随着社会经济的稳步发展和依法治国方略的深入推进，民众的权利意识逐步提高，越来越多人开始积极维护自己的权利。然而，一些公民在行使自身权利时，由于行为过于激烈或权利主张不合理，导致原本正当的维权行为超越了应有的界限，演变成了过度维权，甚至构成敲诈勒索罪。这一现象产生的根源在于过度维权行为与敲诈勒索罪之间的界限模糊不清，缺乏明确的区分标准。本文着眼于当下的理论和实践难题，通过系统研究过度维权行为和敲诈勒索罪界分的基础理论、认定现状与争议焦点，提出区分两者的明确标准。

过度维权行为是指行为人基于客观损害事实或法律规定，采取过激的私力救济手段向相对方索要明显超出合理范围的赔偿请求，以维护自身受到侵害的合法权利的行为，该行为具备维权行为的有因性、维权主张的不合理性以及维权手段的过激性三大特点。近几年来过度维权的案例表明，司法实务中对于有关行为的认定存在严重的同案异判现象。这一情况如果长久存在，将极大地影响到司法的公信力，削弱刑法适用的权威性和统一性，不利于法治道路的建设。因此，我们有必要对这一问题进行深入探讨，以期明确两者之间的界限，规范公民维权行为，维护社会公平正义。

当前司法实践中，过度维权行为和敲诈勒索罪界分的争议焦点主要集中于维权的依据、数额、手段三个方面。过度维权行为和敲诈勒索罪的界分应当具有以下三条标准：其一，维权行为是否具备权利基础，当行为人的权利请求虽无法律明文规定但符合社会相当性时可视作具备正当的权利基础；其二，维权数额是否在合理范围之内，在此需要分两种情况进行讨论，当权利基础明确时参照逃税罪以“数额比例制”来判断索赔数额是否在合理范围内，当权利基础不明确时，应充分尊重行为人的意思自治，将维权人提出高额索赔视作一种民事的协商策略，在其他要件都合法的情况下，均无论权利人提出何种数额的赔偿要求，都不应认定其构成敲诈勒索罪；其三，维权手段是否超过必要限度，只有胁迫手段足以对他人形成精神强制时，手段行为才具备刑事违法性。

犯罪行为的认定从来都不是孤立、片面的，要综合以上提及的三个方面进行判断，只有当主观目的和客观手段的非法性同时存在，过度维权行为才能被认定为敲诈勒索罪。具体来说，在消费领域，只有客观手段和主观目的同时达到非法性的标准，即采用超出社会相当性的胁迫手段索取超出合理范围内的赔偿时才能认定行为构成敲诈勒索罪。在债务纠纷领域，应当分情况讨论：对于采用非法手段索取债务的，无论是合法债务还是非法债务，因债权人此时并不具备非法占有目的，仅凭手段行为的过度性并不足以直接认定为敲诈勒索罪，但此时手段行为若违反刑事法律的规定则按照手段行为触犯的罪名来定罪处罚；对于以非法手段索取因民间纠纷产生的精神损害的，应当谨慎入罪，对于手段轻、金额小、情节显著轻微危害不大的作出罪处理。在信访领域，“上访”行为不足以被评价为对政府的威胁或要挟行为，加之政府不具备被精神强制的可能性，不是敲诈勒索罪的适格对象，故过激上访行为不应认定为敲诈勒索罪。

Steady socio-economic development, the rule of law strategy to promote in-depth, the public's awareness of rights gradually improved, more and more people began to actively defend their rights. However, some citizens in the exercise of their rights, due to the behavior is too intense or rights claim unreasonable, resulting in the original legitimate rights behavior beyond the due boundaries, and then evolved into excessive rights, and even committed extortion. The root of this phenomenon lies in the blurring of the boundaries between excessive rights defense and extortion, i.e., the lack of clear differentiation standards. This paper focuses on the current theoretical and practical difficulties, and takes the boundary between excessive rights defense behavior and extortion crime as the main research direction, aiming to provide ideas for accurately defining the difference between the two.

Excessive rights defense behavior refers to the actor based on the objective damage facts or legal provisions, to take excessive private remedies to the other party to demand compensation request is obviously beyond the reasonable range, in order to safeguard their own infringed upon the legitimate rights of the behavior, the behavior has the rights of causality, the rights of the claim of irrationality and the rights of the means of the overly radical three major characteristics. The author through the study of recent years, excessive rights cases, found that in judicial practice, for the determination of the relevant behavior, there is a serious phenomenon of the same case different judgments. If this situation exists for a long time, it will greatly affect the credibility of justice, greatly weaken the authority and uniformity of the application of criminal law, and is not conducive to the construction of the rule of law. Therefore, we need to explore this issue in depth, with a view to clarify the boundaries between the two, standardize citizens' rights protection behavior, to maintain social justice.

In the current judicial practice, excessive rights-based behavior vs. racketeering focuses on basis, amount, means three aspects. Based on this, the author puts forward three standards on the excessive rights defense behavior and extortion and blackmail crime. First, whether the rights defense behavior has a right basis, the author believes that when the actor's rights request is not expressly provided for by law, but in line with the social equivalence of the rights can be regarded as having a legitimate rights basis; Second, whether the amount of rights defense is within a reasonable range, need to be divided into two cases for discussion, when the rights basis for the clear reference to the crime of tax evasion to the "amount of proportionality system" to determine whether the amount claimed is in the reasonable range, when the rights basis is clear. "When the basis of the right is not clear, it should fully respect the act's autonomy, and regard the high amount of claim as a civil negotiation strategy, no matter what amount of compensation the right holder puts forward, in the case of other elements are legal, it should not be punished for the crime of extortion and blackmail; Thirdly, whether the means of defending the right is more than necessary, only the coercive means are more than necessary. Thirdly, whether the means of defending the right exceeds the necessary limit, only when the coercive means is sufficient to form the mental coercion to others, the means of behavior has the criminal illegality.

The determination of criminal behavior is never isolated and one-sided, and the three aspects mentioned above should be integrated for judgment, Only if the illegality of the subjective end and the objective means are present at the same time, the excessive rights defense behavior can be recognized as the crime of extortion and racketeering. Specifically, in the area of consumption, only when both the objective means and the subjective purpose meet the criterion of illegality, i.e., the use of coercion beyond social equivalence to demand compensation beyond a reasonable range, can the conduct be recognized as constituting the crime of extortion and racketeering. In the field of debt disputes, it should be discussed in different situations: for the use of illegal means to solicit debts, whether legal or illegal debts, because the creditor does not have the purpose of illegal possession at this time, the excessiveness of the means of behavior alone is not enough to be directly recognized as the crime of extortion and racketeering, but at this time, the means of behavior if the violation of the provisions of the criminal law will be convicted and punished in accordance with the means of behavior to violate the crime; for the use of unlawful means to solicit Spiritual damage arising from civil disputes, should be careful to incriminate, for the means of light, the amount of small, the circumstances are significantly less harmful to make a crime. In the field of letters and petitions, the act of "petitioning" is not enough to be evaluated as a threat or blackmail against the government, coupled with the fact that the government does not have the possibility of being mentally coerced, and is not an eligible target for the crime of extortion and blackmail, so the act of petitioning in an overly aggressive manner should not be recognized as the crime of extortion and blackmail.