Abstract
Part II of this Comment discusses the historical relationship between the United States and Cuba leading up to the Helms-Burton legislation, the rationale behind the Helms-Burton Act, and the history and application of the FSIA. Part III analyzes the Helms-Burton legislation to evaluate whether Title III of the Act implicitly waives sovereign immunity for actions against foreign sovereign nations. Additionally, Part III applies this analysis to show how the court should decide Exxon Mobil Corp. Part IV recommends steps to take to clarify the restrictions around litigation under Title III moving forward, as well as how to clarify the use of the Title as cases continue to file into the courts. Finally, Part V concludes by recapping the major rationale for the presence of the sovereign immunity waiver within Title III, as well as drawing attention to the uncertainty around Helms-Burton legislation under the changing political climate.