现代法治国家通常以具备执行依据资格的生效法律文书来表征民事执行程序所要实现的私法请求权（执行债权）。这一文书由此成为执行机关代表国家行使民事执行权，针对债务人采取强制执行措施的实体正当性依据与程序合法性基础。就我国而言，蕴含在“执行难”背后的程序目的观与关于“审执关系”的矛盾理念，反映出执行依据的功能不明；现行法将执行依据的条件与执行立案条件同等对待，避免执行依据的执行力因诉讼程序被推翻，反映出执行依据的效力被绝对化理解。可见，执行依据的本体、功能与效力，亟待理论解明。通过比较法考察可知：第一、虽然两大法系关于民事执行程序的目的与执行力来源的理解显有不同，但均将执行依据作为国家行使民事执行权、针对债务人采取执行措施的必要非充分条件。第二、基于日本法提供的制度样本可知，作为执行债权凭证的执行依据因其居于执行法律关系之三角结构的中心位置，具有替代执行债权以维系执行实体正当性与指引执行措施以促进执行迅速化的双重功能。第三、执行依据的执行力以其所载明的执行债权的执行力为效力根据，具有相对性。借鉴域外经验，结合现行规范与实务案例，可以认为：第一、执行依据的执行力源于制定法关于执行依据资格的明文规定；实践做法存在突破该原则之嫌。第二、执行依据法定不等于执行权具有绝对意义上的实体正当性，有必要为债务人提供完善的事后程序保障；裁定不予执行与被执行人排除执行异议的制度定位不明，救济效果并不理想。第三、执行依据载明的权利义务主体明确性的审查与变更追加执行当事人的程序环节存在紧张关系。第四、执行依据给付内容不明确则涉及从执行依据形式瑕疵与执行债权条件不成就导致的“有待生效”到执行债权已消灭甚至自始不存在导致的“无效”等多种情形，需要类型化处理机制。本文可能的贡献在于：第一、澄清作为审执衔接工具的“据以执行的生效法律文书”包含当事人据以申请执行与执行机关据以实施执行等不同层面的含义；第二，阐明执行依据及其执行力是国家行使民事执行权的必要非充分条件；第三，提出民事执行权的行使需要满足“应否执行”与“如何执行”两个层面的前提条件并完成相应的准备工作；由此为我国民事执行启动环节的立法完善提供理论储备。

Modern states under the rule of law normally recognize certain legal documents in effect as execution titles, which represent the private claims to be realized by civil enforcement proceedings, i.e. the enforceable civil claims. Such documents, therefore, will become basis of legitimacy, both substantively and procedurally, for the enforcement authority to exert its power in the name of the state toward a private debtor.In China, the function of execution titles has long been ambiguous behind the social phenomenon of “enforcement dilemma”, as was shown by the teleology to set the purpose of the enforcement proceeding as to enforce “execution titles”, and the contradictory ideologies to “understand enforcement according to trial” on the one hand, and to “strictly distinguish the two” on the other. The law in force sees the conditions of execution titles and the conditions to commence enforcement proceeding as the same, and tries its best to avoid the enforceable effect of a title to be overturned by trial procedure, which reflects a disturbing tendency to overly absolutize the enforceable effect of execution titles. Therefore, a theorization about the concept, functions and effects of execution title is urgently in need.The study of comparative law reveals that, firstly, despite various understandings about the purpose of the enforcement proceedings and the qualification of the execution titles, both civil law and common law system regard such titles as necessary but not abundant condition for the exertion of the state’s power to take enforcement measures towards the debtor. Secondly, based on the review of the example of Japanese law, the dual function of the execution titles, which origins from their central position in the triangle structure of the legal relations between the parties and the enforcement department in civil enforcement proceedings, would come into sight, according to which the execution titles provides not only substantial legitimacy in lieu of the enforceable civil claims per se for the enforcement proceeding, but also procedural indications as to the measures be taken so that to promote the efficiency of the said proceeding. Thirdly, the enforceable effect of the execution titles depends on the enforceability of the civil law claims they specified, such effect is therefore relative instead of being absolute.Several conclusions could be reached based on the positive law and case law, as well as the experiences gain from the comparative law. First, despite some deviated cases, it should be held as a principle that the enforceable effect of execution titles stems from the explicit stipulations of law concerning their qualification. Second, the statutory character of execution titles, however, does not necessarily lead to the absolute legitimacy of the enforcement power. The debtor should be provided with sufficient procedural protections in which the title be used against him could be deprived of its effect. And the mechanism of the enforcement-refusal ruling as well as the debtor’s right to request for obviating enforcement in current law, cannot fulfill the up mentioned task. Third, the tension between the definiteness review of the subjects of the legal rights and obligations specified in the execution title and the procedural arrangements concerning the alteration or supplementation of parties in procedure should not be overlooked. And the problems coming from the ambiguity of the content of the execution title, which could be caused either by formal defects of the title, or substantial defects even nonexistences of the civil claims, should be dealt with according to their types.The progresses made by this dissertation could be seen in following aspects: firstly, it verifies the meaning of “the legal document for enforcement proceeding” as referring to the document for the application of enforcement by the creditor, as well as the document for the state authority to carry out such procedure. Secondly, it reveals that the execution title is the necessary but not abundant condition for the state to take enforcement measures. Last but not least, it presents that the exertion of enforcement power should meet requirements both on the level of “whether” and the level of “how”, together with the accomplishment of relevant preparations, which could serve as a reference for the legislation concerning the initial stage of the civil enforcement proceedings.