In terms of terminology related to guardianship, it seems to me that the US pays more attention to people who need such support measures.
Particularly, as the Uniform Law Commision explains in the notice, the expression of "ward", "incapacitated person" or "disabled person" , each of which means "respondent" in the UGCOPAA, generally indicates some discrimination against them.
With regard to persons who support above vulnerable people, the principal role of "guardian" is to make personal decisions on his/her behalf while that of "conservator" is to manage the property for them. Nevertheless, as a practical matter, the detailed disctinction between two fiduciaries depends upon each state law.
The term"guardian" is additionally divided into "plenary (full) guardian" and "limited (partial) guardian". With respect to the form of conservator, it is practically considered as one of limited guardians. Therefore, the person subject to the conservatorship can retain all personal rights because the conservator acts the estate field on the basis of UGCOPAA.
In Japan, statutory guardian has three kinds: guardian, curator(* this differs from that in the US) and assistant. These fiduciaries are sorted by capacity level of the person.
To put it another way, although there are no division between guardian and conservator unlike the US, we can seek to make vulnerable people maximize individual autonomy depending on how to utilize our guardianship system.