脅迫制度的經濟分析以違法性與制裁為核心

反脅迫並非為了維護意思自治，而是源自公權力對私人自我執行的反感與打擊，這是區分合法威脅與違法脅迫的關鍵。與刑法針對脅迫行為的類型化和直接定罪不同，民法對脅迫行為的類型化不夠科學，亦未針對脅迫行為本身加以制裁，頗值改進。民法的脅迫制度需要超越《民通意見》第69條而設定更科學的類型化標準：脅迫不僅會引發法律行為（合同）的無效，本身更會誘發法律所設定的公法或私法責任；脅迫責任的認定和本質，乃是脅迫人違反了社會契約，即違法地謀取本該讓渡給公權力之執行許可權。

The purpose of the law against coercion is not to maintain autonomy, but for the resentment and infliction of the public power against private self- enforcement. This is the key legal distinction between lawful threats and unlawful coercion. Different from criminal law, under the rules of coercion in civil law coercive acts have not been convicted directly, nor scientifically categorized. Inorder to solve the problem, coercion should be divided into different types based on the standard whether the legitimate interests are infringed upon and if the coercions become true. There should be a kind of responsibility for the coercion itself, the essence of which is violating social contract for the seeking of permission of execution that should have been transferred to public authority.