With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". For example, courts have allowed individuals judicially to enforce treaties that govern the rights of foreign nationals to inherit property, despite the absence of explicit treaty wording providing for such individual enforcement, most likely because the right-granting wording in those treaties makes sense only if it is read to confer an individually enforceable right. See, e.g., Clark v. Allen, 331 US 503, 507-08, 67 S Ct 1431, 91 L Ed 1633 (1947) (dealing with such a treaty). On the other hand, an individual right of judicial enforcement will not be Inferred from the mere fact that a treaty sets out substantive rules of conduct that, if honored, would benefit individuals. See, e.g., Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping, 488 US 428, 442, 109 S Ct 683, 102 L Ed 2d 818 (1989) (<HOLDING>); United States ex rel Lujan v. Gengler, 510

A: holding inter alia that a united states court retains jurisdiction over persons arrested on a foreign ship beyond the us navigable waters when said arrest violates a treaty to which the united states and the foreign country are parties
B: holding that geneva convention on the high seas which provides that illegally boarded merchant ship shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been sustained does not create private right of action for foreign corporations to recover compensation in united states courts
C: holding that a purchase agreement for a foreign corporations stock is not subject to section 10b even if the closing occurred in the united states
D: holding that united states admiralty jurisdiction extended not only to the high seas but also to american vessels in foreign waters
B.