I was just checking which were the top guesses on polymarket before the announcement and this winner was not even a choice on there. At least we know there's no insider trading at the Nobel foundation.
> In accordance with Nobel's will, the prize is selected by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a five-member committee appointed by the Parliament of Norway unlike all the other awards chosen by the Swedish Nobel Committee.
It makes me wonder- how many people are making a living guessing 'secrets' like this on polymarket? Not with bribes and leaks, but just poor infosec. Seems like interesting work, and probably lucrative with the right skillset.
Sorry, but your reasoning is incomplete. They could have bet millions on the negative result for each of the candidates that were listed. You aren't forced to bet on a winner, you can instead bet on everybody to lose.
If I'm doing a report on the corruption of the LAPD (as an example), I don't tend to bring up the organised crime in LA, let alone the Mafia in Milan.
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.
Yes, that report. There's no nuance to the OC argument - just denial of facts.
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.
Why should a report about crimes committed by the IDF write about crimes committed by Russia or by Hamas? That's the most ridiculous attempt at whataboutism I've seen in a long time.
And last year it went to someone praising Netanyahu on multiple occasions and tried very hard to kiss Trump’s ass—Trump even got gifted that frigging medal, which was a huge embarrassment for the committee a couple months back. That’s among a long list of extremely questionable recipients. Sure they may have selected the “right” recipient (to some) this year. But why even bother paying attention to a broken clock.
María Corina Machado has stood up against authoritarianism in Venezuela for more than a decade. I don't think awarding the prize should require that the recipient is a perfect person or holds all of the "correct" opinions according to bystanders who have no skin in the game.
That vendepatria hasn't stood up to any authoritarianism; all she's done is buddy up with other authoritarians to try to obtain power. Her giving her Peace Prize to Trump might be one of the most humiliating things she could have done.
I don't put much weight on guilt by association. She's led public protests against the Maduro regime and had to go into hiding to escape imprisonment. She's advocated for free and fair elections, rule of law, separation of powers, civil liberties, decentralization, private property, and competitive markets. Can you explain how those actions and ideas are authoritarian?
> advocated for free and fair elections, rule of law, separation of powers, civil liberties, decentralization, private property, and competitive markets.
The Peace Prize seems somewhat hit or miss. I'm sure we all remember when it was given to Barack Obama for his lifelong work of not being George W Bush. And of course it was given to Henry Effin' Kissinger.
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.
Looking at the history it was awarded to organizations a decent number of times in the past, (even up to Nihon Hidankyo in 2024 which focuses on impact from Nagasaki/Hiroshima and anti-atomic weapon advocacy)....
which to your point does seem to make more sense than singling out an individual.
I think the best recipients tend to be those who are involved in "structural" work to advance the cause of peace, rather than those who have been involved in helping settle specific conflicts.
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.
I think people are making a mistake when they view the Peace Prize as an evaluation of a person's character or their entire career. Often it's targeting specific negotiations or treaties, which in retrospect were failed attempts at peace. This applies to Kissinger in the case of the Paris Peace Accords, Begin/Sadat for the Camp David Accords, Arafat/Peres/Rabin for the Oslo Accords, etc.
I can’t comment on the others, but this perspective doesn’t really make Kissinger’s case any better. Even his co-winner thought it was ridiculous and refused the prize.
Many "hard science" Nobel prize recipients also turned out to be complete embarrassment of themselves... There is even a name for that. "Nobel disease".
These horrible Nobel Peace Prize recipients (and in some cases, Literature Prize recipients as well) are nothing like “Nobel disease”. Said recipient was praising the genocide perpetrator and war criminal (according to this year’s recipient, ironically) as well as performing the ass kissing and inviting foreign invasion before the award was given. The committee bestowed the award knowing very well what they’re getting into, and time and time again it’s nothing more than a political endorsement of a specific kind of “peace”—well, if you consider inviting foreign invasion an act of peace. Actually it’s more like endorsement of a particular ideology, sometimes not even peaceful.
I mean, if the really gave the prize to Trump, they would completely destroy their credibility. That's better left to FIFA (not that FIFA had a lot of credibility before creating a peace prize to award it to Trump).
Where does it say that the Norwegian Nobel Committee is independent from politics?
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.
Norway is one of the few countries in the world that has ”fuck you” money and a functioning representative electoral system. If the parliament appoints the committee, I find it politically suicidal for any representative to dare to directly interfere with the commissions deliberation and choices. There’s hardly anything positive to gain from it for a representative.
Asle Toje was appointed by FRP and is very much a political appointed member. While there is not really any indication of meddling by political parties with the committee the appointment is very much politically governed.
The current US administration and its voting population is making sure that this won't be the case soon. It's gonna be hard to win back the good will that was built through decades of diplomacy and trade. Even harder when their conventional armed forces have been underwhelming in the attack on Iran.
I think recent events have proven otherwise. Asymmetric warfare hurts the big guy more than it hurts the little one. The US was only ever in charge of the world order because most of it's power was not through military action. The threat is there, sure, but the US built most of it's empire off of soft power and diplomacy. Ironically, flexing it's military muscles too much is one of the few sure ways of destroying the American hegemony.
american hegemony has been on the decline for decades. flexing its military is a last ditch attempt to reverse course, it’s not the beginning of the decline. whether it works or not is up for debate and for the future to hold, but what isn’t up for debate is that the soft power gig clearly wasn’t working.
"independent from politics" seems to have a few different meanings. One is inherently bad and another is not necessarily bad. Of course the committee is political and the entire nature of the award is political.
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.
This is all rather OT, but I thought the general Western mainstream coverage of the Artsakh ethnic cleansing was disgraceful. We're talking about an ethnic community of ~120K that was expelled from land where they've lived for at least a millenium. Does that even get a footnote relative to Palestine? Also Israel's role in arming Azerbaijan (including with suicide drones) was disgracefully unexamined (likewise Russia's abdication of responsibility to a CSTO member).
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".
Well, if I didn't think it was interesting I wouldn't post it. Then of course you reassess and start to wonder whether that initial remark really was worth it, and then your comments begins to evolve, and then you have done this for years and it becomes a style where the evolution of the comment expresses uncertainty and causation.
I always avoid genuinely changing the comments though, appending only, and ceasing to append in case someone responds before I'm done.
The committee in this case is based on retired or ageing Norwegian politicians. That's the construction that we can't do so much about (the will), but I think it's unfortunate for the prize. I think a more independent committee would have been better. I agree with the common criticism that they have given several prizes too rashly or too soon.
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.
I think it will only ever have one winner. They may win it again next year (clearly spreading peace throughout the world), but they will be the GOAT for FIFA peace prize winners.
It is not really. They claim so but the members are appointed by the Norwegian government. One of the members, Asle Toje, is very much a political appointed member by the right-wing FRP party.
Unfortunately Nobel Peace prizes are stained with the reputation of going to some pretty undeserving people (Henry Kissinger, Shimon Peres, Obama, etc) and this mars the image of the prize even as a whole.
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.
Satire is mostly dead in this world of clownocracy, but someone should prank-call FIFA and ask them who's the winner of this year's FIFA Peace Prize...
I don’t know which would be funnier: either (a) Trump wins the Peace Prize for a second year in a row, or (b) they go down the designated survivor list of succession…
I've been thinking that part of the point of handing out a bunch of science prizes to the techbros yesterday was to try to overshadow the Nobel prizes.
Committee can’t predict the future man, they only had her actions before 1991. Her showing up at the ICJ was probably a move to appease the military and it didn’t work, they ousted her in 2021 anyway. If you want change argue for awarding it posthumously or that the prize is for worthy actions already done, in which case there are easier targets like Kissinger
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.
Apparently it is. Your question seems to indicate that there were some indicators that she was genocidal that they should have picked up on while she was on house arrest and missed. What were they?
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?
Do you think asking them to stop a genocide is unreasonable?
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’.
Reminder that the US administration is on a campaign to dismantle the ICC for echoing similar findings to this Nobel Prize winner in her role at UNHRC [1].
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.
"The ICC poses an intolerable threat to U.S. sovereignty – it claims the authority to prosecute and even imprison American servicemen and officials operating on behalf of America’s national interest. Americans never signed up for this, and all American presidents since the ICC’s ratification have maintained that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Americans. The ICC previously opened an investigation into U.S. servicemen and intelligence officers and has since refused to close these cases."
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.
Yes, that’s what sovereignty means: a sovereign state governs itself and is not governed by others. A sovereign state can agree to abide by certain rules or submit some disputes to another arbiter, but it does so consensually by treaty. The US never ratified a treaty establishing the authority of the ICC, so it has not consented to that diminution of sovereignty.
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.
> 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".
The main part of the argument is that the US is very happy to apply their laws to foreign citizens for things they have done on foreign soil and are also happy to legally or illegally extract those citizens from the foreign states. That does in fact directly violate those other states sovereignty.
>foreign citizens for things they have done on foreign soil
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.
During the height of the war on terror(I guess, the laws are still on the books and are being used willy nilly), USA routinely kidnapped people across the globe and put them in dungeons for years, without trial. Probably still happens, who knows.
The orange buffoon also attempted (either himself or his cronies) to sanction a brazilian justice for applying brazilian law correctly against the last american-backed, coup-happy president. Since a visa ban, asset freeze and travel restrictions didn't work (on part due to the far superior bank transfer infrastructure) they're now brazenly supporting the right-wing candidate.
> The US never ratified a treaty establishing the authority of the ICC, so it has not consented to that diminution of sovereignty.
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)
Conversely, American individuals are also not sovereign so when they come to a sovereign land where they are sought (by the state or its partners through treaties) for crimes, they are subject to the the state's laws and treaties.
This would more persuasive if the US didn’t have a long history of prosecuting, even kidnapping, foreign nationals on foreign soil for violations of US law.
It’s the lucky ones who get prosecuted and actually given some semblance of a fair trial. The less fortunate are just taken to torture centers and left to rot there.
> a sovereign state governs itself and is not governed by others
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.
> campaign to dismantle the ICC for echoing similar findings
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.
Warrant issuance is only done if pre-trial chamber deems the suspects would continue the crimes (they very apparently did - total blockade of Gaza in 2025 leading to starvation of around 1 million people), or tamper with investigation (killing witnesses, etc. - also happened, many journalists were killed on purpose since, organizations tracking harm were banned as "terrorists" in Israel, and that's just what's easy to see, and lots of evidence is being destroyed to this day as Israel continues blowing up and buldozing Gaza, also on purpose, and also against orders of ICJ in the case against Israel as a state, not just against Netanyahu).
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.
> Warrant issuance is only done if pre-trial chamber deems the suspects would continue the crimes
This is untrue. ICC sometimes issues warrants for crimes that were in the past where it is unlikely the crime will continue.
>tamper with investigation (killing witnesses, etc
While this is something the ICC could issue a warrant for if there was reasonable cause, to date they have not publicly. So far the ICC has not accused Israel of this.
>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.
i was oversimplifying a bit, like yes, there is some process around letting complemtary take its course, but the warrant is the first step where the accused can actually do anything about it. my point was its very far away from a guilty verdict
Oh, that’s true. But when you come to a foreign country, you’ll have to recognise its laws. And if that country happens to have ratified the ICC, and the ICC has a warrant for you, well then you’re bound for trial.
No you will kidnap people, have them killed, silenced, accounts freeze, etc. It's not merely "exercising influence", it's coercion. It's exactly the case here, it's the US's prerogative not to follow the ICCs judgements, it's none of your fkn business what laws other countries have. If a US citizen is in another territory, it's that territory's law that count.
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.
This announcement has become an annual troll event for the lunatic in the office; I heard he was pretty pissed off this morning, although that’s usually the case with him.
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.
I'm still confused how this has anything to do with a noble prize?
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.
Not the person you were conversing with, but: Sheesh, how dismissive of the tens of thousands of dead (both in Gaza and in Japan).
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...
How am I being dismissive? I simply stated two things around the discussion of "bubble" and "reality". I made no opinion or view, rather I defined bubble and stated the reality of what war really is.
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.
yes ... but who is she? and what has she actually done?
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
you seem pissed that they wasted a noble on someone that you don't approve of. do you not think that it might be YOU who might not have the ability to understand every field with as much clarity as you understand software after reading a few lines.
The announcement pretty clearly lays out what she's done to earn it, acknowledging that while international law isn't perfect, the fact-finding process of its practice is important and sets a precedent for continued adherence to legal principles. Her devotion to that practice and influence on introducing sexual assault and propaganda as charges of incitement to genocide are significant contributions backed by legal victories she was instrumental in winning.
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.
Everything. She hasn't contributed to world peace. She has not stopped wars, she has not prevented them, south africa is not more peaceful than it was before.
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?
What does the condition of South Africa have to do with her? She doesn't run it and never has.
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.
It is, like many things, how much meaning you attach to it yourself. Apparently Donald T. thinks it's very important, he makes a lot of fuss about it.
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).
I get the sentiment, but if you hijack peoples attention by pretending "look we are civilized, we have humanitarian organizations" instead showing the ugly reality, this in my book is worse.
Fair enough, too many western countries including my government keep supporting countries perpetrating war crimes/genocide (often ignoring popular sentiment btw).
And luckily we have journalism prizes as well, often for people showing the ugly reality.
I would describe it more of a massacre/war crimes, you can't compare it to something like the East Timur genocide, that said it is going on for a long time.
It looks like your account has been using HN primarily for ideological/political/national/religious battle. That's a line at which we ban accounts, regardless of what you're for or against. There's further explanation at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
The problem is you have to be noteworthy enough to be considered; and are going to be in close proximity of atrocities (hopefully trying to prevent them). Realistically this means a higher percentage of laureate are now generally accepted to have some complicity in atrocities then the percentage of normal people.
Which maybe is ok? It’s not a “most perfect person” prize, it’s a “did the most to advance peace” prize.
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?
Yikes, never looked at it that way. I always think of the people making things better, or that move the needle more worldwide but you are very right, the Nobel Prize is going to be awarded to someone who has been in war zones where there are tough decisions to be made
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...
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/these-are-the-sharps-a...
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)
[0] https://unwatch.org/un-watch-documents-navi-pillays-bias/
> 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.
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'
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj20vkkx3rdvo
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.fifa.com/en
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.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1991/kyi/facts/
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’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi
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.
This is untrue. ICC sometimes issues warrants for crimes that were in the past where it is unlikely the crime will continue.
>tamper with investigation (killing witnesses, etc
While this is something the ICC could issue a warrant for if there was reasonable cause, to date they have not publicly. So far the ICC has not accused Israel of this.
>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.
i was oversimplifying a bit, like yes, there is some process around letting complemtary take its course, but the warrant is the first step where the accused can actually do anything about it. my point was its very far away from a guilty verdict
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?