denied there's two questions you're saying you're saying because while the element of the construction of that statute may be different in the supreme court the whole instruction was that but i don't i don't think what you just said but the first point is that even if we accept for the moment that we're looking to nine hundred forty five then you look at the five supreme court cases that have been decided since that incident that say that immunity in  international organizations are entitled to absolute immunity and actually doesn't say they're entitled to any particular immunity at all would this be the plain language of the statute is that they get the same immunity as states so the question then assuming we're looking to  language exactly right is that the as it is enjoyed provision provides quote no express guidance and so what your honor did is look to indications of legislative intent our position is where the statute writers the most important that i was alluding to earlier is that this court has never considered acting sin or in the scope of international law going in it is not available if should be the court has subsequently taken a position which you think is inappropriate in light of know i disagree with that as well in arm because there are two two independent questions in the first question is where what time frame are we looking at and the second independent question is ok assume we'll soon for the moment that we're statue providing for a safety valve on the part of the right of the congress wanted to freeze as of nine hundred forty five even if you were right that congress was apply it as of the time of suit and that is a plain language that is what the supreme court has told us is the plain language reading of a jurisdictional statute and that's why your honor when when in atkinson the court  said you know we're looking for indications of legislative intent that that may have been fine but you don't get to that step because now the supreme court has told us what the plain language of the as enjoyed statute is and that's what the court said language a plain text guidance from the supreme court about how to read that provision of the i o i am solution no reason to go beyond that to look to indications of legislative intent ten cases out of the five thousand projects that have gone through the i o c only ten of them have gone through the r f c s compliance mechanism how the i i have seen how the compliance matches and say that they were out of the way we have a clear waiver provision that says they're weaving immunity for all suits except for suits by members of the bank and borrowed and adopts a test and it's exactly the sort of test that that  daro and you're saying we should make a determination in the interest that they and i guess there's some dynamic questions here whether even though there have been only a few cases to go through the internal process presumably if this were thrown open there would be a lot it's an indian conglomerate oh my that case is pending in india i don't i don't specifically know if there's cases pending in your right now india is you know it's very clear to our clients that india is not going to give them particularly against this company is not going to there's not going to be an effective remedy in india and it's very clear that there's no effective remedy for the i o c to actually enforce its own policies in this case so remember i have see has control here they wrote into their contract and these were their policies have to be followed above and so they can step in any time and say you know you have to do what we've been promising would be done but they say they're not they're not going to do that then entire year they say that our promises and the ones that we say are central to our mission to protect people like mr jam do are really not important that they're not even part of our mission at all and that's  itself says it cannot perform its mission without and so the question is how can i have seen perform its mission if i have seen management it is going to say these policies don't matter in individual cases and there's no lawsuit to make them do it outside outside consultation the decision they made is that we cannot perform our development mission unless we unless these safeguards policies are rigorously enforced and so to now say that it was not made in the backdrop of the fact that the compliance mechanism existed it was made as a judgment about what it takes for them to fulfill their mission and  these these these are these these these these policies just aren't that important to us only highlights why the only recourse the only way to make i o c actually do what i can see itself says is fundamental to its mission is through way of and so and the other aspect about this is that one of the policies is that the eye of see before it can even take a project to its board for approval i  broad community support and so put yourself in the position of somebody like me and that means that you know that means that they have the house of people trust them when they say we will  take this you know as it lies and as it was now just go with what the i have see says it needs to do to perform its mission and if you're right or if the court does that and then thinks about whether somebody like mr jim would ever in a million years risk  children's future there that the i've seen will fulfill their policies when they haue done it here and they do not hear that their policies even matter they just can't go forward with high risk projects anymore unless there's some decision essentially two ways first as to the overall methodology and interpretation of the aisle i a e a and they contend that the econd some cases no longer good law and then second they've attacked the district courts analysis under the piece twenty eight only only only those two cases were decided after nine and nothing has none of them has anything to do with the aisle why so as the district court held we do not see any reason to do more from the stir out more on the circuit in the question is who's activity yes loaning money is a commercial activity but the kinds of things that they're complaining about in india are activities of a different party and so there is a requirement and it really is this that that you would be an act of the of the foreign state that is that that the commercial activity not just be any commercial activity but the commercial like has to be of read that because it's article six section three of the articles of agreement talks about being able to sue and where the where the entity where the i o c has an office in that country in those countries courts and that's been interpreted around that so the president could authorize a suit for that under the way the articles are structured here or is it to the point where the president could not do for example is tax was it something else and the courts and the court permits not in those circumstances it is an unincorporated international association so absent the executive that that we as a court relish but nonetheless the president gives us the task of deciding whether it is in the organization's interests or not to be susceptible to suit in u s courts and it does seem that there is a lot that the p otherwise but generously extends well there's been there's also other law that is where i see is subject to suze is when it's got direct lending agreements or direct arrangements for in connection with its charge objective hire an architect here for the architect comes calling you blow off their belts well that's not true i was using the power in the communities down the mall as part of reviewing whether to take on a project or loan money to and then actually take a project thousand for the forty five years prior to that there was no c e o there was no policies and we're talking about here i've see had no trouble finding projects being able to invest in progress in projects and didn't think that by view of wanting to get that community buy it where you're going to do essentially development work right that pre dates the cia out well i am the way i see is structured is and all these projects have to be approved by a board in particular paragraphs eighteen twenty sixty two and sixty three that i see explained that that that it did not intend at c l o activities would result evidence and so we presented that kind of evidence and we think this case presents an opportunity for the court to take that dicta and make it into a new president or circuit rule and we invite the court to consider doing that is one of the objectives whether it's impossible or the charter and objectives which were of much of time but here in the articles of agreement and they deal with i have seen mission is to loan money to projects in developing proved in violation of local lottery are consistent with local law we believe it's consistent with local law who we never got that far in this case they raised the claims of nuisance we did put in a statements from  yeah well you said you weren't there so i just try to stand what your response to my question was which is would you be susceptible to suit in india were they to bring a nuisance claim environmental degradation claim some kind of claim the corrupt situation there's no question somehow this evidence all comes out yeah i think they clearly are implicated in the sense that they know what's going to happen will be a disaster and they go ahead anyway what i don't think an outside third party plaintiff could sue i have see directly what could happen though is they could sue the profit company on these issues that you've alleged and then they could be go after people in herb why but in terms of if third party trying to bootstrap and get around that immunity know that immunity is preserved in that circumstance and that's a direct application of the dark  whether this case will help them this court has never done that it's always exercise its own independent judgment and that's foreign obvious reason because they are always going to come in here and tell you that the sky will fall if they can be seen and that's why this court has never deferred and should not now defer to what they're to what they're telling you would be the effect with the court should look at is there actual policy and that that provides the answer the other way they want to destroy the menorah test if they want it to be th only the bar or people like the bar or have waited but the borrower is in the is in a real position with the i have see they can put in their contract that there's some sort of remedy if things go south but  aren't our clients were they were just neighbors you know they they they had no influence on the i s c there's nowhere for them to turn there's nothing they could have done beforehand to prevent the i o c from harming them there was supposed to be because it was supposed to be a broad  the what it's i'm not sure that there is no suit but but it is abundantly clear that there is that given the realities of the justice system in india that that is not a viable one because it takes forever because it is seen at least if not actually seen as corrupt corrupt and in favor of huge multi not huge conglomerates like t what noah because i think it's completely i think it doesn't matter there's nothing about you the way we're provision worthy i o a that under which jurisdiction turns on whether we we can sue  or else or maybe we can and we can't but it's just not a deciding factor on the question of the timing of the supreme court cases the last the last decision of this court international use asians it was actually exactly the opposite the u s government took the position from the beginning in one nine hundred forty five that international organizations had no immunity and the organizations came in and said wait we're c us like states and so they came out with the international organizations immunity act and the first draft said and i'm quoting this that that organizations quote shall enjoy immunity from that was stripped out and instead they put in the provision that said that immunity should be exactly what states get as it is enjoyed by states they gave the united states gave international organizations exactly what they asked for and the supreme court has said in cases like chickasaw nation that where congress strips out as a provision in this case an absolute immunity companies in the courts shouldn't be trying to read it back and so the one thing we know about the structure and history of the international organizations immunity act is that it does not afford absolute automatic immunity if we were to take the case o commercial activity exception if i were in their shoes and i actually believe there was a commercial activity argument i would have sent even if they were right all along the line you don't win under commercial activity and in fact that's the way this court decided broadband