Trusts in American law and some of their substitutes in Spanish law: Introduction and Part I

This article describes how trusts are used in American law andhow Spanish law provides similar facilities for investors. Thearticle is in two parts. The first part examines, from a USpoint of view, the principal uses of trusts and the second partwill describe aspects of Spanish law that provide similar facilitiesfor investors before concluding that none of the tools availablein Spanish law fulfil all the functions of trusts and that theintroduction of a trust law into Spanish law would not be simple.     

The trust in Spanish and Italian private international law Part II

This is the concluding part of the Article of which the firstpart appeared in the (September QUERY FOR OXFORD) issue of Trusts& Trustees and which dealt with the position of trusts underItalian conflict of law. This second part examines the positionunder Spanish conflict of law rules and the impact that theHague Convention might have on it.     

The trust in Spanish and Italian private international law: Part I

Civil Law jurisdictions' recognition of trusts depends on theindividual conflict of law rules of each jurisdiction. The HagueConvention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Trusts intendsto bring a degree of certainty into how a foreign trust is received.However, the matter is complicated, in particular, as to thestatus granted in each jurisdiction to the convention. Thisarticle, based on a paper presented at the convention on CatalanCivil Law, ‘Los patrimonios fiduciarios y el trust’,held in Tarragona on 20 and 21 October 2005, examines the positionof trusts under the conflict of law rules in Italy and in Spainand the impact made on the recognition of trusts by the HagueConvention. This article appears in two parts; in this firstpart the position in Italy is examined and the second part concludeswith the position in Spain.     

论我国《信托法》适用于社会保障基金投资信托的障碍及其排除

社会保障基金投资信托在性质上并非公益信托而是营业信托,故我国<信托法>关于公益信托的特殊规定并不能够适用于它;其对委托人与受益人的缺失成为该法在对这种信托用上的障碍,只有在观念上将社会保障基金视为法人才能够排除这一障碍.要确保其能够对这种信托有效适用,需要通过当然解释使该法关于受托人忠诚义务的规定能够被适用以禁止受托人利用信托财产为第三人谋取利益,并需要通过借鉴美国的做法将该法关于受托人谨慎义务的规定中的谨慎义务在内容上具体化详细化;为该法确立的过失责任原则只能够对在导致其设立的信托合同中不存在关于排斥这一原则适用的条款的这种信托适用.     

Underage abortion and beyond: developments of Spanish law in competent minor's autonomy

This paper examines the recent developments in underage abortion and related questions in Spanish law. Despite the prevalence of the language of autonomy, like in Britain, children's interests are not defined in Spain by relying exclusively on the competent child's views. Parental opinion and societal expectations are given due weight, although sometimes only implicitly. Calculated ambiguity in legal practice and in the relevant legal texts provides evidence of the pervasive influence of deeply rooted distrust as against clear-cut rules favouring a young person's autonomy.     

衡平法、用益与信托:英国信托法的早期史概说

英美信托制源自用益制。在用益和信托的早期史上,大法官法院基于拯救受托人的良心的衡平管辖权赋予了用益和信托以法律上的保障,而衡平法从"良心到衡平"的变化通过塑造衡平权益使得信托得以制度化。     

The determination of drugs and their substitutes in human hairs

In recent years it has become possible to detect organic pharmaceuticals and drugs in a few milligrams of a person's hair, using modern analytical methods (RIA, GC/MS, GC), whether this person has taken narcotics and other drugs in past times. With the aid of hair analysis it is possible to examine the drug career of a drug addict for up to 1 year, and sometimes for a longer time. This is mostly of great importance in criminalistics and forensic medicine, in the criminal retrospective examination of addicts.     

Justifying law: An explanation of the deep structure of American law

Conclusion Charles Darwin argued that human beings are what happen whenphysical laws act upon a planet with the characteristics that earthhad five billion years ago. Similarly, I have argued that theprimacy of individual will is what eventually happens when asociety allocates and limits coercion based upon rights. From timeto time particular visions of the good or the right dominate publicbehavior, but they are eventually enframed by rights — the authoritative claim of each person to respect.I have argued that the propositional structure of American law—the laws themselves — can be seen to be a logically consistentsystem of propositions stemming from the axiom that the will ofeach person is worthy of respect. This is an explanatory, not anormative, proposition. The axiom was not put there by anyoneand the law derived from it, any more than the human brian wasput there and the theory of relativity derived from it. The axiomcame to be embodied in k because of a fact — the single universalcharacteristic of human beings that is relevant to the question ofarranging coercion is individual will — and a process — the right ofeach person to demand a justification for coercion used upon him.Since will is universal to human beings, this would suggest thatany rights-based legal system would evince a general structuresimilar to our own. Particularities of national culture, naturalresources, population density, and so on would produce a verydifferent liberty frontier from the one facing this country andhence, different laws. But the general structure of law — the relationship between principle and policy decision, the role of thebasic rights, and so on — should be similar. This similarity shouldprovide a common basis for cooperation between states, transcending particularities of economic structure, political structure and ideology. We have seen that a very broad range ofeconomic and political institutions may be justified. The essential difference between states lies not in the different ways that theyarrange institutions but in the different ways that they justifythem. Those that justify them to people as persons are similar.Those that justify them by conformity to a design are different.The theory set out here is not a design. It is an explanation. Onevirtue of explanations is that they draw forth other explanations.More importantly, they offer perspective — they tell us what weare up to. As the social relations which law must rationalizebecome ever more complex, perspective becomes ever more necessary. The simple laws have already been written. The connectionbetween the doctrine of consideration and the first principle isobvious. The connection between the hard look doctrine ofreviewing administrative agencies and the second principle isnowhere near so obvious (though it is a lovely example of thejudicial process enframing the realm of uncertainty). The morecomplex and artificial the institution, the poorer the guidance ofintuition and the more necessary are conscious guides to decision.Justification comes easy to printers. Most of them don't knowwhy a page of print that has straight margines left and right isjustified. They don't need to know, for the idea has immediateintuitive appeal; it is easy to accept and to remember, and, onceremembered, it is an effective guide to behavior. It is easy to seethat this line of print is not justified and to do somethingabout it. It is not so easy to tell whether the hard look doctrine orthe enforcement of a surrogate motherhood contract sits fairly on itspage. Justification of law requires an understanding of thecriterion against which it is being done. There is an intuitive core— a sense — to any act of judgment, but that core can be illuminated and developed by an understanding of the framework withinwhich it operates.     

Meeting the enemy: American exceptionalism and international law

Howard Zinn has been classified in a number of ways for his many social contributions. However, despite the breadth of his work, he has never been considered a criminologist. It is likely that this is the result of the inaccurate perceptions many Americans have about crime being a predominantly street‐level social problem. Zinn maintains that the social harms caused by those in positions of political and economic power are in fact crimes against humanity that are far more destructive and violent than the actions our legal system has historically deemed criminal. He also points to the ways our criminal justice system is unjust and ineffective, and has demonstrated how social inequality ensures that the disadvantaged will be further subordinated by the criminal justice system. Zinn’s critical contributions about the most significant sources of social harm, the unjust nature of the American justice system, and the influence of social inequality offer an unorthodox criminological perspective that deserves special consideration. His unconventional criminology calls for increasing social justice by means of political dissent, social resistance, and civil disobedience.     

Party autonomy in the choice of law under Indian and Australian private international law: some reciprocal lessons

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic will affect the performance of several contracts and is likely to increase the number of disputes before the courts. In agreements with a foreign element, the adjudication of the rights and liabilities will depend on the applicable law. Most legal systems have embraced the doctrine of party autonomy and, accordingly, permit the parties to expressly select the law to govern the disputes that arise from international contracts. India and Australia are no exception to this trend. In general, the courts in both the commonwealth countries have reported having been influenced by judicial practices of one another to develop their own law. Despite their common law roots, the interpretations attached to the doctrine of party autonomy in the choice of law have varied in some respects in these countries. The paper analyses the judicial trends on the subject and demonstrates the role that party autonomy will play in resolving international disputes where the performance has been affected by the eventualities such as the COVID-19 pandemic in India and Australia. The paper delves into the manner in which the courts in India and Australia may offer reciprocal lessons to each another to revolutionise to interpret the doctrine of party autonomy in the choice of law.