Minnesota Law Review

American Trust Law in a Chinese Mirror

Comparative law scholars use the term “legal transplant” to refer to the transfer of legal rules, institutions, and norms from one legal system to another. This Article identifies a valuable, previously unrecognized, feature of legal transplants. The transplant process can generate intensive study of the donor legal system by scholars and reformers in the recipient country. The result can be a rich critique that can enable donor-country scholars and reformers to see flaws in their own system and to enact necessary reforms.

The Article begins with a review of the extensive legal transplants literature and demonstrates that this literature has failed to recognize the significance of legal transplants for donor-country scholars and reformers. It then uses one example—China’s recent efforts to introduce the common law trust system—to illustrate the value of legal transplants as “mirrors.” The Article shows that during this legal transplant process, Chinese drafters and scholars have produced an important critique of American trust law, drawn from close analysis of U.S. statutes, case law, model acts, treatises, and scholarly articles. This critique has been overlooked in the United States because it is published only in Chinese. Yet, as this Article reveals, the Chinese critique offers unique and troubling insights into our own system that U.S. scholars and reformers need to consider. A Chinese mirror exposes American trust law as out of balance both in its favoritism of trustees over settlors, beneficiaries, and third parties and its acceptance of trust secrecy.

The Chinese critique comes at a time when leading American scholars and reformers are seeking to move trust law in the wrong direction. By characterizing trusts as contracts and trust law as default rules, they would further enhance the rights of trustees and increase the already high level of trust secrecy. The Article concludes that American scholars and reformers should respond to the Chinese critique and reevaluate their reform agenda.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited in Al Jazeera Opinion Piece

    A recent Al Jazeera opinion piece that criticizes the Supreme Court’s Daimler decision cites to Volume 97′s lead piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the Al Jazeera piece here.

  • Masthead for Volume 99 Board

    The masthead for the Board of Volume 99 of the Minnesota Law Review is now available. You can view the masthead here.

  • Above the Law Post Highlights MLR‘s Jump in Journal Rankings

    A recent post on Above the Law highlights the fact that the Minnesota Law Review was ranked 11th in the most recent 2013 edition of the Washington & Lee Law Review Rankings. You can read the post here.

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited on Slate

    A recent Slate article on the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the “Moldy Washing Machine” cases, or overturn class certification of those cases in some circuits, cites to the Volume 97 Lead Piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the article here.


cforms contact form by delicious:days