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。
The insurance period can be either agreed upon by the parties or stipulated by law when there is no agreement,so it is neither a period of limitation of action nor scheduled period,but a period of the guarantee to fulfill the warranty or compensatory obligations under the contract.The investigation of the current insurance period shows that the judicial interpretation still has the impulse and record beyond the host law thus made the existing judicial practice be maintained by the judicial interpretation despite of the drastic modifications of the law.To codify the higher court＇s opinion in advance is a sharp contrast to the strict limitation of the judge＇s personal interpretation of the law in the case.From December 2011,the Supreme People＇s Court issued regular guidance on individual cases,but it still needs time to replace the long existing judicial interpretation system.
出处
《北方法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2017年第1期46-55,共10页
Northern Legal Science
关键词
司法解释
保证期间
诉讼时效
judicial interpretation
insurance period
limitation of action
