我国民法典时效制度体例结构的安排

发布时间：2017-12-31 18:34

本文关键词：我国民法典时效制度体例结构的安排　出处：《社会科学战线》2016年12期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：从《征求意见稿》《提交稿》到《民法总则草案》,虽然时效制度有很大的变化,但都采用了统一时效制度体例结构,尤其是《征求意见稿》和《提交稿》采用了将诉讼时效、取得时效、除斥期间、或有期间等统一化的体例结构,此种体例结构安排是否成熟和科学需进一步探讨和论证。尽管我国民法典编纂采用总则技术已成定局,但民法典究竟应采用分立时效制度体例结构或者统一时效制度体例结构确有探讨的必要。统一时效制度体例结构看似更具体系性,但它无法满足总则在制度内部主线和具体制度规则上的要求,因此我国民法典总则只宜规定具有"公因式"体系特征的诉讼时效制度,民法典分则应根据取得时效、除斥期间和或有期间的制度特征,在相应部分以不同的方式加以规定。
[Abstract]:From "draft for solicitation of opinions" to "draft of General principles of Civil Law", although there are great changes in the system of limitation, the system of uniform prescription has been adopted. In particular, the draft of solicitation of opinions and the draft of submission adopt the uniform structure of statute of limitations, limitation of limitation, period of exclusion, or period of time. Whether the structure of this style is mature or not and whether it is scientific needs further discussion and argumentation, although the adoption of general principles in the codification of civil code in China has become a foregone conclusion. However, it is necessary to discuss whether the civil code should adopt the separate prescription system style structure or the unified prescription system style structure, which seems to be more systematic. However, it can not meet the requirements of the general principles in the main line of the system and the specific system rules. Therefore, the civil code of our country should only stipulate the statute of limitations system with the characteristics of "common cause" system. The division of civil code should be regulated in different ways according to the institutional characteristics of acquisitive limitation, excluding period and contingent period.
【作者单位】：吉林省社会科学院法学研究所;
【分类号】：D923
【正文快照】： 从中国法学会民法编纂项目领导小组公布《中华人民共和国民法典·民法总则专家建议稿(征求意见稿)》(简称《征求意见稿》),到2015年6月24日向全国人大常委会法制工作委员会提交《中华人民共和国民法典·民法总则专家建议稿(提交稿)》(简称《提交稿》),最终2016年6月第十二届全

【相似文献】