In his recent work titled "Has International Law Died in Gaza?", French thinker Jerome Horto discusses the stark contrast between the moral obligations of law and the power dynamics that often dictate its enforcement. He draws on the sociological insights of Pierre Bourdieu, suggesting that laws can serve as mere façades while wielding power in the hands of the influential. Horto argues that rather than protecting individuals, laws can become tools of coercion, manipulated by political forces and hidden dynamics of dominance.

Through the lens of the ongoing situation in Gaza, Horto highlights a critical weakening of international legal frameworks purportedly designed to safeguard humanity. He contends that these legal structures collapse in the face of conflict, revealing their inability to uphold the promises made during peaceful times. The professor's analysis suggests that Gaza serves not only as a reflection of a specific war but also as a symptom of a deeper crisis affecting international law itself, which finds itself powerless against the prevailing might of dominant actors.

Horto's insights raise significant questions about the efficacy of existing institutions in addressing grievances caused by powerful entities. As he examines the shortcomings of these frameworks, he positions Gaza as a critical case study through which one can explore the larger implications of justice and accountability on a global scale. In doing so, he calls for a re-evaluation of the principles that underpin international law, especially in times of conflict, urging a reconsideration of how these systems can more effectively challenge the prevailing power structures.