol, caffeine or tobacco are entirely prohibited, with possession punishable with severe criminal penalties.

The Convention concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation or Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention (ILO Convention No.111) is an International Labour Organization Convention on anti-discrimination. It is one of eight ILO fundamental conventions. The convention requires states to enable legislation which prohibits all discrimination and exclusion on any basis including of race or colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national or social origin in employment and repeal legislation that is not based on equal opportunities.

This convention is cited by International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1969 and the ILO Workers with Famility Responsibilities Convention in 1981.

There are three general sources of Singapore law: legislation, judicial precedents (case law), and custom.

Legislation is divided into statutes and subsidiary legislation. Statutes are written laws enacted by the Singapore Parliament, as well as by other bodies that had power to pass laws for Singapore in the past. Statutes enacted by these other bodies may still be in force if they have not been repealed. One particularly important statute is the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, which is the supreme law of Singapore. Any law the Legislature enacts after the commencement of the Constitution that is inconsistent with it is, to the extent of the inconsistency, void. Subsidiary legislation, also known as "delegated legislation" or "subordinate legislation", is written law made by ministers or other administrative agencies such as government departments and statutory boards under the authority of a statute (often called its "parent Act") or other lawful authority, and not directly by Parliament.

Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia grants the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King of Malaysia) responsibility for "safeguard[ing] the special position of the 'Malays' and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities" and goes on to specify ways to do this, such as establishing quotas for entry into the civil service, public scholarships and public education.

Article 153 is one of the most controversial articles in the Malaysian constitution. Critics consider Article 153 as creating an unnecessary distinction between Malaysians of different ethnic backgrounds, because it has led to the ethnocentric implementation of affirmative action policies which benefit only the Bumiputra, who comprise a majority of the population. Critics also consider the preferential treatment to be against both meritocracy and egalitarianism. Technically, discussing the repeal of Article 153 is illegal—even in Parliament, although it was originally drafted as a temporary provision to the Constitution. Despite this prohibition on discussion (in order to ostensibly manage race relations, thus appearing to defuse and avoid ethnic hatred, ethnic conflict and ethnic violence), the article is hotly debated, both privately and publicly among Malaysians, against the continued perpetual retention and implementation of the article although ostensibly maintaining support for the special race-based privileges. Nevertheless, the article is viewed as a sensitive matter by many, with politicians who are in favour or opposed to it often being labelled as racist and engaging in social exclusion.

The Loyal National Repeal Association (commonly referred to as the Repeal Association) was an Irish political party formed by Daniel O'Connell in 1840 to campaign for the repeal of the Acts of Union of 1800 between Great Britain and Ireland.

The Association sought to restore the Irish Parliament and achieve the level of legislative independence briefly attained in the 1780s under Henry Grattan and his patriots, with the addition of Catholic emancipation, made possible by the Act of Emancipation in 1829, and the expanded francise of the Irish Reform Act 1832, in addition to responsible government, making Ireland a separate kingdom in a personal union with Great Britain on equal footing. It advocated a peaceful and constitutional path to repeal while maintaining loyalty to the British Crown.