执行和解是当事人在执行程序中为尽快实现债权所采取的妥协方案，为确保执行和解的履行，往往会在执行和解协议中约定担保条款，现行法律规定，当事人选择恢复执行之后，执行和解协议不再被履行，此时却可以根据担保条款去执行担保人的财产，如何论证执行担保条款具有强制执行力是一个待解决的理论问题，理论和实务中存在的另一个问题是未能正确认识到执行和解与执行担保两种制度的区别和联系。本文将以执行和解中约定的担保条款或者担保协议的强制执行力为中心，就执行和解担保制度的学术研究现状、现实运作情况和制度修改建议展开论述。强制执行力来源于所担保债权的高度盖然性、当事人的自我决定和充分的程序保障。当事人的自我决定即担保人承诺承担担保责任并且接受法院对其财产或担保财产的强制执行，充分的程序保障则首先需要对现有的执行和解中担保制度进行精细化改造，具体而言，可比照执行担保制度的要求，对担保条款的内容、公司提供担保的要求、抵押质押程序的办理进行规定。执行担保人如希望事后获得救济，目前法律赋予担保人执行异议和复议的救济途径，以上共同构成担保条款执行力的来源。在限制性执行和解中，担保的内容并未超出法院生效判决所确认的文书，因此担保的债权有高度盖然性。担保的对象可视为生效法律文书所确定的义务，只是被执行和解协议所限缩。现行司法实务中已符合执行担保设立程序的执行和解担保，满足完善的事前保障要求，对其强制执行具有合理性，否则不应赋予担保条款强制执行力。在扩张性执行和解中，担保条款所担保债权的内容实质上突破原生效法律文书，为进一步保障担保条款强制执行力赋予的正当性，在恢复执行时，如执行担保人的财产，应以生效法律文书所载内容为限。执行和解担保的设立程序应予以规范化，可通过参照执行担保的设立程序建构执行和解担保的程序，以进一步增强执行担保人财产的合理性与合法性，可考虑参照确认调解协议的程序确认执行和解协议及担保条款的效力，为使执行担保人有更多和更有力的事后救济途径，可引入债务人异议之诉制度，通过赋予执行和解协议担保条款执行力或以支付令的方式简化担保人的追偿程序。

The current law provides that the property of the guarantor can be enforced according to the guarantee clause in the enforcement settlement agreement after the resumption of enforcement, but the enforcement settlement agreement is no longer enforced after the resumption of enforcement, the source of the enforcement power of the guarantee clause is in doubt, and there is also a misunderstanding of the relationship between the enforcement settlement guarantee and the enforcement guarantee in practice, and the relationship between the two systems is not correctly understood. This article focuses on the enforcement power of the enforcement guarantee clause, and discusses the theoretical research status of the enforcement guarantee system, its actual operation and suggestions for its revision.The authors hold that enforceability derives from the high probability of the secured debt, the self-determination of the parties concerned and full procedural safeguards. The self-determination of the parties, i.e., the guarantee clause stipulates that the executor shall assume the responsibility of guaranteeing and voluntarily accepting the court's enforcement in case of improper performance of the settlement agreement, while the adequate procedural guarantee requires, first of all, a refined transformation of the existing guarantee system in enforcement settlements. The enforcement guarantor may, by means of an enforcement objection and an enforcement pledge, be required to provide a guarantee. The enforcement guarantor may seek redress for improper enforcement through the enforcement objection and review procedures, which together constitute the source of the enforcement power of the guarantee clause. In a restrictive enforcement settlement, the guarantee does not extend beyond the instrument confirmed by the court's entry into force and therefore the claim secured has a high degree of conclusiveness. The object of the guarantee can be regarded as the obligation determined by the legal instrument in force, only limited by the enforcement settlement agreement. The enforcement settlement guarantees that have met the procedures for the creation of enforcement guarantees in current judicial practice satisfy the requirements of perfect prior security and are reasonable for their enforcement, otherwise the enforcement of the guarantee clause should not be granted. In an expansive enforcement settlement, the content of the claim secured by the guarantee clause substantially breaks through the legal instrument in force. In order to further safeguard the legitimacy of the enforcement of the guarantee clause, the author suggests that when enforcement resumes, such as the enforcement of the guarantor's property, it should be limited to the content contained in the legal instrument in force.In order to further enhance the rationality of enforcing the guarantor's property, the author advocates that the procedure for the establishment of the enforcement settlement guarantee should be further standardized with reference to the enforcement guarantee system, consideration may be given to confirming the validity of the enforcement settlement agreement and the guarantee clause with reference to the procedure for confirming the mediation agreement, and the introduction of the debtor's objection lawsuit to expand the remedy for the guarantor's substantive rights in enforcement, by giving the enforcement power to the guarantee clause of the enforcement settlement agreement or The procedure for recovery by the guarantor may be simplified by way of a payment order.