interest in prompt consideration of allegedly unlawful agency action against the agency’s interest in crystallizing its policy before that policy is subjected to judicial review and the court’s interests in avoiding unnecessary adjudication and in deciding issues in a concrete setting. Eagle-Picher Indus. v. EPA, 759 F.2d 905, 915 (D.C.Cir.1985) (footnotes omitted). Compare Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 138, 95 S.Ct. 335, 355, 42 L.Ed.2d 320 (1974) (“issues of ripeness involve ... the existence of a live ‘Case or Controversy’ ”) and Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. FTC, 814 F.2d 731, 745 n. 1 (D.C.Cir.1987) (separate opinion of Williams, J.) (ripeness doctrine is jurisdictional “in extreme cases”) with American Trucking Ass’ns v. ICC, 747 F.2d 787, 789-91 (D.C.Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Perhaps this line has not been carefully
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 that when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined holding a case unripe because whether or not constitutional limits are exceeded  our own ability to decide intelligently and our own confidence that we are expending our resources in resolving a dispute that has substance are proximately affected holding that arguments that are not raised or that are not accompanied by factual and legal support are deemed waived holding issues of fact in dispute are solely for the jury