Public law is a controversial issue in the realm of natural law schools. In the discourse of natural rights, public rights refer to fundamental and inviolable human rights, which are explained as divine-eternal principles or ideas; Such is the general perception of the natural rights movement itself. Therefore, the scope of these rights in such a movement is far beyond concepts such as political rights or public rights.But on the other hand, the school of law claims that the realm of public law is limited to the same public and political rights granted by governments to citizens, which are institutionalized in the framework of the idea of social contract and covenant of nation-states.The findings of the research, which was carried out using a descriptive-analytical method, in response to the question that what is the fundamental difference between the approach of the natural and thematic law schools in the explanation and interpretation of public law, show that the difference of these schools in the interpretation and analysis of Public law has never been limited to the level of apparent or discursive differences, but these two movements have fundamental differences even in the way of identifying and introducing the basics of public law.However, it is sometimes observed that some jurists have considered this concept to be completely the same as public law. This is despite the fact that there are many obvious differences between these concepts; As in the reading and insight of the schools of natural and subject law, different narratives have been adopted regarding the concept, nature and entomology of these concepts.