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

  • Fall Submissions Open – Headnotes

    The Minnesota Law Review: Headnotes fall submissions period is open. For more information, please visit our submissions page. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Vol. 97 Piece Quoted in Mother Jones Article

    A recent Mother Jones article predicting how the Roberts Court would resolve King v. Burwell draws on How Business Fares in the Supreme Court from Volume 97. You can read the article here. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Welcome to De Novo

    For nearly one hundred years, the Minnesota Law Review has been a leader amongst academic legal publications. When Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the journal in 1917, his goal was simple. It was to “contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” Since then, the Law [...]

  • Minnesota Law Review Alum Remembered 45 Years After Death

    Minnesota Law Review alumnus Tom Cranna was honored at the Annual Banquet this Spring, 45 years after his death. Mr. Cranna was remembered for his contributions to the journal, the school, and the positive impact he had on his family and friends. The Devil’s Lake Journal published a memorial which [...]

  • 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. [...]

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days