2010年6月29日，〈海峽兩岸經濟合作架構協議〉（Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement; ECFA）由海峽交流基金會董事長江丙坤代表我國，與中華人民共和國海峽兩岸關係協會會長陳雲林在中華人民共和國重慶市完成簽訂。但由於〈兩岸經協〉並非形式上之條約，亦不同於一般行政協定，其法律性質不甚明確，因此立法院之審議程序究竟比照條約抑或行政協定，眾說紛紜。在兩岸關係急速發展的當前，〈兩岸經協〉之協商和審議過程，乃嚴重暴露出既有兩岸關係法制規範不足之現象，而此一問題則將隨兩岸間更多協議的簽訂而更形急迫。〈兩岸經協〉係指臺灣與中華人民共和國所建置，仿效世界貿易組織（World Trade Organization, WTO）架構下會員體之間自由貿易協定（Free Trade Agreement, FTA）之雙邊書面協定。然而則何以兩岸作為世貿會員體，不能直接訂定自由貿易協定，而卻要另行創設出〈兩岸經協〉此一特殊形式，其因正在於兩岸具有特殊關係，存在主權重疊之爭議，故而此一「特殊性」協議形式的選擇，乃與兩岸關係的定位有關。關於〈兩岸經協〉或其他兩岸協議的國內法位階效力，則與其內容是否涉及法律之修正有關，涉及法律之修正，則為準條約，否則即為行政協定。立法院對於行政協定之審查比照行政命令，條約案之審查依〈憲法〉規定為二讀，與法律案之三讀不同，惟〈立法院職權行使法〉並無關於條約案審查之規定，以致〈兩岸經協〉之審查程序成為重大之法律漏洞。本文認為應就條約之締結與審查程序進行立法，兩岸協議具有法律修正之需要者，則準用條約審查相關規範。〈兩岸經協〉創設了兩岸經濟合作委員會此一由兩岸共組之兩岸治理機構，該機構之職權包括〈兩岸經協〉的後續磋商、監督並評估其執行、解釋與爭端解決、通報重要經貿資訊及其他，惟其限、委員之資格與選任、課責機制等等之內容，因涉及其與兩岸政府公權力的關係，至少就我國一方而言，乃有待進一步立法規範加以完善之必要。

The Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement was signed on June 29, 2010, in Chongqing City in the People's Republic of China by Chiang Pin-kung, the Chairman of the Straits Exchange Foundation as Taiwan's representative and Mainland China's representative, Chen Yunlin, the president of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits. However, the ECFA is not a form of treaty only, but also different from general administrative agreement. Its legal nature is not very clear, so nobody knows that the legislative review procedure whether is on the basis of treaty or administrative agreement. In the current rapid development of the cross-strait relations, the consulting and reviewing process of the ECFA exposes the problem that the cross-strait relations is seriously lack of legal norms. The problem will be shaped urgently with the signing of the agreements between the two sides more and more.The ECFA refers to the bilateral agreement in writing between Taiwan and PRC which follows the Free Trade Agreement between member bodies under the World Trade Organization framework. But then why the two sides as the WTO member bodies can not directly erect for a free trade agreements, and have to create such a special form? The answer is where there is a dispute of overlap of the sovereignty between the special crossstrait relations' parties. Therefore the choice of this special form of such a bilateral agreement is concerning the positioning of the cross-strait relation. The validity hierarchy of the ECFA and other cross-strait agreements in the domestic law order is dependent on its content whether if is involving the rectification of law. If it is involving the rectification of law, it would be a treaty, if not, it would be an administrative agreement. The review procedure of administrative agreement by the Legislative Yuan is cf. the procedure of executive order. According to the constitutional provision, the review procedure of a treaty is through two readings. It is different from the three readings procedure of law. However the Exercise of Legislative Powers Law has no provisions about treaty review. The review procedure of the ECFA becomes a major legal loophole. This paper argues that the legislation of treaty making and review is necessary and if the content of any cross-strait agreement is involving amending laws, these agreements should be reviewed by the regulation for treaty review.The ECFA establishes an organization for Cross-Straits governance. The organization is the Cross-Straits Economic Cooperation Committee which consists of representatives designated by the two Parties. The Committee shall be responsible for handling matters relating to the ECFA including but not limited to concluding consultations, monitoring and evaluating the implementation, interpreting the provisions and settling any dispute, notifying important economic and trade information. But the committee's powers, members' requirements and nomination, accountability and etc. are about the public powers of the Parties governments, at least for Taiwan one party, it is necessary to further legislation for improved regulation.