Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 95, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 1012-13, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). 8 . World Wide does not dispute that the Kazakhstan State Committee is an “agency or instrumentality of a foreign state” within the meaning s not define an implied waiver.” Creighton Ltd. v. Government of the State of Qatar, 181 F.3d 118, 122 (D.C.Cir.1999). This circuit, however, has "followed ctant to stray beyond these examples when considering claims that a nation has implicitly waived its defense of sovereign immunity." Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, 26 F.3d 1166, 1174 (D.C.Cir.1994) (quoting Frolova, 761 F.2d at 377). 12 . Cf. C & L Enters., Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 532 U.S. 411, 418, 421 n. 3, 423, 121 S.Ct. 1589, 1594, 149 L.Ed.2d 623 (2001) (<HOLDING>). 13 . The Management Agreement states: "In
holding that tribes did not waive their immunity by intervening in  administrative proceedings because any waiver must be unequivocal and may not be implied holding that to relinquish its immunity a tribes waiver must be clear and not ambiguous and finding instructive the law governing waivers of immunity by foreign sovereigns internal quotation marks omitted holding that qualified immunity analysis begins with the court asking whether the plaintiffs allegations if true establish a constitutional violation internal quotation marks omitted holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal recognizing that foreign sovereigns possess a legitimate claim to immunity from discovery