执行和解是我国民事执行程序中的一项特有制度。理想状态下的执行和解具有减轻执行负担、提高执行效率、化解执行矛盾等优势。但实践中当事人在执行中达成和解后，往往会在履行过程中发生争议，导致执行程序一再拖延。本是为了破除执行僵局的执行和解制度非但没有发挥其应有功能，反而给了被申请执行人延宕程序的可乘之机，引发新的争议。我国现行的执行和解争议解决机制为“双轨制”，一是申请执行人可以申请恢复原生效法律文书的执行，二是允许申请执行人就履行执行和解协议向法院提起诉讼，当事人可从中择一进行维权。但是对于何种情形下适用何种争议解决方式，如何设计合理的争议解决机制以尽可能实现执行程序中公平与效率价值的兼顾，立法中并未明确。模糊的立法必然会导致实践中的混乱。为此，有必要对现行执行和解争议解决机制的不足之处进行研究，在进行理论剖析的基础上构建合理的执行和解争议解决机制，真正激活执行和解制度的功能。本文共分为四个部分：

第一部分主要考察执行和解争议解决机制的现状。首先厘清本文的研究对象——执行和解争议的概念。其次，一方面，对执行和解争议类型进行实务考察，归纳当前实践中的主要争议类型。另一方面，对我国长期以来执行和解争议解决机制的相关立法变迁进行系统性梳理，明确执行和解制度在历史上的定位，着重考察了单轨制与双轨制这两种争议解决模式。

第二部分对执行和解争议解决机制存在的问题及成因进行分析。指出当前执行和解争议解决机制的问题主要表现在对被申请人权利保障力度不足、执行和解协议效力争议解决思路不当、另行起诉和恢复执行两种争议解决方式规定较为模糊。究其原因，一是在于执行和解的性质、效力等存在理论争议，二是执行和解制度在实践过程中发生了偏离。

第三部分对执行和解争议解决机制进行理论重构。先从理论上明晰执行和解的性质和效力，其次提出执行和解争议解决过程中应当注重的三重理念：事前预防、实体与程序分离、利益衡平，为具体制度的构建打好理论基础。

第四部分着重讨论当前执行和解争议解决机制的完善。主要包括应当引入执行和解协议司法审查机制、对可另行起诉的和解协议类型做出限制以及对于恢复原执行的相关制度进行细化等内容。

Execution settlement is a special system in the civil execution procedure of our country. In the ideal state, the execution and reconciliation have the advantages of reducing the execution burden, improving the execution efficiency and resolving the execution contradiction. But in practice, after the parties reach a settlement in the execution, there will often be disputes in the execution process, resulting in repeated delays in the execution procedure. The enforcement reconciliation system, which is designed to break the deadlock of execution, has not only failed to play its due function, but has given the person applied for execution the opportunity to delay the procedure, causing new disputes. The current dispute resolution mechanism of execution settlement in China is a "dual-track system", one is that the applicant for execution can apply to restore the execution of the original effective legal documents, the other is to allow the applicant for execution of the execution of the settlement agreement to the court, and the parties can choose one to defend their rights. However, it is not clear in the legislation what kind of dispute resolution method should be applied under what circumstances and how to design a reasonable dispute resolution mechanism to achieve the balance between fairness and efficiency value in the execution procedure as much as possible. Vague legislation will inevitably lead to confusion in practice. Therefore, it is necessary to study the shortcomings of the current enforcement settlement dispute resolution mechanism, and build a reasonable enforcement settlement dispute resolution mechanism on the basis of theoretical analysis, so as to truly activate the function of the enforcement settlement system. This paper is divided into four parts:

The first part mainly examines the current situation of the implementation of the conciliation dispute resolution mechanism. First of all, it clarifies the concept of executive dispute settlement, which is the object of this paper. Secondly, on the one hand, this paper makes a practical investigation on the types of disputes in execution settlement, and summarizes the main types of disputes in current practice. On the other hand, this paper systematically combs the relevant legislative changes of the implementation of reconciliation dispute resolution mechanism in our country for a long time, clarifies the historical positioning of the implementation reconciliation system, and focuses on the two dispute resolution models of monorail system and dual-track system.

The second part analyzes the problems and causes of the implementation of the settlement dispute resolution mechanism. It is pointed out that the problems of the current enforcement settlement mechanism are mainly manifested in the insufficient protection of the rights of the respondent, the improper idea of implementing the validity of the settlement agreement, and the vague provisions on the two dispute resolution methods of separately suing and resuming the enforcement. The reasons lie in the theoretical disputes on the nature and effectiveness of the implementation of reconciliation, and the deviation of the implementation of reconciliation system in the course of practice.

The third part reconstructs the theory of the dispute resolution mechanism of execution settlement. Firstly, it clarifies the nature and effectiveness of execution reconciliation in theory, and then puts forward three ideas that should be paid attention to in the process of dispute resolution of execution reconciliation: prevention in advance, separation of entity and procedure, and equity of interests, so as to lay a good theoretical foundation for the construction of specific system.

The fourth part focuses on the improvement of the current executive reconciliation dispute resolution mechanism. It mainly includes the introduction of judicial review mechanism for the execution of settlement agreements, restrictions on the types of settlement agreements that can be sued separately, and the elaboration of relevant systems for the restoration of original execution.