with the Executive’s conduct of foreign policy” may be lessened. See Republic of Philippines v. Marcos, 806 F.2d 344, 359 (2d Cir.1986). However, that is not the case here. Even though there is a new President (and the possibility of a new approach to foreign policy), that is not the reality of the current situation. As mentioned previously, the current government of Colombia opposes further proceedings with this case. Thus, even though there has been a change in government, this does not weigh against applying the act of state doctrine. d. Whether the Colombia was acting in the public interest Since the alleged actions of Defendant violated binding international law norms, the Court cannot conclude Colombia was acting pursuant to the public interest. See Doe I, 395 F.3d at 960 (<HOLDING>); Liu Qi, 349 F.Supp.2d at 1306 (same); NCGUB,
recognizing the public interest exception recognizing that claims for extrajudicial killings are actionable international law violations under the ats holding in 1894 that it is against the public policy of this state to allow any one who has no insurable interest to be the owner of a policy of insurance upon the life of a human being holding that it would be difficult to contend that violations of international human rights are in the public interest holding that atca establishes cause of action for violations of international law but requiring the district court to perform a traditional choiceoflaw analysis to determine whether international law law of forum state or law of state where events occurred should provide substantive law in such an action