大法官作為實質意義的憲法法院（庭），其所為的「解釋」可 被界定為屬於一種「裁判」， 而法院的「裁判」當應予以「執 行」，以確保裁判內容之實現。就此吾國現今司法院大法官審理案 件法第十七條第二項即有規定：「大法官所為之解釋，得諭知有關 機關執行，並得確定執行之種類及方法。」即係大法官解釋「執 行」的法律依據。
然關於大法官解釋的「執行」於法理上當有諸多可予闡釋之處，例如「執行」在釋憲程序中的意涵、與相關概念的辨異、可諭知執行的情狀及諭知內容、何機關可被諭知執行乃至對執行的救濟等，均應予以深入探究。同時對吾國釋憲實務上迄今與「執行」有關的解釋，本文亦藉由學理上的闡釋而一併予以檢視，提出相關檢討與說明，最後並為結論與具體建議。

In Taiwan, the Grand Justices perform substantial functions of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the “judicial interpretations” made by the Grand Justices bear the nature of “court decisions” and should be “executed” accordingly so as to realise the decisions in real terms. According to Article 17 (II) of the Law to Govern the Disposition of Cases by Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan, “After making a judicial interpretation, the Grand Justices may notify concerned authorities and finalise the procedures and measures taken to execute the interpretation”. A judicial interpretation may be thereby executed under the law.
There are theories to elaborate the execution of judicial interpretations including the nature and contexts of “execution”, the concept as compared to relevant terms, the conditions and contexts of the notification, the definition of concerned authorities and remedies for the execution. This article will examine and review judicial interpretations concerning the “execution” against the theories to make elaborative conclusions and concrete suggestions.