APPLYING THE SOCIAL WELFARE THEORY OF INHERITANCE TO THE REGULATION OF THE RIGHTS OF HEIRS REGARDLESS OF THE CONTENT OF THE WILL (FORCED HEIRSHIP)

ABSTRACT

This paper analyzes the application of the social welfare theory of inheritance in legal provisions concerning the rights of heirs who are entitled to inherit regardless of the content of a will (forced heirship). Social welfare theory posits that inheritance is not merely a matter of personal property disposition but also a mechanism for wealth distribution to ensure social equity, reduce inequality, and protect vulnerable individuals. Based on this principle, many legal systems have implemented forced heirship regulations to safeguard the rights of close relatives, particularly those financially dependent on the deceased. The study conducts a comparative analysis of forced heirship regulations in civil law and common law systems, highlighting differences in approaches to protecting forced heirs and the extent to which testamentary freedom is restricted. Additionally, it examines the current legal framework in Vietnam, particularly Article 644 of the 2015 Civil Code, to assess its alignment with social welfare principles. The findings indicate that while Vietnam’s forced heirship provisions play a crucial role in protecting vulnerable heirs, they still present several limitations, such as a narrow scope of protection, unclear enforcement mechanisms, and a lack of flexibility in addressing exceptional cases. Drawing on social welfare theory and international legal practices, this paper proposes reforms to Vietnam’s inheritance law to strike a balance between testamentary freedom and collective welfare. These proposals include expanding the categories of forced heirs, enhancing judicial authority in adjusting estate distribution, and improving enforcement mechanisms to ensure effective protection of forced heirs’ rights in a modern social context.

АННОТАЦИЯ

В данной статье анализируется применение теории социального государства в области наследственного права в контексте регулирования прав наследников, имеющих право на наследство независимо от содержания завещания (обязательная доля). Теория социального государства утверждает, что наследование является не просто вопросом распоряжения личной собственностью, но и механизмом перераспределения богатства с целью обеспечения социальной справедливости, сокращения неравенства и защиты уязвимых лиц. Исходя из этого принципа, во многих правовых системах действуют нормы об обязательной доле, направленные на защиту прав близких родственников, особенно тех, кто находился в материальной зависимости от наследодателя. В исследовании проводится сравнительный анализ регулирования обязательной доли в странах романо-германского и англосаксонского права, выявляются различия в подходах к защите обязательных наследников и степень ограничения свободы завещания, также рассматривается современная правовая база Вьетнама, в частности статья 644 Гражданского кодекса 2015 года, на предмет её соответствия принципам социального государства. Результаты показывают, что хотя положения Вьетнама об обязательной доле играют важную роль в защите уязвимых наследников, они имеют ряд ограничений, включая узкий круг защищаемых лиц, нечеткие механизмы реализации и недостаточную гибкость в исключительных случаях. Опираясь на теорию социального государства и международную правовую практику, автор предлагает реформу законодательства Вьетнама о наследовании с целью достижения баланса между свободой завещания и общественным благом. Среди предложений — расширение круга обязательных наследников, усиление полномочий суда по перераспределению наследства и совершенствование механизмов исполнения для эффективной защиты прав обязательных наследников в условиях современного общества.

Keywords: forcedheirship, socialwelfaretheory, testamentaryfreedom, socialequity, legalreform, Vietnam.

Ключевые слова: обязательная доля в наследстве, теория социального государства, свобода завещания, социальная справедливость, правовая реформа, Вьетнам.

Introduction

Inheritance is the process of transferring assets from the deceased to the living, reflecting not only individual property rights but also broader social values. In modern legal systems, the principle of respecting an individual’s freedom of disposition of property is considered the cornerstone of inheritance law. Accordingly, each person has the right to make a will to decide how their assets will be distributed after death. However, in cases where there is no will or a will cannot be executed for legal reasons, the deceased’s assets are distributed according to statutory provisions to predetermined heirs. These rules not only ensure freedom of disposition but also help maintain social stability and protect the lawful interests of the parties involved.

Building on the foundation of testamentary freedom, the social welfare theory of inheritance has been developed as a theoretical framework to explain the regulatory role of law in the distribution of inherited assets. This theory emphasizes that inheritance is not merely an exercise of individual will, but also a tool for redistributing wealth to reduce inequality, protect vulnerable groups, and enhance social justice. Thus, the law may impose restrictions on testamentary freedom to serve public welfare objectives – exemplified by the forced heirship mechanism, which guarantees shares for those family members who are closely related and economically dependent on the decedent (such as minor children, elderly parents, or a spouse).

These restrictions generally take two forms: prescriptive restrictions and proscriptive restrictions. Prescriptive restrictions require the person leaving the estate to distribute assets in a manner predetermined by law, thereby ensuring the rights of forced heirs. In contrast, proscriptive restrictions consist of rules that prohibit certain types of asset distributions that could harm the lawful heirs or violate the decedent’s financial obligations.

In that context, this article focuses on analyzing the theoretical and practical basis for applying social welfare theory in legal provisions related to forced heirship in Vietnam, especially the limits imposed on testamentary freedom to protect the interests of the community and dependents. By surveying comparative law models and assessing current Vietnamese law (notably Article 644 of the 2015 Civil Code), the article proposes orientations for improving inheritance law through a social welfare approach, aiming to balance individual rights and the public interest.   

Materials and Methods

This study adopts a doctrinal legal research methodology, combined with a comparative legal analysis, to explore the application of the social welfare theory of inheritance in regulating forced heirship. The approach is both theoretical and normative, aiming to assess the extent to which legal frameworks—particularly in Vietnam—conform to the principles of social justice, wealth redistribution, and the protection of vulnerable heirs.

1. Doctrinal Analysis of Legal Texts and Theoretical Frameworks

The primary method involved analyzing statutory texts, legal doctrines, and scholarly commentaries on inheritance law, especially those addressing the balance between testamentary freedom and social protection. Core legal sources included:

The 2015 Vietnamese Civil Code, particularly Article 644 on forced heirship;

The Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers by the American Law Institute (2003);

Foundational legal theory texts and academic journals, including works by Robert H. Sitkoff, Thomas P. Gallanis, and Mark Glover.

These sources were used to articulate the conceptual underpinnings of the social welfare theory of inheritance, especially as it relates to prescriptive and proscriptive legal restraints on testamentary freedom.

2. Comparative Legal Method

The study employs a comparative law method to evaluate how different jurisdictions, particularly civil law and common law systems, regulate forced heirship in light of social welfare objectives. Jurisdictions selected for comparison included:

Vietnam, representing a socialist civil law jurisdiction with limited judicial discretion;

The United States, emphasizing testamentary freedom but incorporating protective mechanisms like elective shares and spousal rights;

France and Germany, where the forced heirship system is more robust and reflects strong social policy commitments.

This comparison provided a basis for assessing Vietnam’s inheritance law in an international context and identifying possible areas for reform.

3. Normative Evaluation and Law Reform Proposals

Based on the social welfare theory framework, the study also applies normative analysis to evaluate the extent to which Vietnam’s current legal provisions fulfill redistributive justice goals. Drawing from comparative insights and theoretical critiques, the paper formulates law reform proposals, focusing on:

Expanding the definition of forced heirs to cover economically dependent individuals beyond blood or marital relations;

Enhancing judicial discretion in exceptional cases;

Improving enforcement mechanisms to protect the mandatory portion of the estate.

These recommendations aim to ensure that Vietnamese inheritance law reflects both the evolving nature of family relationships and the ethical responsibilities of property transmission.

Results and Discussions

1. Contents of the Social Welfare Theory of Inheritance

Inheritance law grants the testator the freedom of disposition to decide the distribution of their assets after death, with the hope of promoting social welfare. The law treats testamentary freedom as a means to maximize social welfare. Although the law often relies on the testator’s choices to maximize social welfare, it also regulates inheritance in certain cases by imposing legal limits on freedom of disposition. Social welfare theory of inheritance comprises two main components: (1) Freedom of disposition and social welfare; (2) Control of assets.

1.1. Freedom of Asset Disposition and the Goal of Maximizing Social Welfare

In modern inheritance law, the freedom to dispose of assets upon death is seen as a central, foundational principle. This right allows an individual to decide how their assets will be divided after death, often through making a will or using other legal instruments such as trusts. It is widely recognized in many legal systems, especially in common law countries like the United States, where testamentary freedom is regarded as a profound expression of individual property rights and personal liberty under the law.

From a social welfare theory perspective, testamentary freedom serves not only the private interests of the decedent but also helps maximize the overall welfare of society. Under this reasoning, allowing individuals to decide how to distribute their assets creates positive incentives throughout their lives—such as incentives to accumulate wealth, maintain positive family relationships, and support social goals that individuals pursue, like charity, education, or community development.

Professor Robert H. Sitkoff has analyzed that in U.S. inheritance law, testamentary freedom is protected by law almost absolutely. Sitkoff states: “Preserving freedom of disposition at death is an important part of the bundle of property rights, and it creates asset distribution mechanisms beneficial to both the decedent and the heirs.”1 This view shows that the law not only protects property rights during life but also extends those rights beyond death, in order to maintain stability in asset distribution and respect personal intent as a moral and legal principle.

In practice, to support this right, many legal systems establish a range of mechanisms to protect testamentary freedom, such as:

Non-intervention in personal intent: Courts have no authority to interfere with the content of a will if the will is formally valid and does not violate legal prohibitions. This reflects the principle of “maximal respect for the testator’s intent.”

Ensuring formal authenticity: The law requires that a will comply with strict formal conditions (signatures, witnesses, notarization, etc.) to ensure that the testator’s intent is accurately expressed and not improperly influenced.

Guidance on will interpretation: When the content of a will is unclear or contradictory, the law favors an interpretation that aligns with the true intent of the testator at the time the will was made. This helps maintain consistency in asset distribution and prevent disputes among heirs.

The legal protection of testamentary freedom stems not only from legal logic but also from a welfare viewpoint. If individuals know they have the freedom to dispose of their property after death, this can bring them peace of mind and satisfaction throughout their lives, thereby improving their quality of life and sense of responsibility toward their assets and loved ones. At the same time, this freedom can encourage ethical behavior, such as gifting assets to children who care for their parents, incentivizing education, or supporting charitable organizations.

However, social welfare theory does not stop at respecting freedom of disposition; it also recognizes the need to limit this right in certain circumstances. The law can impose rules to control freedom of disposition if exercising that right could harm the interests of vulnerable parties or conflict with society’s shared values. This is when social welfare theory shifts from protecting freedom to controlling disposition rights for the community’s benefit – a point that will be clarified in the next section.

1.2. Controlling the Decedent’s Asset Disposition

Although the freedom to dispose of assets after death is a fundamental principle in modern inheritance law, this right is not absolute. In reality, the law acknowledges the need to control the freedom of disposition to protect social values such as fairness, public order, and the welfare of dependents. The Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers by the American Law Institute affirms that freedom of asset disposition is effective only to the extent that it does not violate overriding legal rules, including obligations to family members, creditors, and societally recognized moral principles [2]. This view, supported by social welfare theory, holds that limiting freedom of disposition is a tool to maximize social welfare in situations where free market mechanisms or individual will cannot achieve equity.

The legal limits established are generally divided into two main groups: prescriptive restraints and proscriptive restraints [3;4].

1.2.1. Prescriptive Restraints

Prescriptive restraints are legal provisions that require the person leaving an estate to transfer assets to certain specified beneficiaries, regardless of the will’s content. Common beneficiaries protected by this restraint are a surviving spouse and unpaid creditors.

First, in many legal systems, the surviving spouse has the right to claim a statutory portion of the estate (elective share) or is entitled to a forced spousal share. This mechanism reflects the principle of protecting marriage and the economic role of the spouse, even after the other spouse has died. According to Restatement (Third) of Property § 10.1, the distribution of assets must take into account the spouse’s rights, even if the spouse is disinherited [5]. Thomas P. Gallanis also observes that these provisions aim to prevent inequality in marriage—especially when the decedent had superior economic power—and thus restricting freedom of disposition is necessary to achieve justice in inheritance [3].

Second, the law also requires the decedent to prioritize payment of lawful debts before distributing the remainder to heirs. This rule is widely recognized to protect the rights of third parties, maintain fairness in civil transactions, and uphold the integrity of the legal system.

1.2.2. Proscriptive Restraints

Proscriptive restraints are legal rules that prevent the person leaving the estate from carrying out certain types of asset transfers for moral, social, or legal reasons. These restraints do not mandate any particular distribution of assets, but instead prohibit certain dispositions.

First, the law forbids inheritance conditions that encourage unlawful acts. For example, a will condition requiring an heir to commit a crime (such as murder or fraud) to receive assets will be declared void. This reflects the fundamental principle that freedom of disposition cannot override the legal order of society.

Second, conditions that violate the freedom of marriage or encourage divorce are also rendered void by law. Gallanis points out that conditions forcing an heir not to marry someone of a certain religion or race, or requiring divorce to inherit, are often deemed contrary to public morals and thus not legally recognized [3].

Third, the rule against perpetuities limits the ability to control assets for too long after death. Although instruments like trusts allow the decedent to maintain long-term influence, the law imposes a certain time limit (often 21 years after the death of the last living beneficiary at the time of the will) to prevent assets from being frozen and to avoid impeding the circulation of wealth in the economy.

In sum, while testamentary freedom is a highly valued principle, both prescriptive and proscriptive restraints are necessary mechanisms to balance individual interests and social welfare. These limits do not extinguish the essence of ownership rights, but rather guide those rights to serve the interests of vulnerable groups and the community at large – which social welfare theory regards as the paramount legal objective in regulating inheritance.

2. Application of the Theory in Vietnam’s Legal Provisions on Forced Heirship

2.1. Overview of Vietnamese Law on Forced Heirship

In Vietnam’s civil law system, the right of certain close relatives to receive an inheritance regardless of the will’s content is provided in Article 644 of the Civil Code 2015. This provision most clearly embodies the forced heirship mechanism, through which the law limits the testator’s freedom of asset disposition to protect the vulnerable members of the family.

Specifically, Clause 1 of Article 644 stipulates:

“The following persons still inherit a portion of the estate equal to two-thirds of the share they would be entitled to by law, if the estate were divided under intestacy rules, regardless of the contents of the will, unless they have disclaimed the estate or are disqualified from inheritance:

a) Minor children, father, mother, or spouse of the testator;

b) Adult children who are incapable of working.” [5]

Thus, those who are economically dependent on the decedent—such as minor children, elderly parents, or a spouse—are always entitled to a certain portion of the estate even if the testator tried to exclude them in the will. This is a clear expression of the principle of “legal intervention to protect the vulnerable,” which is central to social welfare theory.

Compared to the intestate succession rules in the absence of a will (Chapter XXIII of the 2015 Civil Code), the forced heirship mechanism operates parallel to and independently from intestate succession: even if the decedent made a valid will, the rights of forced heirs are preserved to the minimum extent provided by law. Therefore, this is a mandatory and coercive limit on the freedom of disposition, demonstrating that Vietnamese law does not absolutize individual property rights but considers the decedent’s moral and social obligations toward dependents who cannot support themselves.

Although the law does not use the term “prescriptive restraint” as in common law systems, in essence Article 644 is a form of prescriptive restraint according to Mark Glover’s concept. He emphasizes that legally mandating distribution of a portion of the estate to dependents is a measure to protect social welfare, as it prevents negative outcomes if the decedent had full power to exclude vulnerable dependents from the distribution process [4]. Similarly, in Thomas Gallanis’s treatise, the forced heirship mechanism (even in the U.S. context) is seen as a tool to regulate family and economic relationships after death. Protecting the spouse and dependents through the legal system is not only ethical but also aims at social stability and reducing disputes after the decedent passes away [3].

2.2. Analysis from the Perspective of Social Welfare Theory

Social welfare theory of inheritance, as developed in Mark Glover’s work, stresses that inheritance is not merely an exercise of personal will but also a legal tool for wealth distribution to protect the weak, reduce inequality, and maintain social justice. From that perspective, forced heirship provisions such as Article 644 of the Civil Code 2015 can be seen as a concrete manifestation of this theory’s core ideas in the context of Vietnamese law.

2.2.1. Limiting Freedom of Disposition to Maximize Social Welfare

While modern law typically protects freedom of disposition after death as part of individual property rights, social welfare theory argues that this freedom should be adjusted when its exercise may harm distributive justice goals. Glover explains that if the law allows a decedent to completely exclude dependents like minor children or a spouse who cannot work, it not only harms those individuals but also leads to negative societal consequences—such as increasing burdens on public welfare systems or undermining confidence in the justice of inheritance [3].

The fact that Vietnamese law mandatorily allocates a portion of the estate to certain vulnerable persons, regardless of the testator’s intent, shows a prioritization of collective welfare over absolute property rights. This is precisely the core content of the theory that Glover describes as “prescriptive restraints,” where part of the estate is removed from the testator’s absolute control to protect a baseline of social justice [4].

2.2.2. Balancing Personal Freedom and Social Responsibility

In the Restatement (Third) of Property, the American Law Institute clearly states that the freedom to dispose of assets at death is valid only if it does not contravene public policy and social morals. Similarly, Article 644 of the 2015 Civil Code does not negate the right to make a will, but frames it within the moral and social responsibilities of the decedent toward dependents. This shows that Vietnamese law pursues a “soft balance” approach – protecting individual rights while not abandoning the vulnerable [5].

Gallanis’s view concurs that a sustainable inheritance system cannot be separated from moral duty and social responsibility. The mechanism of protecting a weak spouse and children has not only legal significance but also demonstrates the moral role of inheritance as a form of intergenerational responsibility [5].

(a) Balancing testamentary freedom with moral obligations: Both the Restatement and Vietnamese law illustrate that testamentary freedom is circumscribed by higher obligations to family and society. By ensuring that even a valid will cannot completely ignore certain close dependents, the law strikes a balance between individual liberty and ethical duty.

(b) Moral role of inheritance and intergenerational responsibility: Inheritance carries an ethical dimension, functioning as a transfer of responsibility between generations. Gallanis emphasizes that protecting dependent family members through inheritance laws serves as a moral affirmation of care and support within the family unit, beyond mere legal requirements.

(c) Limiting conflicts and maintaining social stability: Social welfare theory is concerned not only with asset distribution but also with the stability of the legal system and social order. If a decedent had unchecked freedom of disposition, the likelihood of disputes increases—especially if dependents are disinherited. By reserving portions of the estate for them, the law helps limit litigation, reduce social costs, and increase predictability in estate distribution. As Glover noted, “restrictions on freedom of disposition not only protect dependents, but also reduce negative impacts on public welfare systems and cut legal costs in inheritance disputes.”[4]

2.3. Assessment of Practical Effectiveness and Limitations

The establishment of forced heirship protections for certain individuals in Vietnamese law is a significant step toward balancing testamentary freedom with the interests of vulnerable family members. However, practical implementation of Article 644 of the Civil Code 2015 reveals that, alongside its positive aspects, this provision still has numerous shortcomings in terms of scope, flexibility, and enforcement effectiveness, affecting the degree to which social welfare is protected in inheritance.

2.3.1. Advantages

Firstly, the provision in Article 644 helps prevent abuses of testamentary freedom that would deprive those dependent on the decedent of their rights. These vulnerable individuals—such as minor children, elderly parents, a spouse with no income, or adult children who are incapacitated—are ensured a basic share of the estate so they can continue a minimum standard of living after the family breadwinner’s death. This contributes to social stability and reduces the burden on the state welfare system.

In addition, this provision has the effect of limiting disputes related to will contents. Because the rights of forced heirs are automatically protected by law, the likelihood of conflicts arising from being cut out of an inheritance is greatly reduced. This aligns with Mark Glover’s analysis that one of the goals of limiting freedom of disposition is to reduce social costs due to litigation and maintain a stable legal order [4].

2.3.2. Limitations

However, the current provision also exhibits some clear limitations from the perspective of social welfare theory and comparative law.

First, the list of forced heirs in Article 644 remains narrow and does not cover all real-life situations. For example, individuals who were dependent on the decedent but have no marital or blood relation (such as foster children not legally adopted, a life partner not legally recognized, or long-term caregivers) are not protected under the forced heirship mechanism. This can lead to unfair outcomes when people who were truly dependent receive no share of the estate.

Second, the law has not granted courts flexibility to consider individual circumstances. Article 644 applies a relatively rigid criterion (two-thirds of an intestate share) and does not allow judicial bodies to weigh humanitarian factors or special socio-economic conditions in particular cases. Meanwhile, as Gallanis’s analysis notes, modern legal systems increasingly empower courts to adjust asset distribution in appropriate circumstances to ensure fairness among the parties [3].

Third, the enforcement mechanism is still ineffective in practice. Determining the mandatory portion of the estate and compelling compliance often relies heavily on the voluntary action or legal awareness of the parties involved. In many disputes, forced heirs are unaware of their rights or face difficulties in proving their disability status or level of dependency, leading to disadvantageous outcomes. In some cases, notaries or legal service organizations might overlook verifying conditions for forced heirship due to a lack of specific guidance from state authorities [5].

2.3.3. Comparison with Social Welfare Theory and Foreign Laws

From Mark Glover’s perspective, restrictions on freedom of disposition are only effective when they both protect the weak and are designed to flexibly adapt to diverse real-world circumstances [4]. While Vietnamese law clearly demonstrates an intent to protect social welfare, the accompanying mechanisms have not been fully established to achieve that goal effectively. By contrast, in many U.S. states or civil law countries such as Germany and France, courts play an active role in balancing the testator’s freedom with the decedent’s moral and social responsibilities, ensuring a more dynamic and case-sensitive approach [1; 2].

2.4. Legislative Recommendations Based on Social Welfare Theory

Social welfare theory of inheritance views the law as a regulatory tool to achieve a more equitable distribution of assets in society, particularly for vulnerable groups and dependents. On that basis, limits on testamentary freedom are not merely restrictive, but also positive measures to ensure harmony between individual interests and collective welfare. From this viewpoint, Vietnamese law – despite foundational provisions like Article 644 of the Civil Code 2015 – needs to continue evolving to better align with social realities and modern welfare principles. The following are some specific recommendations:

2.4.1. Expand the Scope of Forced Heirs

One major limitation of Article 644 is that the list of forced heirs is too narrow and limited to blood or marital relations. In reality, many individuals fall outside the groups enumerated by law but have a de facto economic dependency on the decedent, such as an illegitimate child not legally adopted, a cohabiting partner not registered as married, or a long-term caregiver.

To meet the goals of reducing inequality and protecting the vulnerable, Vietnamese law should broaden the concept of “forced heir” based on actual dependency criteria, similar to the approach in some U.S. states and in Germany. In those jurisdictions, a protected person need not have a blood relation but must prove a status of financial and caretaking dependency on the decedent [1].

2.4.2. Enhance the Adjusting Role of Courts

Currently, Vietnamese law fixes the forced share by a rigid standard (two-thirds of the statutory share) and does not grant courts authority to flexibly review and adjust it in individual cases. This rigidity is problematic when, for example, a forced heir has behaved in a seriously unworthy manner, or the decedent had legitimate reasons not recognized by law for disinheriting someone.

The Restatement (Third) of Property recommends that courts should have the power to limit an heir’s share in cases where the heir has seriously violated moral obligations or committed violence or abuse against the decedent [1; 2]. Vietnamese law should consider this model to establish a judicial review mechanism, ensuring the principle of fairness in each specific case instead of a mechanical application of the rule.

2.4.3. Improve the Mechanism for Establishing and Enforcing Forced Heirship Rights

A current weakness in practice is the unclear mechanism for identifying and protecting the mandatory portion of the estate. Notaries, lawyers, judgment enforcement officers, and judicial authorities often struggle to determine the forced share, especially when there are disputes about an heir’s working capacity or level of dependency.

Therefore, detailed implementation guidelines should be issued regarding: how to determine incapacity to work; the procedure to certify someone as a forced heir; and the method of segregating the forced share in estate declaration or division proceedings. In addition, research is needed to establish a special enforcement mechanism to shield the forced share from concealment, dissipation of assets, or manipulation by other parties involved [2].

2.4.4. Harmonize Testamentary Freedom with Social Welfare

While protection of vulnerable heirs needs to be expanded, the law must also maintain reasonable limits so as not to completely extinguish the right to make a will. Defining a fixed portion of the estate for forced heirs, with the remainder freely disposable by the decedent, helps preserve economic incentives and ensure personal wishes are respected.

Glover emphasizes that an effective inheritance system must reconcile two core values: freedom of disposition (to encourage accumulation and morally-driven giving) and social justice (to reduce inequality and support dependents). Thus, the ideal model is not to absolutize one side, but to create a flexible framework capable of balance in each practical situation.

Conclusion

The social welfare theory of inheritance has been playing an increasingly important role in shaping the legal principles governing the distribution of assets after death. Unlike traditional approaches that absolutize testamentary freedom, this theory focuses on using the law as a tool to protect vulnerable groups and regulate the distribution of wealth to reduce inequality and enhance social justice. This perspective is clearly reflected in the legislative practices of many countries, particularly through forced heirship provisions and mechanisms that limit control over assets after death.

In Vietnam, Article 644 of the Civil Code 2015 is an important step toward embracing the principles of social welfare theory. However, as analyzed in the foregoing sections, the current provisions still have many shortcomings regarding the scope of protection, flexibility in application, and enforcement efficacy. These limitations indicate that Vietnam’s inheritance law needs further reform aimed at balancing individual freedom in asset disposition with social responsibility toward dependents and the community. Such adjustments would not only realize justice in each specific inheritance relationship but also strengthen trust in the legal system amid an increasingly diverse and complex society.

In this way, this article opens a necessary research direction on mechanisms to protect vulnerable heirs in the context of modern social changes. The rise of non-traditional family models, evolving notions of marriage, economic dependency, and end-of-life care requires that inheritance law not only reflect traditional moral values but also adapt to the dynamic realities of contemporary society. Continued in-depth research on the criterion of “actual dependency,” the role of courts in adjusting estate distribution, and the potential expansion of post-mortem asset protection measures will contribute to building a humane, equitable, and sustainable inheritance law system.

References:

1. American Law Institute. (2003). Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers (§ 1.0.1). Philadelphia, PA: ALI.
2. American Law Institute. (2003). Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers (§ 10.1). Philadelphia, PA: ALI.
3. Gallanis, T. P. (2011). Family property law: Cases and materials on wills, trusts, and future interests (5th ed., p. 349). New York, NY: Foundation Press.
4. Glover, M. (2018). A social welfare theory of inheritance regulation. Utah Law Review, 2018(5), 879–921.
5. National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. (2015). Civil Code (No. 91/2015/QH13, November 24, 2015).
6. Sitkoff, R. H. (2013). The economic structure of the law of inheritance. Boston University Law Review, 116(3), 1047–1072.