作者：于立深
作者介绍：东南大学法学院教授，博士生导师
出版日期：2019年8月9日
内容提要 在行政契约履行救济渠道上，我国行政机关因为受限于原告被告角色恒定 性的立法预设，无法提起契约之诉，因此《 行政诉讼法》 上的非诉行政案件强制执行制度被 作为关注的焦点和方向。行政契约不属于传统行政行为范畴，行政行为效力理论不及于 其， 以契约本身作为执行根据不合乎行政法治理念。依法成立的民事契约也不具有强制执 行力，行政契约的强制执行亦无普遍的契约法理基础。为有效解决行政契约履行争议，除 了恢复行政机关的契约诉讼原告资格和诉权之外，契约当事人的自我约定强制执行制度、 与行政优益权相匹配的其他法定处理权等，可以作为破局的尝试。但是，这些制度设计也 可能消解行政契约的合意性、 平等性，不仅应该使其法定化而且力求慎用。
关键词 行政契约 《 行政诉讼法》 第97 条 行政行为 强制执行 契约裁决
Abstract: In the performance of administrative contract on the remedy channel, Chinese administrative agency is unable to file a contractual lawsuit because it is limited by the legislative presupposition of the plaintiff-defendant constant role. Therefore, the compulsory execution of non-litigation administrative case on the Administrative Litigation Law is regarded as the focus of attention and direction. Administrative contract does not belong to the category of traditional administrative actions, theory of administrative act validity does not reach to it, and contract as the basis for execution does not match with the ideas of administrative rule of law. A civil contract formed according to law does not have enforceability, and there is no universal legal basis for the enforcement of administrative contracts. In order to resolve the implementation disputes of administrative contract, except recovering the plaintiff qualification and rights of sue on administrative agency, the contractual parties' self enforcement agreement and their administrative adjudication matching the administrative privileges can be used as a kind of effective attempt. However, some institutions designs may also eliminate the equality and the meeting of administrative contract mind. The institution on self enforcing and administrative privileges should be legalized and used as less as possible.