论我国民法上“民事责任”与诉讼时效的脱节

On the Dissociation between “Civil Liability” and Limitation of Actions in Civil Law of China

在我国民法立法、裁判和学理方面,并没有建立起的完整的"请求权体系",民事权利(请求权)、民事义务和民事责任并没有很好协调,整个民法的规范体系并没有按照"权利——请求——抗辩"的一般逻辑进行,尤其是"民事责任"这种根深蒂固的概念严重破坏了民法权利本位的基本立场。在民事责任与诉讼时效关系中,两者明显地脱节:我国《民法通则》和我国《民法总则》都明确规定"诉讼时效是向人民法院请求保护民事权利"的制度,在诉讼时效中断的事由方面,却远远超出"向人民法院请求"的范畴,甚至只要有行使权利的意思表示就能够中断时效;立法者确立诉讼时效是向人民法院请求保护民事权利的话,"民事责任"属于民事权利就不合逻辑。特别是经过法院判决确定后的"民事责任"与未经法院判决确定的民事责任是否适用诉讼时效就成为问题。我国司法执行实践中普遍适用的"债权凭证"制度,基本上废止了诉讼时效制度,其合法性值得怀疑。应该从理论和立法上彻底抛弃"民事责任"的概念,回归于民法"权利本位"的概念体系,让"请求权"与诉讼时效对接,真正实现诉讼时效的使命——对请求权的公力救济。

In the legislation, judgments and theories of civil law of China, the complete ＂system of claims＂ has not been established. Civil rights （ claims）, civil obligations and civil liability are not well coor- dinated, therefore, the whole norms of the civil law do not follow the general logic of ＂right-request-de- fense＂, especially the deeply-rooted concept of ＂civil liability＂ has seriously undermined the basic position of being civil rights-based. As for the relationship between civil liabilities and limitation of actions, the two are dissociated obviously. On one hand, both China＇ s old ＂General Principles of Civil Law＂ and the new ＂General Rules of Civil Law＂ clearly stipulate that ＂limitation of action is a system of requesting the people＇ s court to protect civil rights＂, but causes for interrupting the limitation of actions are far beyond the ＂re- quest＂ to the people＇ s court, even as long as the intention to exercise the right is expressed, the limitation of actions could be interrupted; on the other hand, if the limitation of actions is a system of requesting the people＇s court to protect civil rights, it is illogic to include civil liability into civil rights. Particularly, whether the limitation of actions is applicable to the ＂civil liability＂ determined a court judgement and the civil liability without the confirmation by a court judgment becomes an issue. The commonly-applied system of ＂evidence of indebtedness＂ in China＇ s judicial practice basically abolishes the limitation of action system and its legitimacy is questionable. Therefore, the theory and legislation shall thoroughly abandon the con- cept of civil liability, return to the conceptual system of being right-based of civil law and connect the claim with the limitation of actions to actually realize the mission of the limitation of actions, that is, providing public power remedy on the claim.