《保险研究》20240801-《“保险”的概念——重新定义《保险法》中的“保险”》（梁鹏）

［摘   要］现行《保险法》中规定的“保险”概念，无法解决实务中的问题。其存在的问题是：将“保险合同”混同于“保险”；以“人身保险”与“财产保险”的二元结构割裂了保险的概念；法条对“赔偿”“保险金”“责任”等词的使用欠缺立法严谨性。从逻辑学的视角看，对“保险”下定义，需采取“属加种差”的经典方式。“保险”概念之“属”，不应为“制度”“法律关系”或“共同团体”，而应为“行为”。“保险”概念之“种差”应包括“特定之危险”“共同团体”和“互助共济”三个，但“保险利益”“独立之法律上请求权”不应作为“保险”概念的种差。据此，修法时，保险的概念可修改为：“由面临特定危险之主体组成共同团体，当团体成员因特定危险的发生受有损失时，在共同团体内部互助共济之行为。”在这一概念下，无论是合法保险、非法保险，抑或是持牌保险、非持牌保险，只要符合这一概念，均应接受监管机构的监管。

［关键词］保险； 概念；特定之危险；共同团体；互助共济

［作者简介］梁鹏，中国社会科学院大学法学院教授，研究方向：保险法。

The Concept of “Insurance”—Redefining “Insurance” in the “Insurance Law”

LIANG Peng

Abstract：The concept of “insurance” in “Insurance Law” can not solve the problems in practice.The problems of this concept include that “insurance contract” is confused with “insurance”,the concept of “insurance”is divided unreasonably into “life insurance” and “property insurance”.Moreover,the use of words such as “compensation”,“proceeds” and “liability” in the Law are not rigorous.From the perspective of logic,to define “insurance”,we need to adopt the classic way of “genus plus species difference”.The “genus” of the insurance concept should not be “system”,“legal relationship” or “common group”,but be the “act”.The “differentia” of the concept of “insurance” include “specific risk”,“common group” and “mutual assistance”,but “insurable interest” and “independent legal claims” should not be regarded as the species differences of insurance concept.Therefore,on amending the Insurance Law,the concept of insurance may be modified as follows:“Insurance is an act of mutual assistance of a common group formed by people who face specific risks,and is effected when the members of the common group suffer damage or loss due to the specific risk”.Under this concept,no matter lawful insurance or unlawful insurance,or licensed and unlicensed insurance,they should all be supervised by the relevant authority.

Key words：insurance;concept;specific risk;common group;mutual assistance