ously in the near future by appropriate United States and Hungarian authorities. -The Crown and other coronation regalia will be placed on permanent public display in an appropriate historical location in Budapest for the population of the country, Hungarians living abroad and foreigners alike to see. On December 13, 1977, Foreign Minister Puja responded to Ambassador Kaiser with a letter indicating that the points outlined in Ambassador Kaiser's letter "clearly reflect my understanding, and that of my Government, of the arrangements which have been decided upon by our two Governments concerning the return of the Crown" and other Hungarian coronation regalia to the Hungarian people. On December 15, 1977, the Department of State announced that the return of the Crown would take place in Budapest on January 6 and 7, 1978. Dept. of State Press Release No. 570, Dec. 15, 1977. On December 16, 1977, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a memorandum and order in Curtis v. Carter (77–2069), denying the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent President Carter and other members of the executive branch from returning the Hungarian coronation regalia to Hungary. The Court, in a memorandum and order issued by U.S. District Judge June L. Green, found unconvincing the plaintiff's theories of U.S. ownership of the regalia and ruled that the return of the regalia presented a nonjusticiable political question involving the conduct of U.S. foreign relations. The action had been brought by Senator Carl T. Curtis and other members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. On December 19, 1977, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Circuit Judges J. Skelly Wright and Roger Robb, summarily affirmed (77-2105) the district court decision. On December 21, 1977, Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, denied the plaintiff's application for injunctive relief in the matter. Portions of the district court memorandum and order follow: Plaintiffs have failed to make a substantial showing of likelihood of success on the merits, even when this showing is governed by "the balance of equities . . . ." Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Comm'n. [v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F. 2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977)]. Plaintiffs' theories of United States ownership of the Hungarian coronation regalia, and in particular, their latest contention that it is captured property of a hostile state, have thus far not been convincing. Hence, the applicability of article IV, section 3. clause 2 and article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution is highly questionable. In the absence of any property interest, the return of the regalia presents a nonjusticiable political question involving the conduct of our foreign relations. The Constitution places these matters exclusively in the hands of the executive branch. Additionally, plaintiffs' standing to bring this action is doubtful under the analysis set forth in Harrington v. Bush, 553 F. 2d 190 (D.C. Cir. 1977). With regard to the balance of equities as to the other relevant standards set forth in Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n. [v. FPC, 259 F. 2d 921 (D.C. Cir. 1958)], the "harm to other parties in the proceedings" and the public interest outweigh the injury to plaintiffs if the injunction is not issued. A delay in the President's plans for return of this property to Hungary under terms which have been agreed upon by both governments may have an impact on the effective conduct of our foreign affairs, and specifically on our steadily improving relations with Hungary. Such a result would not be in the public interest. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is denied. U.S. App. D.C. No. 77-2069, pp. 2–3. On January 6, 1978, Secretary Vance headed a U.S. delegation at a ceremony in Budapest in which the Crown of St. Stephen and other Hungarian coronation regalia were returned to the Hungarian people. 14 Weekly Comp. of Pres. Doc. 45 (Jan. 9, 1978). For further information concerning the return of the Hungarian coronation regalia, see post, Ch. 5, § 1, pp. 377-384. Korea During his speech before the Asia Society in New York on June 29, 1977, Secretary Vance expressed support for the entry of North and South Korea into the United Nations and outlined U.S. policy toward improved relations with North Korea. A portion of his remarks follows: The United States and the Republic of Korea share a strong desire to establish a durable framework for maintaining peace and stability on the peninsula. -We support the entry of North and South Korea into the United Nations without prejudice to ultimate reunification. -We are prepared to move toward improved relations with North Korea provided North Korea's allies take steps to improve relations with South Korea. -We have proposed negotiations to replace the existing armistice with more permanent arrangements. -We have offered to meet for this purpose with South and North Korea and the People's Republic of China as the parties most immediately concerned and to explore with them the possibilities for a larger conference with Korea's other neighbors, including the Soviet Union. We will enter any negotiations over the future of the peninsula only with the participation of the Republic of Korea. Dept. of State Press Release No. 313 (June 29, 1977). The Agreement Concerning a Military Armistice in Korea with Annex was signed at Panmunjom on July 27, 1953, by the Commander-in-Chief of the United Nations Command, the Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army, and the Commander of the Chinese People's Volunteers (TIAS 2782; 4 UST 234; entered into force on July 27, 1953). People's Republic of China In his first major policy declaration on Asia before the Asia Society in New York on June 29, 1977, Secretary Vance stated that the United States would seek to move toward full normalization of relations with the People's Republic of China on the basis of the principles of the Shanghai communique of 1972. An excerpt of that portion of the Secretary's speech dealing with the People's Republic of China follows: * After 25 years of confrontation, we are carrying on a constructive dialogue with the People's Republic of China. Vast differences in culture, social systems, ideology, and foreign policy still separate our two countries. But the Chinese and American people no longer face each other with the hostility, misunderstanding, and virtually complete separation that existed for two decades. We consider friendly relations with China to be a central part of our foreign policy. China's role in maintaining world peace is vital. A constructive relationship with China is important, not only regionally, but also for global equilibrium. Such a relationship will threaten no one. It will serve only peace. The involvement of a fourth of mankind in the search for the solution of global issues is important. In structuring our relationship with the Chinese, we will not enter into any agreements with others that are directed against the People's Republic of China. We recognize and respect China's strong commitments to independence, unity, and self-reliance. Our policy toward China will continue to be guided by the principles of the Shanghai communique, and on that basis we shall seek to move toward full normalization of relations. We acknowledge the view expressed in the Shanghai communique that there is but one China. We also place importance on the peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. In seven weeks, I shall be in Peking to talk with the leaders of China. A broad range of world issues demands our attention. And we want to explore ways to normalize further our bilateral relationship with the People's Republic of China. Mutual and reciprocal efforts in this regard are essential. As we prepare to go to Peking, we recognize that progress may not be easy or immediately evident. But this Administration is committed to the process, and we are approaching the talks in Peking with that in mind. Dept. of State Press Release No. 313 (June 29, 1977). Vietnam Secretary Vance indicated in his speech on June 29, 1977, before the Asia Society that the United States had begun the process of normalizing relations with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. An extract of his summary of the progress during 1977 follows: [W]e have begun the process of normalizing relations with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Our old friends in Southeast Asia and the Pacific have been kept fully informed of our talks with the Vietnamese. They agree that the interests of all would be served by the establishment of normal relations between Vietnam and the United States. The scars of war still exist on both sides. Both sides retain a residue of bitterness that must be overcome. But there is some progress: -Together with the Vietnamese, we have devised a system for identifying and returning the remains of Americans missing in action in Vietnam. Soon the remains of twenty more American pilots will be returned from the land where they died-some as long as a decade ago-to the land they served so honorably and so well. -We have lifted restrictions on travel to Vietnam, and taken other positive steps to assist in the process of reconciliation. -We have offered to lift the trade embargo as we establish diplomatic relations. -And we will no longer oppose Vietnam's membership in the U.N. I expect to see its delegation seated there at the next General Assembly session. Dept. of State Press Release No. 313 (June 29, 1977). For further information concerning the admission of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to membership in the United Nations, see post, Ch. 2, § 4C, pp. 37-38. Effect of Nonrecognition In Republic of Vietnam v. Pfizer, Inc., 556 F.2d 892 (1977), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, District Judge Miles W. Lord, of a suit brought by the Republic of Vietnam. The Court of Appeals in a per curiam decision held that the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit did not constitute an abuse of discretion since "the Republic of Vietnam, both as a state and as a government, had ceased to exist in law or fact and the United States had not recognized any government as the sovereign authority in the territory formerly known as South Vietnam. (Footnote appears below)". Id. 895. The characterization of the court of appeals of the change in status of the Republic of Vietnam between 1970 when the complaint was filed and July of 1976 follows: In 1970, the Republic of Vietnam filed a complaint alleging that various American drug companies had acted in violation of the antitrust laws of the United States in selling broad spectrum antibiotics. When an amended complaint was filed by the Republic of Vietnam in 1974, it could accurately describe itself as "a sovereign foreign state with whom the United States of America maintains diplomatic relations." One year later, however, the status of the Republic of Vietnam changed drastically, for in April 1975, the President of the Republic of Vietnam surrendered unconditionally to the military forces of North Vietnam. In July 1976, the former territory of the Republic of Vietnam was joined to that of North Vietnam and the resulting state was designated the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Thus, the Republic of Vietnam, the plaintiff, is not simply moribund; it is defunct. The United States has not recognized the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and presently recognizes no government as the sovereign authority in the territory known formerly as South Vietnam. Id. 893-894. The court of appeals summarized U.S. law concerning the maintenance of suit in U.S. courts by a foreign government not recognized by the United States as follows: The law is well settled that a foreign government that is not recognized by the United States may not maintain suit in State or Federal court. Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126, 137, 58 S.Ct. 785, 82 L.Ed. 1224 (1938). The recognition of foreign governments is a function of the executive branch and is wholly outside the competence of the judiciary. National City Bank v. Republic of China, 348 U.S. 356, 358, 75 S.Ct. 423, 99 L.Ed. 389 (1955). While executive action pertaining to the recognition or nonrecognition of a foreign government is binding on the courts, the courts are nevertheless free to determine the legal consequences of that executive action upon pending litigation. Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, supra, 304 U.S. at 138, 58 S.Ct. 785. On occasion, suit has been brought by a foreign government recognized by the United States and, during the pendency of the action, diplomatic recognition of the party plaintiff has been withdrawn. Under these circumstances, courts have traditionally responded by either dis |