法律行為以語言作為其傳遞、溝通的媒介，故法律行為本質上為一種言說行為，本文用語上稱之為法律言說行為。為了使此種法律言說行為的遂行成為可能，自有研究其後設語言(Metasprrache, metalanguage)層次之言說行為理論，並以之作為其構成規則體系的必要。因此，本文以J.L. Austin以及J.R. Searle的「由意行為」、「語行行為」、「語效行為」的互涉關係理論，作為主要分析工具，以說明言說行為與法律制度的關係，並以此觀點來檢視憲法解釋學上違忽審查的效力理論。即本文試以法律系統、法律理論與語言系統、語言理論的互涉關係為題，以大法官會議所為違憲宣告之效力為例，以提供另一種理解法律言說、法律行為、乃至法律制度的性格特徵之分析架構。

Judicial acts communicate through language, are virtually a kind of speech acts, and for the reason of this, we use the term judicial speech acts in this following article.This article takes the theory on relationship of mutual influence that J. L. Austin and J. R. Searle mentioned before as the analysis method to explain the relationship between speech acts and the judicial institutions, and form this point of view, to overlook the validity of judicial review on the Constitutional Interpretation.This article tries to offer another way to approach judicial speech by discussing the interaction of legal systems-legal theories ＆ linguistic system-linguistic theories and by taking constitutional review’s decisions as an example.