Research On The System Of Limitation Of Action In China From The Perspective Of Interests Balance

With regard to the system of statute of limitations,there has been a lot of controversy in the academic circles and judicial practice circles.On March 15,2017,the General Principles of Civil Law extended the limitation period of ordinary litigation from two years to three years,which embodied the concern of the legislator to the subject of rights and demonstrated the legislative attitude of protecting the civil rights in the new period.From the extinguishment of right to win to the occurrence of counterargument,the system of limitation of action in our country has been greatly improved.However,with the development of our society,the relevant provisions of the statute of limitations is lagging behind.Compared with the legislation of other countries,China's relevant provisions show strong mandatory.Since the legal effect of it assumes the occurrence of counterargument,there is an inherent logic system conflict in the limitation of action if it defined as mandatory norms.In addition,the present system of limitation of action,which obviously prefers the obligor,is contrary to the fundamental idea of civil law as the standard of right,and is not conducive to the cultivation of harmonious and honest civil and commercial communication environment.This paper presents that the current dilemma faced by the statute of limitations,mainly is resulted from the consensus "the statute of limitations primarily related to the public interest" which needs further consideration.Existing in the time structure,the right depends on specific time from the occurrence to the elimination.The relationship between time and rights should be governed by the nature of the right itself,and the legislator should not interfere too much.The limitation of action is applied to the right of claim,the essence of which is dominating the obligor to perform his obligation in order to protect the obligee's own interests in the field of personal will.In the complex structure of interests of the litigation prescription system,individual interests should occupy the primary position,and as for the public interest,since it is closely related to personal interests,we should pay attention to it,but should take it as the existing basis of limitation of action.Based on the above considerations,this paper from the perspective of balance of interests,combined with the reality of our country,puts forward improvement suggestions in the two aspects of the construction of the arbitrary norms and the legal effect of the expiration of the limitation period.In addition to the conclusion,the text is divided into four chapters.The first chapter is the introduction part,which mainly analyzes the theoretical value and practical significance of the topic,combs the domestic and foreign research results and the present situation of legislation,and explains the ideas and methods of argumentation.The second chapter discusses that the system in our country is facing difficulties,which through combing the legislative history in China,compared with foreign legislation,combined with the ecological rule of the foundation of our country and the current rule of law construction tasks,points out the current imperfections in the limitation of action.In the third chapter,based on the view that the value guides the construction of the system itself,reflecting the consensus about the value of limitation of action,analyzing the nature of rights and the relationship between right and time,it demonstrates that the value of limitation is the balance of personal interests,and the social and public interests should be set later.The fourth chapter,based on the guiding ideology in the limitation of action related to individual interests balance,points out that the provisions of limitation of action should be arbitrary norms,which means the law should not forbid the parties negotiating on the limitation period and so on;and according to the social problems that occurred in the premise of doctrine of the occurrence of right to counterargument,it argues that after the expiration of the period,people still have the right to claim rights to the people's Court and the Court should confirm the existence of the right,but if the obligor refuses to perform the obligations,the oblige has no rights to ask the people's court for enforcement.The conclusion summarizes the main idea of this paper,emphasize the importance of the prescription system,and points out that the research and analysis of this paper is still quite preliminary,and the relationship between rights and time still needs to be investigated more deeply.