{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"michaelgkarnavas.net\/Blog","provider_url":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog","title":"Revisiting the ICC\u2019s Ruling on the OTP\u2019s Rohingya Request over Jurisdiction: a more critical look. Part 2 \u2013 The Dissent - michaelgkarnavas.net\/Blog","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"8LAinkuseK\"><a href=\"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2018\/10\/11\/icc-rohingya-ruling-pt2\/\">Revisiting the ICC\u2019s Ruling on the OTP\u2019s Rohingya Request over Jurisdiction: a more critical look.  Part 2 \u2013 The Dissent<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2018\/10\/11\/icc-rohingya-ruling-pt2\/embed\/#?secret=8LAinkuseK\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;Revisiting the ICC\u2019s Ruling on the OTP\u2019s Rohingya Request over Jurisdiction: a more critical look.  Part 2 \u2013 The Dissent&#8221; &#8212; michaelgkarnavas.net\/Blog\" data-secret=\"8LAinkuseK\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n<\/script>\n","description":"Following the previous post on the Majority\u2019s reasoning in finding that the ICC has jurisdiction over the alleged deportation of the Rohingya from Myanmar to Bangladesh, let\u2019s look at Judge Marc Perrin de Brichambaut\u2019s Partially Dissenting Opinion. It exclusively deals with the Majority\u2019s analysis of its legal basis for entertaining the Office of the Prosecutor\u2019s &hellip; Continue reading \"\"","thumbnail_url":"http:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/Image-2.png"}