In Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 109 S.Ct. 683, 102 L.Ed.2d 818 (1989), the Supreme Court rejected an argument that this silence indicated Congress' intent to retain claims against foreign states within the scope of jurisdictional provisions other than the new 1330, such as the general admiralty and maritime jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. 1333(1), or the Alien Tort Claims Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1350. Relying on the FSIA's comprehensiveness, as well as on its language and legislative history, the Court held that, after the FSIA's enactment, that statute "provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in federal court." Id. at 439, 109 S.Ct. 683. Further, Congress did not have to amend all other existing jurisdictional statutes to ensure the Act's exclusivity. Unlike the diversity provision, other statutes conferring jurisdiction in general terms on district courts had not previously expressly provided for suits against foreign states. Id. at 437 n. 5, 109 S.Ct. 683. Thus, the Court concluded, Congress stated that "`claims of foreign states to immunity should henceforth be decided by courts of the United States in conformity with the FSIA,' and very likely it thought that should be sufficient." Id. at 437-38, 109 S.Ct. 683 (quoting 28 U.S.C. 1602).