Established in 1955 as a result of the Soviet effort to prevent West German rearmament through the Western European Union and to some extent as a counter to NATO’S decision to develop tactical nuclear weapons, the Warsaw Treaty Organization, more commonly known as the Warsaw Pact, stands as a multilateral political-military organization and the only example of such a regional defense alliance within the Eastern bloc. It was heralded by Moscow as the “main center” for coordinating the foreign policy of Communist states in Europe.

Being a China specialist in the midst of a panel of Soviet experts, I find myself as something of a marginal man. The theme of the meeting and the concern of the panel is the future of intergovernmental systems within the socialist commonwealth. Unfortunately, I must take a more pessimistic view than those who have gone before me. My research has yielded little on the relationship between socialist international organizations and the People’s Republic of China. It is evident that the PRC has not associated itself with tiiese organizations.

First, we have seen how the socialist countries have operated historically as an economic and political unity. Second, the introduction of the People’s Republic as an active participant in the socialist commonwealth has done much to create change within the alliance. This latter point will be the focus of my remarks since it certainly has important implications for the first point and bears directly on relations in general among the socialist states.

The topic for this roundtable is broad enough, and perhaps disparate enough, to raise some procedural difficulties. Fortunately for the moderator, these are nonetheless easier to handle than the substantive issues.

The thread which connects a discussion of the recovery of confiscated goods with one of capturing sanctioned goods is, as the title of the round-table suggests, that of remedies, and, more specifically, remedies in rem. Under applicable law, international or national, what action may be taken against property which is asserted either to have been unlawfully taken or to be unlawfully in commerce? To what extent may, or should, national courts pass upon the difficult substantive issues involved in the assertion of illegality in either situation?