摘要： 法律关于合同须经审批的规定既不属于《合同法》第52条第（5）项所称“强制性规定”，也不同于《物权法》关于不动产登记的规定，因此〖BF〗：（〖BFQ〗1）不能以违反 “强制性规定 ”为由将未经批准的合同认定为无效，但审批指向“前置的”营业许可时除外；（2）不能类推适用《物权法》上的“区分原则”认为审批不影响合同效力，除非审批指向的是权利变动，而非基础行为。行政审批系合同的特别生效要件，故合同并不因批准而必然有效；基于信赖保护原则，合同也不因批准被撤销而当然失效。因合同或财产权属发生的争议应通过民事诉讼解决，且当事人不得就批准行为本身提起行政复议或行政诉讼。在负有报批义务的当事人违反报批义务时，可发生违约责任与缔约过失责任的竞合。

关键词: 合同效力, 行政审批, 强制性规定, 区分原则, 责任竞合

Abstract: The rules that administrative approval is necessary for the effect of contract are not only different from the ius cogens adopted by the Article 52 of the Contract Law of China, but also different from the registration rules adopted by the Real Rights Law of China. Hence, the contract without the administrative approval can not be valued as invalid on the ground of violating imperative rules. At the same time, the Separation Principle in the Real Rights Law can not always be implied to analyze the impact of the administrative approval on the validity of contract. The administrative approval is just the necessary condition for the enforcement of the contract, rather than the sufficient condition. The disputes between the parties arising from the contract should be resolved through the civil proceedings instead of administrative procedure. When the party who bears the duty to apply for the administrative approval does not perform it in accordance with the law or the contract, the other party can ask the debtor to assume the liability for breach of contract or the liability for culpa in contrahendo.

Key words: Validity of Contract, Administrative Approval, Imperative Rules, Principle of Separation, Conflict between Liabilities