我國民法第1190條以下對遺囑之方式做詳細規定，未完全符合法定方式之遺囑，即為無效。不過，各國對遺囑方式之規定有所不同，於涉外情境，如定居外國之我國人在該國訂立遺囑時，應依何國法所定之方式？此為遺囑之方式之準據法的問題。在我國，因2010年涉外民事法律適用法之全面修正，此問題之處理有重大變革。本文就我國法院對此問題之傳通見解以及修法過程加以考察，結論可要約如下：（1）我國法院於舊法之法解釋上認為遺囑之方式專依遺囑人之本國法，此見解沒有合理依據，於比較法上亦顯特殊。（2）雖現已用修法手段改善，但遇有應適用舊法之紛爭時，法官應不從傳統見解，作出正確解釋。（3）我國法院之傳統見解實際上使我國涉外遺囑法制落後國際水準一百年，其提供了一負面教材，說明了雖立法沒有問題，但法院仍可能誤解誤判，造成問題。（4）我國新法比起國際標準仍有未足，其理由不明。（5）新法與海牙公約間之差距，宜視為立法疏漏，法院可依修法所本「遺囑優遇」旨趣，援引海牙公約內容補充我國法之疏漏，於遺囑方式符合遺囑人「死亡時本國法」或「做成時之住所地法」或「做成時或死亡時之經常居所地法」者，亦認其方式有效，以實現遺囑人遺願。

According to Art. 1189 of Taiwanese Civil Code, a will shall be made in one of the following forms: a holograph will, a notarized will, a sealed will, a ＂dictated＂ will, an oral will. Art. 1190 to Art.1198 further set up detailed provisions on the form of the will. A will fails to meet all these requirements will be invalid. However, regulation about the form of the will might be different from country to country. If a Taiwanese citizen living in a foreign country wants to make a will, what form should he or she follow? This is the issue of the applicable law. In this regard, there was a substantial law reform on Taiwanese Private International Law in 2010. This article analyses the cases before and after the 2010 law reform, and concludes that, the construction of the old law by Taiwanese courts reform was ungrounded and should be abandoned, also, the law reform is insufficient and further improvement might be required.