隨著國家職能擴大，越來越多行政行為以「行政契約」的形式出現；而隨著人民權利意識高漲，公法人所簽訂之行政契約，其衍生之紛爭亦日趨增加而複雜，在紛爭解決之方法上，「仲裁」一直被視為是一項有效率之紛爭解決機制。仲裁得否適用於解決行政契約之爭訟，考驗著行政契約與仲裁這兩個傳統上分居公、私法領域之法律概念，會以何種面貌呈現與互動。我國行政程序法「行政契約」章節，除部份繼受德國法制外，亦有若干繼受法國行政契約法制，故法國法在此方面的發展，誠有參考價值。法國公法人得否適用仲裁程序，以解決其在行政契約領域之爭訟，乃法國學說及實務向來爭執不休之處，本文以比較法之觀點，探討法國在此議題上之發展。大體上，法國原則上禁止公法人適用仲裁程序，且透過學說及實務見解，逐步擴大該原則之適用範圍；但是，為了因應需要，立法者也逐步創設該原則之例外。不過，即便例外逐漸增加，公法人禁止適用仲裁程序，在法國行政法學說及實務，卻仍是主流見解。我國就此問題爭議較小，不僅容許公法人在面臨契約爭訟時得選擇適用仲裁程序，甚至於政府採購法有強制仲裁之立法，兩相對照，「乍看之下」得以發現法國及我國在此問題上有截然不同之立場。然而，在此截然不同之外表下，其實反映出一個現象，即法國禁止公法人適用仲裁之理由建構，法國學說慣以「行政審判權不容當事人任意劃定，至少必須立法者決定」及「仲裁妨害公共利益」為依據，其理由並不完備，無法放諸四海而皆準，若就法國及我國發展作一綜觀且不違和之解釋，似應在於公法人締結之契約，其契約之定性與所適用之公私法原理原則，才是進一步影響其仲裁容許性之關鍵因素。法國公法人所締結契約，原則上為公法契約，適用公法上原理原則，重視該契約雙方地位之不平等及國家機關之優勢特權；我國公法人所締結契約，在早期行政法學不發達之情況，為使契約當事人有救濟可能，大量循入私法領域，適用民法上原理原則，從而爭端解決也習慣使用民事訴訟法及其替代性紛爭解決程序。但在我國行政法學及爭訟程序已臻完備之際，這些披著「私法外衣」的公法契約，該不該「回流」，及回流後之仲裁容許性，頗富研究趣味。

While arbitration has traditionally been considered as a means to resolve private disputes, its role in disputes involving administrative contracts is a crucial question in administrative law. The purpose of this paper is to show and to compare the feasibility and justifiability of applying arbitration to cases involving administrative law. Regarding arbitrability, the French system principally prohibits public legal persons from submitting disputes involving administrative contracts to arbitration. However, there are exceptions that have gradually been created by legislation and jurisprudence. Even so, up until the present time, the principle of the prohibition of arbitration in administrative matters is still a dominant principle in administrative law. This concept, deeply rooted in French public law, has long been considered to be of a nature that is, at the very least, incompatible with the ability to engage in arbitration proceedings. One reason is that the arbitration agreement could not find its place among contracts of the state because it is a principle that the state cannot submit his dispute to arbitrators because of the random consequence of arbitration and the consideration of public order, and then the state can only be judged by the jurisdictions instituted by the law. Another reason underlying the French legal doctrine justifying the principle of the interdiction of arbitration in public law is that the use of arbitration in administrative litigation may be contrary to the public order or it may cause concerns regarding public policy. However, Taiwan's system principally allows public legal persons to submit their disputes regarding administrative contracts to arbitration under certain legislatively established conditions. In conclusion, based on the diversity between Taiwan and France, we can conclude that the arbitrability of disputes arising from administrative contracts involves mainly the function, conception and nature of contracts. Finally, ＂the arbitration in administrative contracts＂ traditionally has been an important question in administrative and arbitration law. In the future, we will continue to see it shine in the doctrine and jurisprudence of both the administrative and arbitration law fields.