| As a result of UK equity laws, Trust has formed its standardized legal principles, during long-term judicial practice in UK and US, etc. There is much difference between trust system in continental legal system as introduced from UK and US and that in Anglo-American legal system. In particular, there is difference in the distribution of rights and obligations of three parties concerned during a trust relationship. The basic reason is that the characters and features of trust system could not be combined with the property right system in Chinese civil laws.Trust-concerned persons should be regarded as an integral part in trust relationship. China's"Trust Law"fails to set out a perfect stipulation on Trust-concerned persons. The main reason is that there is few corresponding property system to support. China's"Trust Law", which is interpreted by absolute property right, fails to specify the possession of trusted property, therefore, resulting in ambiguous legal status between Trust-concerned persons and distribution imbalance of rights and obligations. Combined with Chinese laws and regulations on Trust, starting with the structures of property rights in two major legal systems and the origin of Trust, this Paper has compared with such nations as applying Anglo-American legal system and such nations as Japan and South Korea as applying continental legal system with transplanted Trust laws, and has discussed and explored the insufficient stipulations on the rights and obligations of Trust-concerned persons in China's"Trust Law", as well as has raised necessary suggestions and proposals on improving and perfecting Chinese regulations on Trust-concerned persons.Beginning with Trust's design and legal principles, the Preface of this Paper has introduced the present legal condition of Chinese trust-concerned person system and arising problems, as well as pointed out the research meaning of this Paper.With respect to the imperfectness of Trust-concerned person system in China's"Trust Law", Chapter One hereof has engaged in concrete introduction from such three aspects as truster, trustee and beneficiary, and has compared with UK and US and other nations with continental legal system and transplanted trust legal system in terms of relevant stipulations on Trust-concerned person, so as to further evaluate and review the faultiness of China's Trust-concerned person system.Chapter Two has analyzed the reasons of faultiness of China's Trust-concerned person system. Of them, the basic reason is that China's sole ownership is difficult to match with such an ingenious design as trust ownership separation. Therefore, a number of problems arise, such as ambiguous possession of trusted property right results in ambiguous legal status of Trust-concerned persons; there is no system foundation for the rights and obligations of China's Trust-concerned persons, as well as the insufficient divisibility of trusted property right results in the imbalanced rights and obligations between trust-concerned persons. Chapter Three hereof has put forward suggestions on improving China's trust-concerned person regulations. Basically speaking, the traditional"one property, one right"regulation in continental legal system has not been suited to protect some new rights in modern society. Therefore, China's transplant of trust legal system, requires to set up an open property right system, and to absorb and refer to the dual ownership of Anglo-American legal system. On this basis, we should conduct rational design on the legal status of truster and trustee, and should establish improved regulation mechanism on trustee's rights and obligations and responsibilities.The Conclusion hereof has suggested that China's applicable civil law system should regard trusted property right as a new property right, and should recognize the"dual ownership"of trusted property right. This move will not only avoid the conflict with China's traditional civil law theories, but also eliminate the barrier of sole ownership. |
PDF Full Text Request