Образование и право2076-150310.24412/2076-1503-2026-2-446-454OtherАРБИТРАЖ (ТРЕТЕЙСКОЕ РАЗБИРАТЕЛЬСТВО) КАК СПОСОБ РАЗРЕШЕНИЯ АДМИНИСТРАТИВНЫХ СПОРОВ: СРАВНИТЕЛЬНО-ПРАВОВОЙ АНАЛИЗARBITRATION AS A MEANS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTES RESOLUTION: COMPARATIVE ANALYSISКалитовскийТимофей ВалентиновичKalitovskiyTimofey Valentinovichme@kalitovskiy.ru2nd year master’s student at the International Law School, of the Federal state autonomous institution of higher education, “Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University), of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation”студент 2 курса магистратуры, Международно-правового факультета, Федерального государственного автономного, образовательного учреждения высшего образования, «Московский государственный институт, международных отношений (университет), Министерства иностранных дел Российской Федерации»1003202624464541802202610032026

В статье рассматривается возможность применения арбитража (третейского разбирательства) как одного из способов разрешения административно-право выхспоров. В работе анализируются основные нормативные правовые акты и правовая доктрина следующих правопорядков: Россия, Португалия, Соединенные Штаты Америки. Особое внимание уделяется категориями административных споров, которые могутбыть переданы в третейское разбирательство, препятствиям, которые возникают при введении соответствующего механизма разрешения административных споров, а также особенностям административного арбитража в каждой из рассматриваемых юрис дикций

The article focuses on the possibility of using arbitration as one of the means of administrative disputes resolution. The research paper analyzes the main regulations and legal doctrine of the following jurisdictions: Russia, Portugal, United States of America. Particular attention is paid to the categories of administrative disputes that may be referred to arbitration, the obstacles that arise when introducing the respective administrative disputes resolu tion mechanism, and specifics of administrative arbitration of each jurisdiction reviewed

административный спорарбитражтретейское разбиратель ствоарбитрарбитражный процессадминистративное судопроизводствоадминистра тивный контрактадминистративный актгосударственная службаadministrative disputearbitrationarbitratoreconomic court procedureadminis trative litigationadministrative contractadministrative actcivil serviceAman A. C., Jr. Administrative Law (Hornbook Series) / Aman A. C., Jr., Rookard L. W., Mayton W. T. – 4th ed. – St. Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing, 2023. – 829 p.DaCвmara F. S. Arbitration as a means of resolving taxdisputes // European Taxation. – 2014. – V. 54. – № 11. – P. 491-505Calabrese M. Deciding Without an Appoint ment: Examining the Appointments Clause and Administrative Arbitration // Georgetown LawJournal. – 2022. – V. 111. – P. 343-380.Dauber C. B. The Ties That Do NotBind: Nonbinding Arbitration in Federal Administrative Agencies // Administrative LawJournal of The Ameri canUniversity. – 1995. – V. 9. – P. 165-189.David Pickstone. The TaxDisputes and Liti gation Review. – 10th ed. – London: LawBusiness Research Ltd, 2022. – P. 229-240.Dellinger W. Constitutional Limitations on Federal Government Participation on Binding Arbitra tion // Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel (Op. O.L.C.). – 1995. – V. 19. – P. 208-234.Ferreira R. F., Guerra J. C., Pires J. M. Taxarbitration in Portugal: a new taxdispute resolution model // Comparative LawYearbook of International Business. – 2013. – №. 35. – P. 189-204.International Monetary Fund. Portugal: Request for a Three-Year Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility // IMFCountry Report. – 2011. – P. 121.Laing M. Ohio Administrative Law and Arbi tration: An Argument for Adopting Binding Arbitration for Administrative Hearings // Ohio State Journal in Dispute Resolution – 2020. – V. 35. – P. 435-453.Pereira daFonseca A. International Arbitration in Portugal / Pereira daFonseca A., Moura Vicente D., Franзa Gouveia M. [et al.]. – Alphen aan denRijn: Kluwer LawInternational, 2020. – 504 p.Portocarrero M. Arbitration in administrative affairs: The enlargement scope of Ratione Materiae in Portugal //Central European Public Administration Review. – 2020. – V. 18. – P. 203-2018.Sousa M. B. et al. Building a robust judi ciary: The major reforms in Portugal //LexHumana. – 2024. – V. 16. – №. 4. – P. 98-125.Thomsen P. M., Roaf J. Portugal: First Review Under the Extended Arrangement // IMFCountry Report. – 2011. – V. 11. – №. 279. – 105 p.Беляева О. А., Габов А. В. Арбитрабель ность споров, возникающих в сфере закупок // Журнал российского права. – 2017. – №. 5 (245). – С. 46-55.Зеленцов А. Б. Административно-право войспор: вопросы теории: Монография. Изд. 2-2, испр. и доп. – М: РУДН, 2009. – 692 с.Aman A. C., Jr. Administrative Law (Horn book Series) / Aman A. C., Jr., Rookard L. W., Mayton W. T. – 4th ed. – St. Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing, 2023. – 829 p.DaCвmara F. S. Arbitration as a means of resolving taxdisputes // European Taxation. – 2014. – V. 54. – No. 11. – P. 491-505Calabrese M. Deciding without an Appoint ment: Examining the Appointments Clause and Administrative Arbitration // Georgetown LawJournal. – 2022. – V. 111. – P. 343-380.Dauber C. B. The Ties That Do NotBind: Nonbinding Arbitration in Federal Administrative Agencies // Administrative LawJournal of The Ameri canUniversity. – 1995. – V. 9. – P. 165-189.David Pickstone. The TaxDisputes and Liti gation Review. – 10th ed. – London: LawBusiness Research Ltd, 2022. – P. 229-240.Dellinger W. Constitutional Limitations on Federal Government Participation on Binding Arbitra 454 ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ И ПРАВО № 2 • 2026 • ЮРИДИЧЕСКИЕ НАУКИ tion // Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel (Op. O.L.C.). – 1995. – V. 19. – P. 208-234.Ferreira R. F., Guerra J. C., Pires J. M. Taxarbitration in Portugal: a new taxdispute resolution model // Comparative LawYearbook of International Business. – 2013. – No. 35. – P. 189-204.International Monetary Fund. Portugal: Request for a Three-Year Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility // IMFCountry Report. – 2011. – P. 121.Laing M. Ohio Administrative Law and Arbi tration: An Argument for Adopting Binding Arbitration for Administrative Hearings // Ohio State Journal in Dispute Resolution – 2020. – V. 35. – P. 435-453.Pereira daFonseca A. International Arbitra tion in Portugal / Pereira daFonseca A., Moura Vicente D., Franзa Gouveia M. [et al.]. – Alphen aan denRijn: Kluwer LawInternational, 2020. – 504 p.Portocarrero M. Arbitration in administrative affairs: The enlargement scope of Ratione Materiae in Portugal //Central European Public Administration Review. – 2020. – V. 18. – P. 203-2018.Sousa M. B. et al. Building a robust judici ary: The major reforms in Portugal //LexHumana. – 2024. – V. 16. – No. 4. – P. 98-125.Thomsen P. M., Roaf J. Portugal: First Review Under the Extended Arrangement // IMFCountry Report. - 2011. - Vol. 11. - No. 279. - 105 p.Belyaeva O. A., Gabov A. V. Arbitrability of Disputes Arising in the Sphere of Procurement // Journal of Russian Law. - 2017. - No. 5 (245). - P. 46-55.Zelentsov A. B. Administrative-Legal Dispute: Theoretical Issues: Monograph. Publ. 2-2, corrected. and add. - M: RUDN, 2009. - 692 p.