试论行政协议的识别标准及类型
On the Identification Standard and Type of Administrative Agreement

《最高人民法院关于审理行政协议案件若干问题的规定》第一条规定了行政协议的概念及四种判断要素，第二条对行政协议类型作出了开放式列举。但该标准在实践运用效果并不理想，学说争议较大，在众多识别行政协议的学说中，作者对“权力说”进行补充说理论证，以“是否行使行政职权”作为判断行政协议的标准，具体界定是否为行政协议时，可以从两方面进行：其一，对协议涉及内容或事项是否牵涉行政机关职权；其二，行政机关是否在协议中享有行政优益权或事实上行使了该权力。本文再以该核心标准为指引，并对现存七种立法与实践中出现争议较大的协议应属于行政协议还是民事合同作进一步阐明。
Article 1 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Trial of Administrative Agreement Cases stipulates the concept of administrative agreement and four judgment elements, and Article 2 makes an open list of the types of administrative agreement. However, the effect of this standard in practice is not ideal, and the theory is quite controversial. Among the many theories for identifying administrative agreements, the author makes a supplementary argument to the “power theory” and takes “whether the administrative authority is exercised” as the standard for judging administrative agreements. When specifically defining whether it is an administrative agreement, it can be carried out from two aspects: First, whether the contents or matters involved in the agreement involve the functions and powers of administrative organs; Second, whether the administrative agency enjoys the right of administrative advantage in the agreement or actually exercises the right. This paper takes the core standard as a guide, and further clarifies whether the existing seven controversial agreements in legislation and practice belong to administrative agreements or civil contracts.