Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GINSBURG.
Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge WALD.
[1168]*1168GINSBURG, Circuit Judge:
Hugo Princz, a Holocaust survivor, brought suit in the district court against the Federal Republic of Germany to recover money damages for the injuries he suffered and the slave labor he performed while a prisoner in Nazi concentration camps. The district court asserted subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Princz’s claim, and Germany appealed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292. See Foremost McKesson v. Islamic Empire of Iran, 905 F.2d 438, 443 (D.C.Cir.1990) (district court’s denial of foreign state’s motion to dismiss on ground of sovereign immunity held immediately appealable).
We now hold, for the reasons set out below, that the district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction of Mr. Princz’s claims. Assuming that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602-1611, applies retroactively to events occurring in 1942-1945, no exception to the general grant of sovereign immunity in that statute applies in this case. If the FSIA does not apply retroactively, then there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Prinez’s claims, which sound in tort and quasi contract.
I. BACKGROUND
When the United States declared war against Nazi Germany in 1942, Hugo Princz, an American and a Jew, was living with his parents, his sister, and his two brothers in what is now Slovakia. The Slovak police arrested the entire Princz family as enemy aliens and turned them over to the Nazi SS. Rather than allow the Princz family to return to the United States as part of the civilian prisoner exchange then being conducted by the Red Cross, because they were Jews the SS sent them to concentration camps. Mr. Princz’s parents and his sister were murdered at Treblinka, while Mr. Princz and his two younger brothers were sent to Auschwitz and then to Birkenau, where they were forced to work at an I.G. Farben chemical plant. After being injured at work, Mr. Princz’s brothers were starved to death in the “hospital” at Birkenau. Mr. Princz was later marched to Dachau, where he was forced to work in a Messerschmidt factory. When United States soldiers liberated Mr. Princz at the end of the war, he was in a freight car full of concentration camp prisoners en route to another camp for extermination. The other liberated prisoners were sent to displaced persons camps, but because Mr. Princz is an American he was sent to an American military hospital for treatment.
After the war the government of the new Federal Republic of Germany established a program of reparations for Holocaust survivors. The German government denied Mr. Princz’s 1955 request for reparations, however, because Mr. Princz was neither a German citizen at the time of his imprisonment nor a “refugee,” within the meaning of the Geneva Convention, after the war. It appears that Mr. Princz would have qualified for reparations when the German government changed the criteria for eligibility in 1965, but he did not apply again before the statute of limitations ran in 1969.
Beginning in 1984 Mr. Princz, joined by the United States Department of State and members of the New Jersey congressional delegation, initiated a series of requests to the German government and the U.S. subsidiaries of I.G. Farben (BASF, Hoechst, and Bayer) for reparations in the form of ex gratia payments or the establishment of a pension fund; all such requests were denied. As the 1991 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany was awaiting ratification by the Senate, the Bush Administration attempted anew to resolve Mr. Princz’s claim through diplomatic channels. That effort failed, as have the overtures that the Clinton Administration later made to the government of Germany.
In 1992, Mr. Princz finally resorted to federal district court, filing this action against Germany for false imprisonment, assault and battery, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as recovery quantum meruit for the value of his labor in the I.G. Farben and Messerschmidt plants. After acceding to service of process, Germany moved to dismiss per Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction owing to sovereign immunity, and under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that [1169]*1169Mr. Prinez failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted owing to the statute of limitations having run.
The district court held that it had jurisdiction of the case on the ground that the FSIA “has no role to play where the claims alleged involve undisputed acts of barbarism committed by a one-time outlaw nation which demonstrated callous disrespect for the humanity of an American citizen, simply because he was Jewish.” 813 F.Supp. 22, 26 (D.D.C.1992). As we shall see below, that is not the law.
II. ANALYSIS
Germany argues that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Princz’s complaint for damages sounding in tort and quasi contract because the FSIA is the only basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign in the courts of the United States and this case comes within no exception to the rule of sovereign immunity codified in that Act. In the alternative, Germany argues that the FSIA does not apply retroactively to this case, and that Germany is therefore entitled to absolute sovereign immunity under the law of this circuit as it stood at the time the Nazis enslaved Mr. Prinez. All of these questions concerning Germany’s entitlement to sovereign immunity are matters of law for this court to consider de novo. Commercial Bank of Kuwait v. Rafidain Bank, 15 F.3d 238, 241 (2d Cir.1994).
A What Law Applies ?
The FSIA was enacted in 1976. If it applies to this case, which arose from events occurring from 1942 to 1945, then it “provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in federal court.” Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 439, 109 S.Ct. 683, 690, 102 L.Ed.2d 818 (1989). Under the Act, the general rule is that of sovereign immunity, subject to various statutory exceptions.
If the FSIA does not apply to this case, then we are presumably remitted to the practice that prevailed in the federal courts during 1942-45, when the events now in suit occurred. During that time, indeed from 1812, when the Supreme Court decided The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 132, 3 L.Ed. 287, until 1952 the United States, as a matter of grace and comity, granted foreign sovereigns “virtually absolute immunity” from suit in the courts of this country. Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 486, 103 S.Ct. 1962, 1967, 76 L.Ed.2d 81 (1983). For their part, the courts
consistently ... deferred to the decisions of the political branches — in particular, those of the Executive Branch — on whether to take jurisdiction over actions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities.
Until 1952, the State Department ordinarily requested immunity in all actions against friendly foreign sovereigns.
Id. (citations omitted).
In the first half of the 20th century the “restrictive” theory of sovereign immunity increasingly gained international acceptance. Restatement (Third) of The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Ch. 5 p. 391 (1987). Under this approach immunity is confined to the sovereign or public acts of the foreign state and does not extend to its commercial or private acts. The Department of State embraced the restrictive theory of immunity in 1952. Letter from Jack B. Tate, Acting Legal Advisor, to Acting Attorney General Philip B. Perlman (May 19, 1952), reprinted in 26 Dept. State Bull. 984-85 (1952), and in Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Cuba, 425 U.S. 682, 712-13, 96 S.Ct. 1854, 1869-70, 48 L.Ed.2d 301 (1976). Thereafter the State Department continued to advise courts on a case-by-case basis whether immunity should be granted; if in a particular case no advice was forthcoming, then the courts independently determined whether immunity was appropriate. Jackson v. People’s Republic of China, 794 F.2d 1490, 1493 (11th Cir.1986).
By enacting the FSIA in 1976, the Congress substantially codified the' restrictive theory of sovereign immunity. Commercial Bank of Kuwait, 15 F.3d at 241; Jackson, 794 F.2d at 1493; H.R.Rep. No. 1487, 94th Cong.,, 2nd Sess. 7 (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & [1170]*1170Admin.Serv. 1976, p. 6604. Neither the Supreme Court nor this court has yet determined, however, whether the Act applies that theory retroactively. Most courts that have considered the issue of retroactivity have held that FSIA does not apply to events occurring before issuance of the Tate Letter in 1952. See Carl Marks & Co., Inc. v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 841 F.2d 26 (2d Cir.1988); Jackson v. People’s Republic of China, 794 F.2d 1490, 1497-98 (11th Cir.1986); Slade v. United States of Mexico, 617 F.Supp. 351 (D.D.C.1985), aff'd mem. 790 F.2d 163 (D.C.Cir.1986); cf. Corporacion Venezolana de Fomento v. Vintero Sales Corp., 629 F.2d 786, 791 (2d Cir.1980) (FSIA does not apply retroactively to case filed before effective date of statute); but see Yessenin-Volpin v. Novosti Press Agency, 443 F.Supp. 849, 851 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y.1978) (Act, which merely codified restrictive theory of sovereign immunity adopted in 1952 Tate Letter applies retroactively to action of foreign government taken in 1976). The cases followed the general rule that “retrospective operation will not be given to a statute which interferes with antecedent rights or by which human action is regulated, unless such be ‘the unequivocal and inflexible import of the terms, and the manifest intention of the legislature.’ ” Union Pacific R. Co. v. Laramie Stock Yards, 231 U.S. 190, 199, 34 S.Ct. 101, 102, 58 L.Ed. 179 (1913) (citation omitted). And they have held inapplicable the exception for purely remedial measures, because applying the FSIA “to pre-1952 transactions and events would affect foreign sovereigns’ antecedent rights adversely.” Carl Marks & Co., Inc. v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 665 F.Supp. 323, 339 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd 841 F.2d 26 (2d Cir.1988). Accord Jackson v. People’s Republic of China, 596 F.Supp. 386, 389 (N.D.Ala.1984), aff'd 794 F.2d 1490 (11th Cir.1986); Slade, 617 F.Supp. at 358.
There is a strong argument in favor of applying the FSIA retroactively, however. In declaring the purpose of the FSIA, the Congress directed that “[c]laims of foreign states to immunity should henceforth be decided by courts of the United States and of the States in conformity with the principles set forth in this chapter.” 28 U.S.C. § 1602. This suggests that the FSIA is to be applied to all cases decided after its enactment, i.e. regardless of when the plaintiffs cause of action may have accrued. But see Jackson, 596 F.Supp. at 388. Moreover, when it enacted the FSIA, the Congress deleted from 28 U.S.C. § 1332 the provision for diversity jurisdiction over suits brought by a United States citizen against a foreign government. According to the House Report on the FSIA, “since jurisdiction in actions against foreign states is comprehensively treated by the new section 1330, a similar jurisdictional basis under section 1332 becomes superfluous.” H.R.Rep. No. 94-1487, 94th Cong.2d Sess., 14 (1976). Unless one is to infer that the Congress intentionally but silently denied a federal forum for all suits against a foreign sovereign arising under federal law that were filed after enactment of the FSIA but based upon pre-FSIA facts, the implication is strong that all questions of foreign sovereign immunity, including those that involve an act of a foreign government taken before 1976, are to be decided under the FSIA. See Yessenin-Volpin, 443 F.Supp. at 851 n. 1.
Indeed, under the teaching of a recent Supreme Court case, application of the FSIA to the pre-1952 events here in suit may not even count as “a genuinely ‘retroactive’ effect”. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, — U.S. -, -, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1503, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). Only a statute that “would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed” is truly retroactive. Id. — U.S. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 1505. A statute affecting jurisdiction, on the other hand, “usually ‘take[s] away no substantive right but simply changes the tribunal that is to hear the case.’ Hallowell [v. Commons ], 239 U.S. [506] 508, 36 S.Ct. [202] 202, [60 L.Ed. 409.] Present law normally governs in such situations because jurisdictional statutes ‘speak to the power of the court rather than to the rights or obligations of the parties,’ Republic Nat. Bank of Miami [v. U.S. ] 506 U.S. [-, -] 113 S.Ct. [554] 565 [121 L.Ed.2d 474] (Thomas, J., concurring).” Id. — U.S. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 1502. At least when one of the several [1171]*1171states is a defendant, an expectation of immunity from suit is not such a “right.” See United States v. Alabama, 362 U.S. 602, 604, 80 S.Ct. 924, 926, 4 L.Ed.2d 982 (1960) (upholding district court jurisdiction over suit against state pursuant to Civil Rights Act amendment enacted after suit filed); but see Jackson, 794 F.2d at 1497; Carl Marks, 841 F.2d at 27 (before Tate Letter, foreign sovereigns had settled expectation of immunity amounting to antecedent right). Similarly, it might be argued, application of the FSIA (and particularly application of an exception set out in the FSIA) to the events at issue in this ease would not alter Germany’s liability under the applicable substantive law in force at the time, i.e. it would just remove the bar of sovereign immunity to the plaintiffs vindicating his rights under that law. See Landgraf, — U.S. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 1502 (“Because rules of procedure regulate secondary rather than primary conduct, the fact that a new procedural rule was instituted after the conduct giving rise to the suit does not make application of the rule at trial retroactive”).
We do not have to decide whether the FSIA applies to pre-1952 events, however, in order to resolve this case. For as will be seen in Part II.B below, even if the FSIA does apply here, none of the statutory exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity applies. On the other hand, if the FSIA does not apply to Mr. Princz’s claims, and even if Germany is not immune from suit under the pre-FSIA law that would apply, then as will be seen in Part II.C, a federal district court does not have jurisdiction over Mr. Princz’s claims because they arise in tort and quasi contract. Mr. Princz offers no case law, and we are aware of none, suggesting that a court can revive the pre-FSIA diversity jurisdiction of § 1332 over cases brought by a United States citizen against a foreign state in order to entertain a ease arising from pre-FSIA facts. In either event, therefore, the district court is without subject matter jurisdiction of the present case.
B. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976
Under the FSIA a foreign sovereign is immune from the jurisdiction of “the courts of the United States and of the States,” except insofar as a particular case comes within one of the several statutory exceptions to the rule of immunity, 28 U.S.C. § 1605, or is governed by an international agreement to which the United States was a party when the FSIA was enacted. Id. § 1604. Mr. Princz invokes both the international agreement provision and two of the listed exceptions, viz. the exception for instances “in which the foreign state has waived its immunity either explicitly or by implication,” id. § 1605(a)(1), and the exception for cases in which the claim arises from the foreign state’s “commercial activity,” as defined in the Act. Id. § 1605(a)(2). It is the burden of the foreign sovereign in each ease to establish its immunity by demonstrating that none of the exceptions is applicable. Transamerican S.S. Corp. v. Somali Democratic Republic, 767 F.2d 998, 1002 (D.C.Cir.1985).
1. The commercial activity exception.
Section 1605(a)(2) of the FSIA provides that a foreign sovereign and its agencies and instrumentalities:
shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States or of the States in any ease ... in which the action is based ... upon an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign sovereign elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States.
[Emphases added.] Mr. Princz argues that the Nazi government’s leasing his labor for profit to the I.G. Farben and Messerschmidt companies was commercial activity, and that it had a direct effect in the United States. Germany takes issue with both points.
a. Commercial activity.
“Commercial activity” is defined in the FSIA as “either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act.” 28 U.S.C. § 1603(d). The courts are instructed only that “[t]he commercial character of an activity shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or [1172]*1172act, rather than by reference to its purpose.” Id. Otherwise, the FSIA leaves to the courts the “work[ing] out ... the distinction between commercial and governmental” activity. Millen Industries, Inc. v. Coordination Council for North American Affairs, 855 F.2d 879, 884 n. 6 (D.C.Cir.1988), quoting Hearings on H.R. 11315 Before the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 53 (1976) (testimony of Monroe Leigh, Legal Advisor, Department of State).
As glossed by the Supreme Court, this means that in determining whether an activity is commercial, “the issue is whether the particular actions that the foreign state performs (whatever the motive behind them) are the type of actions by which a private party engages in ‘trade and traffic or commerce.’ ” Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 2160, 2166, 119 L.Ed.2d 394 (1992) (citation omitted); Millen Industries, 855 F.2d at 884 (“A useful inquiry ... is whether the essence or central elements of an agreement made by a foreign state ‘might be made by a private person,’ ” quoting H.R.Rep. No. 1487, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1976).
For its part, the government of Germany points out “that private parties do not take or hold prisoners.” Mr. Princz counters that the Nazi regime “leased slaves for money to German industrial concerns who in turn utilized the slaves in commercial interests.” Each of these statements is, of course, true and the question is therefore a close one, viz. whether to pierce the sovereign veil, lest the purpose of the statute be frustrated by the machinations of a rogue government that in effect leases its immunity to a private party.
As it turns out, however, we need not decide whether leasing prisoners as slave labor constitutes a commercial activity under the FSIA. For certain it is that this activity did not have a “direct effect in the United States.”
b. Direct effect in the United States.
To be “direct” within the meaning of the FSIA an effect need not be “substantial” or “foreseeable” so long as it is more than “purely trivial” and “it follows ‘as an immediate consequence of the defendant’s ... activity.’ ” Weltover, — U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 2168 (citation omitted). Germany here argues that the Nazis’ enslavement of Mr. Princz in Poland and Germany “had no impact, much less an immediate consequence, in the United States.” Mr. Princz, per contra, instances three such effects.
First, Mr. Princz argues that the work he was required to perform as a slave had a direct effect in this country because he worked for firms directly supporting the Nazi war effort against the United States. A “direct effect” however, “is one which has no intervening element, but, rather, flows in a straight line without deviation or interruption.” Upton v. Empire of Iran, 459 F.Supp. 264, 266 (D.D.C.1978), aff'd mem. 607 F.2d 494 (D.C.Cir.1979). Many events and actors necessarily intervened between any work that Mr. Princz performed — as a bricklayer for I.G. Farben in Poland or as a laborer in the Messerschmidt aircraft works in Germany — and any effect felt in the United States.
Mr. Princz’s second argument is that the current government of Germany uses the mail, wire, and banking systems of the United States to administer pension and other reparation programs for the victims of the Third Reich, thereby providing the requisite “direct effect in the United States.” Germany denies that it administers these programs in or from the United States. Even if it does, however, such activities, conducted years after the alleged “commercial activity” giving rise to this suit, can not be considered an “immediate consequence” of the enslavement of Mr. Princz and others. Again, there are too many intervening elements between the asserted cause and effect.
Finally, Mr. Princz argues that his continued suffering in the United States is a direct effect of his forced labor under the Nazi yoke. After Mr. Princz was liberated by the United States Army he spent time recuperating in a military hospital. From there he went to Czechoslovakia to search for relatives and to attend to his family’s property, only after which did he move to the United States. Mr. Princz’s subsequent suf[1173]*1173fering was clearly an effect, but just as clearly not “a direct effect in the United States” of the Nazis’ actions. Mr. Princz was enslaved in Poland and Germany; the immediate consequences of his enslavement were felt in those countries, and much time passed before Mr. Princz came to this country. See Martin v. Republic of South Africa, 836 F.2d 91, 95 (2d Cir.1987) (no “direct effect” where South African government allegedly caused permanent disability to American citizen who did not return to the United States until more than a year later).
The lingering effects of a personal injury suffered overseas can not be sufficient to satisfy the direct effect requirement of the FSIA. Otherwise, “the commercial activity exception would in large part eviscerate the FSIA’s provision of immunity for foreign states.” Antares Aircraft L.P. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 999 F.2d 33, 36 (2d Cir.1993). Absent a clear indication to that effect, a court will not attribute to the Congress the intention through an exception to undermine the general grant of sovereign immunity it was ostensibly ratifying. Thus, courts applying the FSIA have uniformly rejected the argument that a personal injury suffered overseas produces a direct effect in the United States when the injured person later returns home. Zedan v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 849 F.2d 1511, 1514 (D.C.Cir.1988) (financial and marital difficulty suffered in United States as result of Saudi Arabian government’s failure to pay American employee for work performed in Saudi Arabia not a “direct effect in the United States”); Martin v. Republic of South Africa, 836 F.2d 91, 95 (2d Cir.1987); Zernicek v. Brown & Root, Inc., 826 F.2d 415, 418-19 (5th Cir.1987); Australian Gov’t Aircraft Factories v. Lynne, 743 F.2d 672, 675 (9th Cir.1984); Tucker v. Whitaker Travel, Ltd., 620 F.Supp. 578 (E.D.Pa.1985), aff'd mem., 800 F.2d 1140 (3d Cir.1986).
We therefore hold that even if the Nazis’ leasing of Mr. Prinez’s labor was a “commercial activity” within the meaning of the FSIA, that activity did not have a “direct effect” in the United States.
2. The waiver exception of § 1605(a)(1).
Not surprisingly, there is no sovereign immunity in a case “in which the foreign state has waived its immunity either explicitly or by implication,” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1) (with an exception not here relevant). Here the amici argue that the Third Reich impliedly waived Germany’s sovereign immunity under the FSIA by violating jus cogens norms of the law of nations. In their own words: “A foreign state that violates these fundamental requirements of a civilized world thereby waives its right to be treated as a sovereign.” With respect, we do not think that the waiver exception to the FSIA can be read so broadly.
A jus cogens norm is a principle of international law that is “accepted by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permit-ted_” Committee of U.S. Citizens in Nicaragua v. Reagan, 859 F.2d 929, 940 (D.C.Cir.1988), quoting Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, art. 53, U.N.Doc. A/Conf. 39/27, 8 I.L.M. 679. Such peremptory norms are “nonderogable and enjoy the highest status within international law,” Committee of U.S. Citizens in Nicaragua, 859 F.2d at 940; they “prevail over and invalidate international agreements and other rules of international law in conflict with them,” and they are “subject to modification only by a subsequent norm of international law having the same character.” Restatement, supra, § 102 comment k.
According to one authority, a state violates jus cogens, as currently defined, if it:
practices, encourages, or condones (a) genocide, (b) slavery or slave trade, (c) the murder or causing the disappearance of individuals, (d) torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, (e) prolonged arbitrary detention, (f) systematic racial discrimination, or (g) a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.
Restatement, supra, § 702 and comment n. Before the Nuremburg trials, such outrages had not been expressly declared violations of the law of nations. David F. Klein, A Theory for the Application of the Customary International Law of Human Rights by Domestic [1174]*1174Courts, 13 Yale Journal of Int’l Law 332, 340 (1988); Fogelson, supra at 869. The Nuremberg Tribunal nonetheless punished Nazi officials for committing crimes against humanity:
[The trials] for the first time made explicit and unambiguous what was theretofore, as the Tribunal has declared, implicit in International Law, namely, that to prepare, incite, or wage a war of aggression ... and that to persecute, oppress, or do violence to individuals or minorities on political, racial, or religious grounds in connection with such a war, or to exterminate, enslave, or deport civilian populations, is an international crime.
R. Jackson, Final Report to the President on the Nuremberg Trials (Oct. 7, 1946) (cited in R. Jackson, The Nurnberg Case xiv-xv (1971)); see also Klein, supra at 340 and nn. 40-42; The Nurnberg Trial, 6 F.R.D. 69, 77-78 (1946). As the Ninth Circuit has explained:
The universal and fundamental rights of human beings identified by Nuremberg— rights against genocide, enslavement, and other inhumane acts ... — are the direct ancestors of the universal and fundamental norms recognized as jus cogens.
Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699, 715 (9th Cir.1992). Indeed, it is doubtful that any state has ever violated jus cogens norms on a scale rivaling that of the Third Reich. See Steven Fogelson, The Nuremberg Legacy: An Unfulfilled Promise, 63 S.Cal.L.Rev. 833, 834 (1990).
The amici argue that interpreting the FSIA to imply a waiver where a violation of jus cogens norms has occurred “would reconcile the FSIA with accepted principles of international law.” Citing Adam Belsky, Implied Waiver Under the FSIA: A Proposed Exception to Immunity for Violations of Peremptory Norms of International Law, 77 Cal.L.Rev. 365 (1989). Although no reported decision considers the amici’s specific argument that a violation of jus cogens norms forfeits immunity under the implied waiver provision of the FSIA, the Ninth Circuit has stated broadly that “[t]he fact that there has been a violation of jus cogens does not confer jurisdiction under the FSIA.” Siderman de Blake, 965 F.2d at 719.
Moreover, the amici’s jus cogens theory of implied waiver is incompatible with the intentionality requirement implicit in § 1605(a)(1). See Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 905 F.2d 438, 444 (D.C.Cir.1990), quoting Frolova v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 761 F.2d 370, 377 (7th Cir.1985) (courts “rarely find that a nation has waived its sovereign immunity ... “without strong evidence that this is what the foreign state intended’”); accord Drexel Burnham Lambert v. Committee of Receivers, 12 F.3d 317, 326 (2d Cir.1993); Joseph v. Office of the Consulate General, 830 F.2d 1018, 1022 (9th Cir.1987); Zernicek v. Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex), 614 F.Supp. 407, 411 (S.D.Tex.1985), aff'd, 826 F.2d 415 (5th Cir.1987). That requirement is also reflected in the examples of implied waiver set forth in the legislative history of § 1605(a)(1), all of which arise either from the foreign state’s agreement (to arbitration or to a particular choice of law) or from its filing a responsive pleading without raising the defense of sovereign immunity. See H.R.Rep. 1487, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., 18 (1976); Sen. Rep. 1310, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., 18 (1976). And as the Seventh Circuit has observed, “[s]ince the FSIA became law, courts have been reluctant to stray beyond these examples when considering claims that a nation has implicitly waived its defense of sovereign immunity.” Frolova, 761 F.2d at 377.
In sum, an implied waiver depends upon the foreign government’s having at some point indicated its amenability to suit. Mr. Princz does not maintain, however, that either the present government of Germany or the predecessor government of the Third Reich actually indicated, even implicitly, a willingness to waive immunity for actions arising out of the Nazi atrocities. We have no warrant, therefore, for holding that the violation of jus cogens norms by the Third Reich constitutes an implied waiver of sovereign immunity under the FSIA.1
[1175]*11753. The treaty provision.
Section 1604 of the FSIA provides that a foreign sovereign’s immunity from suit is “[s]ubject to existing international agreements to which the United States [was] a party at the time of the enactment of [the FSIA].” One such agreement, the Hague Convention, in turn provides that the inhabitants of an occupied country may not be required to “tak[e] part in military operations against their own country,” (Article 52) and that “[a] belligerent party which violates [this prohibition] shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation.” (Article 3).
In the Nuremberg Trial decision the Tribunal makes official what is in any event clear, that the Nazi regime acted “in flagrant violation of the terms” of the Hague Convention, including Article 52. 6 F.R.D. 69, 123 (1946). Therefore, Mr. Princz argues,.“the compensation provisions of the Hague Convention are in conflict with the FSIA’s immunity provision, thus invoking its exception for prior existing treaty obligations.” Binding precedent is clearly to the contrary, and clearly correct.
In Amerada Hess, the Supreme Court held that the treaty exception of the FSIA “applies when international agreements ‘expressly eonflic[t]’ with the immunity provisions of the FSIA,” and that an international convention that “only set[s] forth substantive rules of conduct and state[s] that compensation shall be paid for certain wrongs.... [d]o[es] not [necessarily] create private rights of action_” 488 U.S. at 442, 109 S.Ct. at 692. The eases are unanimous, however, in holding that nothing in the Hague Convention “even impliedly grants individuals the right to seek damages for violation of [its] provisions.” Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774, 810 (D.C.Cir.1984) (Bork, J., concurring); accord Goldstar (Panama) S.A. v. United States, 967 F.2d 965, 968-69 (4th Cir.1992); Dreyfus v. Von Finck, 534 F.2d 24, 30 (2d Cir.1976); Handel v. Artukovic, 601 F.Supp. 1421, 1425 (C.D.Cal.1985).
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that none of the exceptions to sovereign immunity provided in the FSIA applies to the facts alleged by Mr. Princz. Therefore, we need not decide whether the FSIA applies retroactively to this case; for Mr. Princz’ suit is barred by the FSIA even if we do give retroactive effect to that Act—and more to the point, to the exceptions to sovereign immunity that it recognizes.
C. Foreign Sovereign Immunity Under the Circuit Law of 1912-15
What, then, if the FSIA does not apply retroactively to bar this case? In that event, Germany argues (albeit for the first time on appeal) that it is entitled to absolute sovereign immunity under the case law of this circuit as it stood during the period 1942-45, i.e. prior to the Tate Letter and to adoption of the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity. To this end Germany cites United States ex rel. Cardashian v. Snyder, 44 F.2d 895 (D.C.Cir.1930) and Matthews, United States Marshal v. Walton Rice Mill, Inc., 176 F.2d 69 (D.C.Cir.1949).
[1176]*1176Because subject matter jurisdiction cannot be created by consent, waiver, or even estop-pel, Insurance Corp. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 2104, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982), we would consider this belated argument if it were of any consequence to fedéral jurisdiction of this case. It is immaterial, however, because there is no present basis for subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Princz’s claims in the district court regardless of the state of the circuit law concerning immunity in the period 1942-1945.
Until the passage of the FSIA in 1976, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 provided for federal diversity jurisdiction over a case brought by a United States citizen against a foreign state. When the Congress passed the FSIA, however, it deleted that grant of jurisdiction from § 1332. As noted above, the House Report on the FSIA states that “[sjince jurisdiction in actions against foreign states is comprehensively treated by the new section 1330, a similar jurisdictional basis under section 1332 becomes superfluous.” H.R.Rep. No. 94-1487, 94th Cong.2d Sess., 14 (1976). New § 1330(a), in turn, asserts federal jurisdiction over a suit against a foreign state only insofar as the foreign state is not entitled to immunity under the FSIA; and as we have already held, no exception to immunity under the FSIA covers this case.
Nor is this case within the federal question jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Mr. Princz’s claims against Germany sound in tort and quasi contract, not in federal law. Regardless whether Germany is entitled to sovereign immunity apart from the FSIA, therefore, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Princz’s claims.
III. CONCLUSION
The district court lacks jurisdiction of Mr. Princz’s claims. If the FSIA applies retroactively to the terrible events giving rise to this case, then it bars the suit, which comes within no exception in the Act. If instead the case is governed by the pre-FSIA law of sovereign immunity, then it is not within post-FSIA diversity jurisdiction of the district court. The judgment of the district court is therefore reversed and the case is
Dismissed.