Count VI (fraud in the inducement to enter into the Strategic Alliance Agreement), Count VII (conversion), Count VIII (tortious interference), Count IX (civil conspiracy), Count X (violation of RICO), and Count XI (declaratory judgment). In Part III.A, we conclude that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over seven of these counts, because Kazakhstan has sovereign immunity against their adjudication in United States courts. ‘ In Part III.B, we conclude that the remaining three counts were properly dismissed pursuant to the act of state doctrine. A We turn first to whether the district court was correct in concluding that it had subject matter jurisdiction over all of World Wide’s claims against Kazakhstan. See In re Papandreou, 139 F.3d 247, 254-56 (D.C.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The FSIA is “the sole basis for obtaining
holding that the jones act does not preempt state law in applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens and thus state law governs holding law of case doctrine is procedural and does not go to jurisdiction of court recognizing doctrine holding that jurisdiction must be resolved before applying the act of state doctrine because that doctrine is a substantive rule of law holding the totten rule requiring dismissal on the ground of public policy like the abstention doctrine  or the prudential standing doctrine represents the sort of threshold question we have recognized may be resolved before addressing jurisdiction