從1993年海基會、海協會開啟事務性談判以來，兩岸在會談的重點上，已逐步進展至制度性合作階段。作為區際衝突法的立法典型，兩岸人民關係條例所揭櫫的法律適用方式，與作為國際私法立法典型之涉外民事法律適用法的法律適用方式大不相同。而這種差異的存在是否合理，在兩岸人民關係條例施行20餘年後的今日，實有討論之必要。本文就涉陸婚姻案件之法律適用問題，分別討論就涉陸因素的定義、定性、結婚形式要件與實質要件之法律適用問題，以兩岸地區之實體法規定為基礎，進行比較分析，並主張於兩岸地區實體法規定差別不大時，可以考慮以實體法規範代替現行之衝突規範形式，直接就當事人之權利義務關係加以規定。

Since 1993 the SEF and ARATS started practical negotiations, the center of discussion has gradually focused on institutional framework. As a typical legislative model of interregional conflict of laws, the method of application of law adopted by the ＂Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area＂ is different from the Law Governing the Application of Laws to Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements, which is considered as a typical legislative model of conflict of laws rules. After twenty years from the day the Act adopted, it is necessary to review whether the existence of such differences is reasonable in today. This paper uses a comparative analysis method based on the actual substantive law in Taiwan and China, discussing the issues involving the definition of Mainland China element, question of classification, and the method of application of law adopted in marital cases. Furthermore, I would like to advocate in certain cases while the difference of legislation of both sides is not very clear, it should be considered that the conflict rules may be replaced by the substantive rules.