行政院公平交易委員會為了配合行政程序法的實施，制定了「行政院公平交易委員會締結行政和解契約處理原則」，該原則共有十點，其主要你仿自行政程序法第一百三十六條的和解契約規定而來，但和解契約亦為行政契約之一種，仍應受行政程序法第一百三十五條但書的限制，亦即性質上或法規規定不得締結行政契約時，仍不能接訂和解契約。雖然在行政契約上有所謂的隸屬關係之和解契約，但行政程序法第一百四十九條規定，行政契約本法未規定者準用氏法相關之規定。 本文先從處理原則所規定締結行政和解契約的要件、內容、法律效果作一說明，並與民法、民事訴訟法、行政訴訟法上之和解及刑事訴訟法上之認、罪協商制度作比較，以期釐清各制度之本質，再進一步探討該處理原則的法律依據與實效性，以免行政機關濫用和解契約而出售公權力以致使違法業者免於受高額罰鍰或刑事追訴。 行政機關固然應積極佳事，除了行政處分之外，當可並用行政和解契約的締結，以節省行政資源並達成行政目的。但如果過度的採用行政和解而未注意到所隱藏發生各種弊端的可能性，並使其發展成公行政主控之典型契約時，將失去行政和解的意義，吾人不可不慎。

The Rule of Administrative Settlement Agreement was announced by the FTC of the ROC before the Law of Administrative Procedure was enforced on January 1, 2001. I introduced the concept and effect of every section of the Rule of Administrative Settlement Agreement first and reviewed unreasonable sections in the paper. Following this, the rule was compared with civil settlement agreement, settlement agreement of civil procedure, settlement agreements of administrative appeal procedures and consent decree of criminal procedure. In my opinion, it is doubtful that section 7 and 10 are unfair for enterprises. Another problem to be concerned with is whether or not the rule will be abused when the FTC doesn't want to punish violating enterprise.