我國現行海商法第56條第2項規定，係於1999年參酌海牙威士比規則而修訂，然該條文與國際公約規定未盡相符，其就時效延長暨對第三人之索賠訴訟並未規定。因此，對海運承攬業者簽發載貨證券介入運送人事務應負運送人責任，於遭貨主求償後轉向運送人求償時，將遭遇無法索賠之困難，此對於其訴訟權之保障似有未足。又我國民法，就期間區分為消滅時效或除斥期間，此種分類對於海商法第56條第2項一年期間之定性與實務適用產生困難。按法官於審理案件時，對於應適用之法律，依其合理之確信，認為有牴觸憲法之疑義，顯然於該案件之裁判結果有影響者，各級法院得以之為先決問題，裁定停止訴訟程序，並提出客觀上形成確信法律為違憲之具體理由，聲請司法院院大法官解釋。近臺北地方法院100年海商更（一）字第1號民事裁定即認該條文有違憲之虞，因而裁定停止訴訟程序，並向司法院大法官會議聲請解釋。本文擬對該條文加以檢視，並提出修正建議。

The Art.56 (2) of Maritime Act was enacted in consultation with the Hague-Visby Rules, whereas the article are inconsistent to the international conventions, such as no regulations on extended limitation period and third party compensation litigation. Since Civil Code of ROC has categorized periods into extinctive prescription and non-claim statutes, whereas the application of this article is difficult due to the nature of the period. In the adjudication of a case, if the judge of any court should form a reasonable belief that the applicable law raises questions of its constitutionality that will clearly affect the outcome of the case, the judge may take the questions as a matter of prerequisite issue, stay the ongoing proceedings, and petition for an interpretation from the Grand Justices, submitting concrete and specific rationales that objectively led to the belief that the law is unconstitutional. In 2011, the Taipei District Court consider the Art.56 (2) of Maritime Act may unconstitutional, and delivery Civil Judgement Hai Shang Geng (1) No.1 (2011) stay the ongoing proceedings and petition for an interpretation from the Grand Justices. We will examine this article via international maritime practices, conventions, and provide some suggestions for further amendments.