With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 1023. Nor does the Understanding demonstrate an agreement regarding which country’s law would govern. We have explained in this context that a choice-of-law provision should clearly identify which country’s law governs, a requirement that flows from our rule that we construe waivers narrowly. Specifically, in Siderman de Blake, we explained that our finding of waiver in Joseph did not fall into one of the categories that ordinarily give rise to an implied waiver because the contract did not “provide specifically for the adjudication of disputes in the United States [or] state that United States law would govern such actions.” Siderman de Blake, 965 F.2d at 721; see also Eckert Int’l, Inc. v. Gov’t of the Sovereign. Democratic Republic of Fiji, 32 F.3d 77, 78, 80-82 (4th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). The Understanding does not contain a

A: holding that 28 usc  1331 which states that district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the constitution laws or treaties of the united states does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity
B: holding that a sovereign had waived its immunity where it was party to a consulting contract with a choiceoflaw provision that explicitly stated in the event of any controversy this agreement shall be construed and interpreted according to the laws of the state of virginia in the united states
C: holding that the united states is liable for interest only in the event of a clear statutory waiver of sovereign immunity
D: holding that the united states constitution does not entitle one state to sovereign immunity in a second states courts and stating a claim of immunity in another sovereigns courts    necessarily implicates the power and authority of a second sovereign its source must be found either in an agreement or in the voluntary decision of the second to respect the dignity of the first as a matter of comity
B.