基於現存客觀事實秩序之尊重、避免訴訟舉證之困難、暨怠於行使權利 者不宜長期保護，法律通常設有權利行使期間制度。如於海事紛爭， 海商法第56 條第2 項即規定：「貨物之全部或一部毀損、滅失者，自貨物受 領之日或自應受領之日起，一年內未起訴者，運送人或船舶所有人解除其責 任。」此條文係於1999 年參酌海牙威士比規則而修訂，然該條文內容與國際 公約規定未盡相符，其就期間延長暨對第三人之索賠訴訟並未規定。又民法 規範之權利行使期間制度有消滅時效及除斥期間，此種分類亦對於海商法第 56 條第2 項一年期間之定性與實務適用產生困難。本文遂針對國際公約之規 定、實務適用所生之疑義等議題加以討論，並於文末評析修正之方向暨建議。

The purposes of enacting time limitation is based on three reasons: the objective status quo shall be maintained, the difficulty to satisfying burden of proof shall be lessened, and the long-term protection to a failure-to-practice right holder shall be considered as improper. In field of maritime cargo claim, the Section 56 para.2 of Maritime Act provides“: The carrier and the shipowner shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the damage or loss either totally or partly, of the cargo unless suit is brought within one year of their delivery or of the date when they should have been delivered＂. It was enacted in accordance with the Hague-Visby Rules, while this provision is not fully consistent with the Hague-Visby Rules. That is, it does not provide an extension period to for raising remedy suit. Moreover, Civil Code categorizes time limitation periods into extinctive prescription and non-claim statutes. It needs to explore if there is any difficulty faced under such a circumstance. This paper will examine time limitation by reference to international maritime practices, conventions, in order to provide some suggestions for further amendments.