Basic Features of the Legal System for Resolving Administrative Contract Disputes Between the State and Private Public Interest Institutions A Comparative Study in the Framework of Contemporary Public Law

Abstract

This research examines the fundamental characteristics of the legal system governing the settlement of administrative contract disputes between public administration and private institutions of public benefit, through a comparative study of Iraqi, Egyptian, and Lebanese laws. The study aims to analyze the distinctive legal nature of these disputes and the judicial and non-judicial mechanisms dedicated to resolving them, focusing on procedural and substantive guarantees governing this system. It also highlights the practical and legal challenges facing the implementation of this system and its effectiveness in achieving balance between public interest and private institutions’ rights.

The study revealed a clear evolution in dispute resolution mechanisms. Administrative courts are no longer the sole avenue for resolving disputes; alternative methods such as arbitration, mediation, and conciliation have emerged as practical options that balance the requirements of justice with the needs of speed and efficiency. This diversity of mechanisms reflects the flexibility of the legal system and its ability to adapt to contemporary developments. It became clear that the legal framework governing the settlement of disputes arising from administrative contracts between the government and private institutions of public benefit is characterized by important procedural features, most notably the relative speed of litigation proceedings while respecting the specific nature of public services. This distinguishes it from the traditional civil law system. Furthermore, this system achieves a delicate balance between the public interest and the rights of the contracting parties.