European Community opinion that separation of powers remains a legitimate basis for invoking the rule. See European Cmty. I, 150 F.Supp.2d at 477 (“abstention under the revenue rule is never warranted in the absence of genuine separation of powers concerns.”); see also European Cmty. II, 186 F.Supp.2d at 235 (“the concerns underlying the current version of the revenue rule are satisfied where the proper coordinate branch adequately confers its blessings on jurisdiction.”). Ecuador further criticizes the revenue rule as incongruous with the act of state doctrine. This Court does not find such incongruity. The act of state doctrine precludes U.S. courts from questioning the acts of a foreign sovereign within its own territory. See Banco Nacional de Cuba, 376 U.S. at 423-24, 84 S.Ct. 923 (<HOLDING>). The doctrine traditionally applies when the
holding that a contract must entitle the plaintiff to money damages in the event of the governments breach of that contract holding that the bankruptcy courts jurisdiction to adjudicate common law claims violated article iii without deciding the claims holding that us court was without jurisdiction to adjudicate a contract dispute regarding the cuban governments expropriation of defendants sugar holding that the court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims whatsoever under the federal criminal code holding that the state court may adjudicate the applicability of a bankruptcy injunction to state court litigation