經臺灣法院裁定認可確定之大陸民事確定裁判，是否有既判力？早期學者立場，幾乎大多採肯定說，而早期實務，似乎並未意識此一問題。實務上，法院裁定認可之大陸民事確定裁判，多為大陸離婚判決，行之有年。嗣經最高法院96年度臺上字第2531號、97 年度臺上字第2376號民事判決，喚醒沈寂已久之問題意識，激發學界百家爭鳴，各界開始意識兩岸條例第74條之文字是否清晰？究係精確立法或有何法律漏洞等問題。儘管多數學者並不贊同經臺灣法院裁定認可確定之大陸民事裁判毫無任何例外地採取既判力絕對、全面否定說，最高法院104年臺上字第33號民事判決，仍論述：經臺灣法院裁定認可確定之大陸民事仲裁判斷並無既判力，但於判決末之附帶論述，則認於認可非訟程序中，如賦予當事人「非訟程序訴訟化」之程序保障，容有例外情形，為將來其他具體個案留下伏筆。本文嘗試介紹今昔學說與實務論爭，及最高法院104年度臺上字第33號民事判決，並分析其問題點，另嘗試提出立法論供參。

Do Mainland China's determined judgment or arbitration decision, which was recognized by Taiwan court, have any conclusive effect？Supreme Court judgments said ＂no＂ mainly because of the absence of explicit legislation. However, these judgments are far from general opinions and do not reflect opinions of legal scholars and actual judicial practice in Taiwan. For example, a legal loophole that may exist in Article 74 of Act Governing Relations between People of the Taiwan Area and Mainland Area mat complicate the issue. Additionally, it is also necessary to analogize Article 402 of Civil Procedure Code to affirm the final and conclusive effect in certain circumstances. Also, based on the essence and nature of res judicata, where there is procedural protection of due process, there is also res judicata. If we deny the conclusive effect of Mainland China's judgments and arbitration decisions, they may take reprisal measures arising great impact on people between two sides of Taiwan Strait.