and declares that “the denial of Plaintiff[’]s export license” is “the very heart of this matter.” Id. at ¶ 157. We have no doubt that issuance of a license permitting the removal of uranium from Kazakhstan is a sovereign act. As we have previously held in the context of the FSIA, the “right to regulate imports and exports is a sovereign prerogative.” Millen Indus., Inc. v. Coordination Council for North Am. Affairs, 855 F.2d 879, 885 (D.C.Cir.1988) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted); see Int’l Ass’n of Machinists v. OPEC, 649 F.2d 1354, 1361 (9th Cir.1981) (affirming “the principle of supreme state sovereignty over natural resources” in applying the act of state doctrine); cf. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Med. Ctr. v. Hellenic Republic, 877 F.2d 574, 578 (7th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); MOL, Inc. v. Peoples Republic of Bangladesh,
holding that a contract whereby a foreign state grants a private party a license to exploit the states natural resources is not a commercial activity under the fsia since natural resources to the extent they are affected with the public interest are goods in which only the sovereign may deal holding the michigan department of natural resources liable under cercla for remedial actions which exacerbated the contamination at a site holding that foreign states are not persons entitled to rights under the due process clause holding that an individual is presumed to intend the natural consequences of the individuals actions holding that licensing the exploitation of natural resources is a sovereign activity under the fsia