被迫行为是行为人在被胁迫状态下实施的行为,行为人实施行为时的意志是受到外在力量束缚的,所以所实施的行为并不是全部的意志表示。而紧急避险是在紧急状态下为了保护自己的利益而不得不损害他人的利益从而使自己的利益得到保护,当然所保护的利益一定大于损害的利益,不然不能成立紧急避险。从危险的来源看紧急避险和被迫行为有很大的共同点,意志自由方面也有共同点,但是刑法对这两种行为是截然不同的评价方式,紧急避险是犯罪排除事由,而被迫行为很大程度上被列为胁从犯而受到处罚。在实践当中事务部门很难去准确的区分两者之间的界定,从而使得很多案件不能公正的对待,文章着重分析二者关系,对二者范围进行界定。 Being forced to act is an act committed by the perpetrator under coercion. The will of the perpetrator to act is bound by external forces, so the act performed is not the total will. The emergency avoidance is in an emergency to protect their own interests and have to undermine the interests of others so that their interests are protected, of course, the interests of protection must be greater than the damage interests, or can not be set up emergency hedging. Seeing from the source of danger, there is a great common ground between emergency hedging and forced behavior, and there is common ground in freedom of will. However, criminal law is a completely different evaluation method for both acts. Urgent and hedging are criminal exclusions and Forced behavior is largely penalized as a co-driver. In practice, it is very difficult for the affairs departments to accurately distinguish the two, so that many cases can not be treated fairly. The article focuses on analyzing the relationship between the two and defining the scope of the two.