保证期间的困扰——兼论法律与司法解释的关系

发布时间：2018-02-25 02:02

本文关键词： 司法解释保证期间诉讼时效　出处：《北方法学》2017年01期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：保证期间既可以由当事人约定,也可以在无约定时由法律规定,因此其既不是诉讼时效期间,也并非除斥期间,而仅应视为是保证人承担保证责任或履行保证合同项下代偿义务的期限。对当下保证期间(限)制度的考察显示,司法解释仍具有超越上位法的冲动和纪录,从而使得既有的司法实践经验即便在法律出现大幅度修改的情况下,仍可通过司法解释得以保存和延续。而将上级法院观点预先成文化的做法,恰与严格限制法官个人在个案中诠释法律的惯行构成鲜明对比。从2011年12月开始,最高人民法院不定期发布指导性案例。但若想以其取代相沿已久的司法解释制度,恐怕还有待时日。
[Abstract]:The period of guarantee may be agreed upon by the parties or by law in the absence of agreement, so that it is neither a period of limitation nor a period of exclusion, However, it should only be regarded as the time limit for the guarantor to undertake the guaranty liability or to fulfill the compensatory obligation under the guaranty contract. The investigation of the current guarantee period (limitation) system shows that the judicial interpretation still has the impulse and record to transcend the superior law. So that the existing judicial practice experience can be preserved and continued through judicial interpretation even if the law is greatly modified. It stands in stark contrast to the strict restrictions on judges' habitual practice of interpreting the law in individual cases. Since December 2011, the Supreme people's Court has not regularly issued instructive cases. But if it wants to replace the long-standing judicial interpretation system, I'm afraid it's still some time to go.
【作者单位】：清华大学经济管理学院;
【分类号】：D923.2

【参考文献】