诉讼时效期间立法模式之我见  

On Law-enacting Forms of Extinctive Prescription

作　　者：李蕊[1] 

机构地区：[1]上海政法学院法律系,上海201701

出　　处：《河北法学》2008年第3期148-153,共6页Hebei Law Science

摘　　要：各国关于诉讼时效期间制度主要有主观主义和客观主义两种立法例,通过对中国和德国诉讼时效改革的比较法研究,提出诉讼时效期间制度因各国所采用的不同的立法例而有所不同,因此不应割裂不同立法例而论其长短的观点。在当代社会,诉讼时效期间制度采用主观主义立法例存在明显的优势,应为我国未来诉讼时效期间立法所坚持,并在此基础上,对我国现行诉讼时效制度予以完善。There are two law-enacting forms concerning the term of extinctive prescription, namely, the objectivism and subjectivism. Through theoretic discussion of these two forms and a comparative study of the adoption of these forms in various countries, with a particular focus on the law of PRC and the German reform of the extinctive prescription, the author believes that the systems of extinctive prescription among various countries differ due to the adoption of these different law-enacting forms. Moreover, it is not proper to discuss the different periodic length of the term of extinctive prescription in various countries regardless of the law-enacting forms they adopted. Further, it is advantageous to adopt the subjectivism for the term of extinctive prescription in modern society. Such law-enacting form shall be insisted on by our country and used as the basis for future reform of the extinctive prescription of our country.

关 键 词：民事权利 诉讼时效 民法通则 德国债法 

分 类 号：D923[政治法律—民商法学] D922.294[政治法律—法学]