https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize
There's been accusations of leaks in connection to bets with the Nobel Price in Literature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Literature_cont...
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1o383a1/oc...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/10/nobel-peace-pr...
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1o51k61/upd...
You know where to head for the cat memes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom...
If I had inside information, and didn't want to make it obvious, I'd just take the opposite side of any bet for candidates I knew wouldn't win.
https://polymarket.com/event/nobel-peace-prize-winner-2026-1...
Yulia Navalnaya (widow of Alexei Navalny) had a ton of play, and Navi Pillay didn't even have a market?
edit: and what dang just added about the US - ICC sanctions
Statement by Navi Pillay, 28 October 2025
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/statement-by-navi-pillay...
A report on abuses committed by the IDF should focus on abuses committed by the IDF. There are many reports on the the war crimes of Hamas, and there are many reports on the war crimes of Russia.
You can't water down the behaviour of the IDF by claiming their actions were somehow justified by the actions of another group. That's how the cycle of aggression perpetuates, and how political agendas overrule human decency. That exact behaviour has some very bad connotations in world history.
The reactionary propaganda of it being "one sided" or not including "Russia in Ukraine" in a report about genocide in Gaza has been common since the report came out.
US imposes sanctions on ICC hours after former judge wins Nobel Peace Prize - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50021066 - Oct 2026 (288 comments)
> advocated for free and fair elections, rule of law, separation of powers, civil liberties, decentralization, private property, and competitive markets.
Maybe this speaks to the difficulty of peace in general. One asshole warmonger can destroy thousands of lives on a whim, but ending or preventing war takes long, steady efforts by large numbers of people. It's not very amenable to an individual prize.
which to your point does seem to make more sense than singling out an individual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laur...
For example, consider the difference between the first five recipients (all for founding various influential peace organisations) vs the sixth (for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War).
In that respect, Pillay seems one of the better laureates of recent years.
As stated on their webpage, "As far as possible, the composition of the Committee is to reflect the relative strengths of the political parties in the Storting." - https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/nobel-committee/
It is independent to the sitting Norwegian government, as members can't have current seats both in the committee and Storting, but several committee do represent the political parties in Norway.
Currently the committee is made from former Leader of the Centre Party, a foreign policy scholar and writer, former Conservative Party cabinet member that was the Minister of Education and Research, a Political scientist and Chief Executive Officer of Utøya AS, and last the former Labour Party Foreign Affairs Secretary.
Or - like today - with rules based global world order.
Peace prize for someone who was literally arguing for subjecting her own country to an invasion and foreign occupation.
I remember how Swedish state television suddenly flipped very after that, and started cuddling Cuban exiles who wanted the same there. I think this whole thing was certainly coordinated somehow, behind the scenes in order to attempt to legitmize a future US invasion of Venezuela and their general conduct in the Carribean and South America /Pacific.
Things like this happened during expulsion of the Karabach-Armenians too. Then SVT went out and said that "Armenian separatists [had] agreed to leave Azerbaijan", and they left out the artillery bombardement, the deaths by starvation and the ICJ judgement against Azerbaijan's closure of the Lachine corridor, even though such a judgement by an organization like the ICJ would otherwise by first-page news.
So while I can't be sure that there's some NATO-internal press office coordinating how planned future military activity by members is to be presented in the media, it seems that Turkey could achieve that, and that the US could achieve that.
When you have revanchast or expansionist power see another one "get away with it" they think to themselves "now is my time to do some dirty work."
If you mean Swedish state television, what I meant was that any such major judgement by a UN court like the ICJ, would be front page news.
Remember, this stuff was subject to long and incredibly annoying thing in the Security Council as well, and SVT ignored that too. It was the biggest thing that happened that whole year, basically and the entire coverage by SVT were those words I quoted in the comment before this, that "Armenian separatists have agreed to leave Azerbaijan".
But at that point I can't have mentioned the ICJ stuff, can I? Hmm. Oh well. I get what I get for my editing.
Is your opinion so important that the world needs a quick draft first urgently before you’ve thought about what you want to say properly?
I always avoid genuinely changing the comments though, appending only, and ceasing to append in case someone responds before I'm done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_of_Thorbj%C3%B8rn...
I am not sure another committee would do much better though. How would they be chosen? At least these are people with a lot of experience in foreign affairs.
And at the end of the day - it is their price to govern. If they do a bad job, the world will move on.
This process is decided by the Alfred Nobel will.
/s
But it was most likely not requested by the Norwegian government.
At least Aung San Suu Kyi waited until after her award to do some genocide.
[0] https://unwatch.org/un-watch-documents-navi-pillays-bias/
She remembered her late mother used to talk a lot of her as she managed to become a lawyer despite being an Indian in apartheid South Africa.
US unveils sanctions on ICC in move court condems as 'assault on rule of law'
There are actually people who spend their lives working for peace, and die in the effort. And then there are people like Henry Kissinger. They share the same prize.
More recently, the prizes are even more obviously politicized(1), so when the west is trying to overthrow Iran, it gives the prize to western-backed dissidents fighting for "women's rights" in Iran - the nation that has female airline pilots and university professors, but not to the scores of dissidents executed by Saudi Arabia, where women only recently got the right to drive. None of those murdered by Saudi Arabia, even if they died arguing for women's rights, will ever qualify for the Nobel Peace price. Not while Iran still needs to be overthrown.
1. See https://www.eureporter.co/nobel-peace-prize/2025/10/27/when-... for a survey of recent winners and what political agenda was pushed with each award.
These people would not be eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize, because its rules disallow deceased candidates.
If they cut up the journalist Jamal Khashoggi with a bone saw on foreign soil and get away with it, why would they change?
[0] US imposes sanctions on ICC hours after former judge wins Nobel Peace Prize - https://www.reuters.com/world/us-imposes-sanctions-internati...
Probably nothing to do with it.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2026/pillay/facts/
I wonder who committed said genocide... oh, yeah, the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi.
Sure, but is it really that difficult to give the *Peace* prize to someone who will not commit genocide eventually? Most people in the world never commit genocide.
After she won the Nobel Prize, the Burmese legislature banded together to give her the power to:“contact ministries, departments, organizations, associations and individuals" to promote democracy and free market capitalism.
Basically, she had the power to talk to people as a figurehead for the hopes and ideals of the country, but no power to actually pass or enforce laws, and no control over law enforcement or the military.
What exactly were you expecting her to do? Say mean things about the military officers committing the genocides and hope they got embarrassed enough to stop?
But either way, she wasn’t silent on the issue. She minimised what was happening, talked about violence on both sides and defended the military committing a genocide in The Hague. She helped block investigations into it. She is complicit.
‘In December 2019, Aung San Suu Kyi appeared in the International Court of Justice at The Hague where she defended the Burmese military against allegations of genocide against the Rohingya’.
I'm extremely grateful to, and humbled by, these people continuing their brave work knowing they will face the full wrath of the US and Israel govs and their campaigns to dismantle accountability for the worst crimes.
[1] https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...
Yeah, but somehow if i do some illegal shit according to USA they have no problem arresting me when i come visit (or if they really eager they come to visit me). But how dare you tell us what we can do or cant do INTOLERABLE.
You as an individual are not sovereign, and when you come to the land over which the US is sovereign, you are subject to US law.
And if an american, whom ICC have found guilty on crimes, visits a country which upholds ICC rulings they should be arrested, no?
Nobody talked about kidnapping people in the US or doing anything similar. In contrast, the US is in a habit on (among others)
1. kidnapping
2. bombing
3. otherwise assassinating
4. sanctioning
5. demanding extradition (the only actual "legal" part)
foreign citizens that they do not like. We can also say that no other, non american citizen has actually agreed to these practices either, nor to US authority to be the world serif. So these arguments more like read like monopoly of global violence/authority than "sovereignty".
All zero of them...because no Americans have been found guilty by the ICC of any crimes under its jurisdiction.
When has this ever happened? You might be referring to Maduro's extradition, but that was due to him being charged with smuggling mass amounts of cocaine into the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Nicol%C3%A1s_Ma...
You can't be serious.
Now they just kill them, also without a trial, judge or jury.
"American forces have conducted at least 71 strikes and killed 239 people the U.S. alleges are “narco-terrorists” since Sept. 2, 2025."
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/6132578-pentagon-drug-car...
Limiting things to this year.
when has it ever not?
> Maduro
(Not an american citizen btw)
> extradition
...
And the ICC never tried to diminish their sovereignty. Juridsiction at the icc works the same way as it does with states.
If you commit a crime on the territory of a sovereign state, that state gets to punish you. If you are a citizen of a soverign state then that state gets to punish you.
That is how it works in countries, and that is how it works at the ICC . ICC is no different from any country. The crime has to happen on the territory of a member state or be comitted by a national of a member state (im ignoring the referral from UNSC part as that is obscure)
True, they could ignore the ICC, but they shouldn't go around sanctioning and punishing and threatening its judges.
Hence, if anyone commits a crime in another country, they fall under the jurisdiction of that country. So while the US doesn't have to recognize the ICC, listen to it, or follow its verdicts, other countries are free to do so.
But now the US is threatening the judges of the ICC, which is hypocritical to say the least. It's more of a mafia thing, really. Not surprising, given Trump's background.
Point being, I don't really think that "the US considers" carries a whole lot of weight these days.
How fun.
i feel like this misrepresents what the ICC has found. They found there was enough plausible cause to issue a warrant. That means they think that a trial should take place to figure out what is going on. It does not mean they think anyone is guilty. Lots of people subject to warrants end up being found innocent. Its step 1 of the process not the entire process.
And to further clarify, if your implication is that its similar to accusations of genocide - the ICC has jurisdiction over genocide and did not publicly issue a warrant for that charge against any israeli national.
To be clear i find the us campaign disgusting.
And you don't know much about the ICC process and could not have observed it if you think warrant is step 1. It's like step 7. If you did not watch the process, you can still learn the ICC procedure from the rules of the court. It's all freely available on their website.
It’s the same rules you apply yourself, right?
And in that case, so much for "western ideals", if it's purely "America first, no ideals".
Your government also routinely ignores its own laws and judgements.
Hypocrisy at all the levels, and lying to try to still have the moral high ground.
Hence "Israeli Bubble", sheltered from the reality of their (government/army) actions, convinced to be the most moral army in the world.
> Reality is subjective to ones view.
Maybe your subjective reality, that's your thoughts and feelings. But there is an objective reality, like tens of thousands of children killed, the use of a starvation campaign in Gaza, all of Gaza City being turned to rubble which you can see for yourself on google maps satellite view, and many more such war crimes that have been factually proven.
Secondly did you ever watch the aftermath of the U.S dropping atomic bombs on Japan? How many children were killed? How many innocent people suffered? Thats the "reality" of war.
If you want to claim to be more civilized than Hamas and their cheerleaders, not being angry when "your side" doesn't take all effort to kill civilians is not how to do it.
Some in Palestine cheered when 7 October happened. Some cheered when 9/11 happened. If you ask them "how can you, those innocents died for no reason" and they replied "That's the 'reality' of war", how would you feel?
And if you consider them uncivilized barbarics for not caring, how do you view yourself? Ah yeah of course you're different, you're on the "right side", and for you "it's fine" (or "it's reality of war") when the "wrong" innocents die...
Nothing I said is about whats wrong or right. I simply pointed out historical facts. The same way the original comment I replied to.
Innocent people everyday are victims in a system they have absolutely no control over. Especially in cases of war and international affairs. None of these statements reflect any of my personal feelings or passing a judgement on any grouping of people.
Of the original 5 Nobel prize categories, 2 were always not about science.
I'm a lifelong scientist but it should be obvious that the Peace Prize is supposed to be bigger than science.
for comparison, i knew nothing about margaret hamilton or bill draper before reading their obituaries on HN this month. it literally took a few sentences to understand what legends they were .. not just in their respective domains, but in terms of their broader impact on humanity ..
with this navi lady, i've scrolled through two pages of text and still don't have a clear picture of what she actually DID to deserve whatever greatness the Nobel seems to bestow upon her.
i mean, if you can't even explain to a layman, in plain english, what someone actually DID to earn a prize of this stature .. without resorting to a laundry list of causes and buzzwords ... then what exactly are we rewarding here ? Her kindness ? Decency ? Morality ? wtf
ps: im not a software guy
My opinion is that yes, while international law rarely leads to punitive justice as many would like to see it executed, bad actors attacking these legal institutions demonstrate their importance in the court of public opinion and legitimacy.
Hope that gave you some Gyan, Mr. Chawdhary. Please remember that it's a big world out there and human endeavor has many paths to take beyond just science or what one person can understand by skimming an announcement.
Just rename the award to whatever - being outstanding human, standing up for human rights or whatever.
If Putin decides to freeze or stop the war in Ukraine tomorrow he will contribute more to world peace objectively than last 10 of the winners combined. Should we give him award too?
Though South Africa is, since 1994, a peaceful neighbour that has worked steadfastly to end and prevent wars on the African continent. Unlike the situation during Apartheid.
Anyway, the NPP is one of the things that tries to push humanity on a broad scale in a better direction, and I'm grateful for that. It is important to at least speak out about injustice, and to celebrate those who do so, otherwise those injustices are never going to be fixed (I'm not even talking about punishing, although that should be done).
And luckily we have journalism prizes as well, often for people showing the ugly reality.
If you'd please stop doing this and instead review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended, we'd appreciate it.
It makes people uncomfortable, but maybe someone who reduces net suffering despite being responsible for some suffering is doing more than normal people who do no harm, but do no good?