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.
These people are unsung heroes who truly believe we can make a better world.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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 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)
> 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.
One big issue is that uninvolved member states are agreeing to enforce ICC warrants up front. For example members states have refused to arrest Putin despite having a theoretical legal obligation to do so.
> That is how it works in countries, and that is how it works at the ICC . ICC is no different from any country.
The ICC is not a country, has no territory itself and has no independent enforcement mechanisms.
> 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)
The ICC has issued warrants for individuals for alleged crimes committed in at least two states that reject ICC jurisdiction, those states being Afghanistan and Israel.
> One big issue is that uninvolved member states are agreeing to enforce ICC warrants up front.
Extradition treaties are common among soverign states. This is no different.
> For example members states have refused to arrest Putin despite having a theoretical legal obligation to do so.
Sometimes you have to bow to realism. Nobody is arresting the head of state of a nuclear armed power. That is a death wish.
Also while the idea of throwing aside soverign immunity for international crimes has quite a bit of precedent, especially for multinational tribunals, its not exactly as on firm ground as the rest of this.
> The ICC has issued warrants for individuals for alleged crimes committed in at least two states that reject ICC jurisdiction, those states being Afghanistan and Israel.
The jurisdictional theory for the Israeli nationals is that the crime took place in palestine which is a member state. If a trial took place im sure they would try and argue that palestine is not really a state, not competent to join the rome statute, or failing that, its territorial extent does not include gaza. It would be up to a judge to rule on that
Afghanistan joined signed the treaty. They have not done the proper procedure to withdraw.
> Nobody is arresting the head of state of a nuclear armed power.
So what's the point of issuing arrest warrants to heads of nuclear armed powers like Russia/Israel then if they wouldn't get arrested?
> If a trial took place im sure they would try and argue that palestine is not really a state, not competent to join the rome statute, or failing that, its territorial extent does not include gaza.
If you go by the UN it's a non-member observer state. If you go by the de facto government of Gaza they(Hamas) clearly never signed the Rome statute.
> It would be up to a judge to rule on that
Well the real question is what judge even has the authority to rule on something like that, most sovereign states will give their own domestic courts authority above any external/foreign courts.
> Afghanistan joined signed the treaty.
The de jure government may have, but not the de facto government. The Palestine jurisdictional situation is even more confusing since they were never recognized by the UN or Israel as a full state.
> They have not done the proper procedure to withdraw.
They withdrew in practice since the ICC has no independent enforcement capability. Not that it means much anyways since even member states will regularly ignore what they signed.
It's a very strange situation where a courts rulings can be almost completely detached from the de facto jurisdiction on the ground. This whole strategy of asserting jurisdiction by the ICC without having any real enforcement capability makes it look like the ICC is making decisions that are totally detached from reality and undermines their own credibility.
> So what's the point of issuing arrest warrants to heads of nuclear armed powers like Russia/Israel then if they wouldn't get arrested?
Well they won't be heads of state forever. The Israeli guy might even be out of power at the end of the month. And it does restrict their travel - fairly significantly. They of course didn't just issue warrants for heads of state, although the same analysis probably applies to the other accused.
Ultimately i think it was an ideological stand - The ICC prosecutor wanted to say nobody is above the law, even if practically there are limits.
At the same time, i do kind of agree, it undermines the ICC when it puts itself in a position where it knows it cant really win, and makes it seem in some ways like it is making a political statement rather than pursuing justice.
> If you go by the UN it's a non-member observer state. If you go by the de facto government of Gaza they(Hamas) clearly never signed the Rome statute.
Well yeah, that is why its a contentious question. People who recognize the state of Palestine generally view Gaza as part of it, despite the fact that the (official) state of palestine only controlled the area for a very short time long ago. Not to mention Palestine lacking some of the traditional attributes associated with states. It would be up to the judges of the ICC to determine what the ICC thinks. I think there was already a preliminary ruling, but if the Israeli accused surrendered themselves, i'm sure that would have to be relitigated.
> The de jure government [of afghanistan] may have, but not the de facto government
well, de jure & de facto at the time. Governments change, but treaty obligations stay. I think the taliban considers itself the successor state. They could have withdrawn at any point (with 1 year notice) if they felt like it. they still havent.
> They withdrew in practice since the ICC has no independent enforcement capability
The main point of withdrawing is rescinding the ICC's permission to use the states soverign ability to prosecute crimes as a basis of jurisdiction. Like yeah, there is also the cooperating in apregending fugitives bit as well, but that was always mostly on the honor system.
>It's a very strange situation where a courts rulings can be almost completely detached from the de facto jurisdiction on the ground. This whole strategy of asserting jurisdiction by the ICC without having any real enforcement capability makes it look like the ICC is making decisions that are totally detached from reality and undermines their own credibility.
I'll grant you its strange in the Palestine case, where the state of palestine does not have de facto juridsiction in gaza, but that is kind of exceptional.
In most cases the situation is more that the accused has either fled or otherwise not present in the territory, which is pretty normal for courts. Like with ukraine, i'm sure ukraine would have no problem prosecuting putin if he presented himself to ukraine. The issue is he is at large outside of the territory. That seems pretty common thing to happen in normal courts.
People give most of the attention to the weird cases, but i think the less famous icc cases tend to be a lot more normal.
In many ways, the ICC is best viewed as an extradition pact with its own court.
> The Israeli guy might even be out of power at the end of the month.
Yeah, although his replacement would be highly unlikely to hand him over to the ICC either.
> They of course didn't just issue warrants for heads of state, although the same analysis probably applies to the other accused.
They did also issue warrants for some dead Hamas terrorists I guess.
> Ultimately i think it was an ideological stand - The ICC prosecutor wanted to say nobody is above the law, even if practically there are limits.
Could be, could also be he needed a distraction from his own misconduct investigation[0] or a bit of both. From what I've seen he rushed a very weak case but it's hard to say exactly why, could be for political reasons. Ultimately it probably just makes the ICC look weak since the warrants would be highly unlikely to be executed.
> Governments change, but treaty obligations stay.
When governments change treaty obligations tend to mostly matter to the degree they are enforce in practice.
> They could have withdrawn at any point (with 1 year notice) if they felt like it. they still havent.
Well...apparently they can't because the Taliban is not UN recognized.[1]
> The main point of withdrawing is rescinding the ICC's permission to use the states soverign ability to prosecute crimes as a basis of jurisdiction. Like yeah, there is also the cooperating in apregending fugitives bit as well, but that was always mostly on the honor system.
I mean, the apprehending fugitives part is kind of important, since that's the enforcement mechanism. Clearly the honor system doesn't seem to be working all that well.
> In most cases the situation is more that the accused has either fled or otherwise not present in the territory, which is pretty normal for courts.
I guess that has happened a bit in Africa, with how dysfunctional the courts there can be I can see cases where something like the ICC would make sense. On the other hand most of the middle east never became member states so it's rather useless there.
> Like with ukraine, i'm sure ukraine would have no problem prosecuting putin if he presented himself to ukraine. The issue is he is at large outside of the territory.
Well they would probably do that themselves rather than hand him over to the ICC. From my understanding ICC is generally only supposed to step in if local courts fail to act.
> In many ways, the ICC is best viewed as an extradition pact with its own court.
Which I guess is the main problem, the enforcement mechanism is kind of terrible, paired with the ICC seemingly deliberately trying pretty hard to stretch their jurisdiction makes them look like they are just playing political games a lot of the time.
The court probably shouldn't be making threats of arrest it can't carry through on. Similar to how Trump was making threats against Iran that he clearly wasn't willing to carry out made him look weak when they called his bluff.
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.
Hypocrisy at all the levels, and lying to try to still have the moral high ground.
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.
> 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
In any case ICC warrants are not public. Only state parties know the content of the warrants. We don't know what's exactly in them. Only PR is public.
Anyway, it sounded like you're arguing that ICC warrant is something OTP asks for willy nilly on suspicion of a crime. But there is a long prior process where even opening the investigation has to be approved by the chamber or asked for by a state party. Then there's investigation, which in this case was likely quite extensive and helped by third parties, given that just Pillay's UN commission of inquiry alone provided ~7000 pieces of verified evidence and that's just scratching the surface, given that several state parties refered the situation in Palestine to the court, including Palestine itself, court does its own outreach to victims, and I know several projects that periodically sent/d tons of data collected from social media where Israeli state itself publicly posted its massacres of hundreds of civilians per strike early on.
> Anyway, it sounded like you're arguing that ICC warrant is something OTP asks for willy nilly on suspicion of a crime. But there is a long prior process where even opening the investigation has to be approved by the chamber or asked for by a state party.
I don't think its willy nilly. The office of the prosecutor did significant investigation to get to this point. Its just far away from a guilty verdict.
Even at the pretrial stage the court rejected some of the charges proposed by the prosecutor. The prosecutor asked for a charge of extermination, but the pre trial chamber found there wasn't evidence of the requirements being met. Its entirely plausible at an actual trial some of the other charges might be rejected.
From what i understand the conviction rate of the ICC is fairly low (if you include people who had warrants/summons but had case dropped before it went to trial as while as people acquited). Which isn't a bad thing, it means it is a fair court.
> Pillay's UN commission of inquiry alone provided ~7000 pieces of verified evidence
Justice isn't a numbers game. The quality not the quantity rules the day (not necessarily saying the evidence isn't quality - i havent seen it, just that the number of items is irrelavent)
> several state parties refered the situation in Palestine to the court,
state party referrals tend to be a joke. People refer things to the court for all sorts of political grandstanding reasons. The prosecutor is the person that matters when bringing a case.
Ultimately, part of the reason to have trials is so the accused can present evidence in their defense. Its an important part of determining a just verdict.
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.
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.
Guys,there is no vast tunnel infrastructure operated by hamas so we must close our mind to the possibility that hamas is the evil guy compared to idf /s
Even if they had twice as many tunnels it would never justify what Israel has done. Read the numbers, look at the pictures. Read about how many children that have been shot in the head.
Bruh 70-80k that too we don't know how many are civilians/militants and hamas is like prime example to use civilian clothing so as to not even distinguish themselves from civilians and they steal aid, oppress their own people and use civilian shields like crazy and even with all that it's jz 70k? That's some genocide dude.. they shouldn't have launched their genocidal campaign on October 7th then.. FAFO in real time
Are you aware of the amount of CHILDREN that have been killed? They had no relation to any terrorist attack. And the fact that I even have to say anything more than the first sentence, shows how insanely far the Overton window is on Israel's side.
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.
Allies committed more war crimes in Warsaw than what idf was doing.. allies didn't door knock and all that weak shit, we just bombarded the whole cities.. IDF committed less war crimes compared to what hamas does which oppress its own people and steal aid to enrich themselves instead of surrendering to superior idf and use military outfits in combat
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.
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).
>Our strength lies in our quickness and in our brutality; Genghis Khan has sent millions of women and children into death knowingly and with a light heart. History sees in him only the great founder of States. As to what a weak Western European civilisation asserts about me, that is of no account. I have given the command and I shall shoot everyone who utters one word of criticism, for the goal to be obtained in the war is not that of reaching certain lines but of physically demolishing the opponent. And so for the present only in the East I have put my death-head formations' in place with the command relentlessly and without compassion to send into death many women and children of Polish origin and language. Only thus we can gain the living space (lebensraum) that we need. Who after all is today speaking about the destruction of the Armenians?
The speaker of the above quoted words is Adolph Hitler.
Well he's right that it's totally cool for Mongolia to embrace Genghis Khan as a national hero when he killed far more innocents (both absolutely and relatively) than Hitler. I guess the real difference is that Genghis Khan won his wars and Hitler lost (see also: Stalin).
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.
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.
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.
If you say so. I think the fact that the US has been the most powerful country for the last 75 years or so has been pretty undisputed, but different realities for different folks i guess
Give Mr. Hegseth (or is it rather, Rev. Hegseth now?) a couple more years, and I think conventional U.S. military dominance will very much be in dispute. He is burning through competent senior leadership at a prodigious rate.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 people are making a mistake when they view the Peace Prize as an evaluation of a person's character or an entire career. Often it's awarded for involvement in 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.
María Corina Machado has stood up against authoritarianism in Venezuela for more than a decade. I don't think awarding the prize should require being a perfect person or holding all of the right opinions.
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.
She's advocated for free and fair elections, rule of law, separation of powers, civil and political liberties, popular sovereignty, decentralized power, private property, and competitive markets. Can you explain how those ideas are authoritarian?
> advocated for free and fair elections, rule of law, separation of powers, civil liberties, decentralization, private property, and competitive markets.
These are just typical talking points of opposition. Many a politician has completely reversed course once they’re in power themself, so judging an opposition politician trying to obtain power on that is pretty stupid for students of history. They don’t typically call for foreign invasion though, and don’t tend to get a Nobel Peace Prize for that.
Oh and don’t get me started on what historically passed as “free and fair elections, rule of law, separation of powers, civil liberties, decentralization, private property, and competitive markets” for puppets ruling South and Central America.
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.
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
The oberturies posted on HN are more worthy of Noble than Noble's being handed out to non sceince folk because of politics .. at this point, its become more like Forbes ..
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?
Awarding the peace prize only posthumously isn't a bad idea at all. The one downside I can think of - someone is awarded the prize after their death, few years later their not-so-nice actions are discovered, now what?
Are there any awards that are without controversies (or at least, little controversy)? I am sure there are unknown people quietly doing great work in this world who deserve the recognition, I suppose the tricky part is finding them. In any case, it is not an easy task to pick a person that most (if not all) people would agree on.
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?
Yes, the military committed mass murder and torture, but genocide has a specific legal definition and the military atrocities did not come anywhere close to that definition. In her appearance, she defends the military against charges of a specific legal nature. She does not deny that the killings took place.
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.
Pillay is complicit in China's genocide of Uyghurs. What a shame.
Not to mention she is antisemite rambling about the "Jewish lobby".
But anyways, not surprised at all. Dark times indeed.
Ethnic Tamil, started career fighting Sri Lanka crackdown on Tamil Tigers. Tamil Tigers invented suicide bombing. Gaza’s Hamas adopted suicide bombing from them.
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....
What neither the announcement nor any comment here (when I checked) has noted is that The Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel chaired by Pillay found, in Sept 2025, that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians. Don't want to relitigate that finding (especially the "specific intent"), but it strikes me as a surprisingly political and divisive choice.
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.
241 comments
[ 0.29 ms ] story [ 14.9 ms ] threadI'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.
These people are unsung heroes who truly believe we can make a better world.
[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.
Point being, I don't really think that "the US considers" carries a whole lot of weight these days.
How fun.
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
...
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.
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.
True, they could ignore the ICC, but they shouldn't go around sanctioning and punishing and threatening its judges.
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)
One big issue is that uninvolved member states are agreeing to enforce ICC warrants up front. For example members states have refused to arrest Putin despite having a theoretical legal obligation to do so.
> That is how it works in countries, and that is how it works at the ICC . ICC is no different from any country.
The ICC is not a country, has no territory itself and has no independent enforcement mechanisms.
> 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)
The ICC has issued warrants for individuals for alleged crimes committed in at least two states that reject ICC jurisdiction, those states being Afghanistan and Israel.
Extradition treaties are common among soverign states. This is no different.
> For example members states have refused to arrest Putin despite having a theoretical legal obligation to do so.
Sometimes you have to bow to realism. Nobody is arresting the head of state of a nuclear armed power. That is a death wish.
Also while the idea of throwing aside soverign immunity for international crimes has quite a bit of precedent, especially for multinational tribunals, its not exactly as on firm ground as the rest of this.
> The ICC has issued warrants for individuals for alleged crimes committed in at least two states that reject ICC jurisdiction, those states being Afghanistan and Israel.
The jurisdictional theory for the Israeli nationals is that the crime took place in palestine which is a member state. If a trial took place im sure they would try and argue that palestine is not really a state, not competent to join the rome statute, or failing that, its territorial extent does not include gaza. It would be up to a judge to rule on that
Afghanistan joined signed the treaty. They have not done the proper procedure to withdraw.
So what's the point of issuing arrest warrants to heads of nuclear armed powers like Russia/Israel then if they wouldn't get arrested?
> If a trial took place im sure they would try and argue that palestine is not really a state, not competent to join the rome statute, or failing that, its territorial extent does not include gaza.
If you go by the UN it's a non-member observer state. If you go by the de facto government of Gaza they(Hamas) clearly never signed the Rome statute.
> It would be up to a judge to rule on that
Well the real question is what judge even has the authority to rule on something like that, most sovereign states will give their own domestic courts authority above any external/foreign courts.
> Afghanistan joined signed the treaty.
The de jure government may have, but not the de facto government. The Palestine jurisdictional situation is even more confusing since they were never recognized by the UN or Israel as a full state.
> They have not done the proper procedure to withdraw.
They withdrew in practice since the ICC has no independent enforcement capability. Not that it means much anyways since even member states will regularly ignore what they signed.
It's a very strange situation where a courts rulings can be almost completely detached from the de facto jurisdiction on the ground. This whole strategy of asserting jurisdiction by the ICC without having any real enforcement capability makes it look like the ICC is making decisions that are totally detached from reality and undermines their own credibility.
Well they won't be heads of state forever. The Israeli guy might even be out of power at the end of the month. And it does restrict their travel - fairly significantly. They of course didn't just issue warrants for heads of state, although the same analysis probably applies to the other accused.
Ultimately i think it was an ideological stand - The ICC prosecutor wanted to say nobody is above the law, even if practically there are limits.
At the same time, i do kind of agree, it undermines the ICC when it puts itself in a position where it knows it cant really win, and makes it seem in some ways like it is making a political statement rather than pursuing justice.
> If you go by the UN it's a non-member observer state. If you go by the de facto government of Gaza they(Hamas) clearly never signed the Rome statute.
Well yeah, that is why its a contentious question. People who recognize the state of Palestine generally view Gaza as part of it, despite the fact that the (official) state of palestine only controlled the area for a very short time long ago. Not to mention Palestine lacking some of the traditional attributes associated with states. It would be up to the judges of the ICC to determine what the ICC thinks. I think there was already a preliminary ruling, but if the Israeli accused surrendered themselves, i'm sure that would have to be relitigated.
> The de jure government [of afghanistan] may have, but not the de facto government
well, de jure & de facto at the time. Governments change, but treaty obligations stay. I think the taliban considers itself the successor state. They could have withdrawn at any point (with 1 year notice) if they felt like it. they still havent.
> They withdrew in practice since the ICC has no independent enforcement capability
The main point of withdrawing is rescinding the ICC's permission to use the states soverign ability to prosecute crimes as a basis of jurisdiction. Like yeah, there is also the cooperating in apregending fugitives bit as well, but that was always mostly on the honor system.
>It's a very strange situation where a courts rulings can be almost completely detached from the de facto jurisdiction on the ground. This whole strategy of asserting jurisdiction by the ICC without having any real enforcement capability makes it look like the ICC is making decisions that are totally detached from reality and undermines their own credibility.
I'll grant you its strange in the Palestine case, where the state of palestine does not have de facto juridsiction in gaza, but that is kind of exceptional.
In most cases the situation is more that the accused has either fled or otherwise not present in the territory, which is pretty normal for courts. Like with ukraine, i'm sure ukraine would have no problem prosecuting putin if he presented himself to ukraine. The issue is he is at large outside of the territory. That seems pretty common thing to happen in normal courts.
People give most of the attention to the weird cases, but i think the less famous icc cases tend to be a lot more normal.
In many ways, the ICC is best viewed as an extradition pact with its own court.
Yeah, although his replacement would be highly unlikely to hand him over to the ICC either.
> They of course didn't just issue warrants for heads of state, although the same analysis probably applies to the other accused.
They did also issue warrants for some dead Hamas terrorists I guess.
> Ultimately i think it was an ideological stand - The ICC prosecutor wanted to say nobody is above the law, even if practically there are limits.
Could be, could also be he needed a distraction from his own misconduct investigation[0] or a bit of both. From what I've seen he rushed a very weak case but it's hard to say exactly why, could be for political reasons. Ultimately it probably just makes the ICC look weak since the warrants would be highly unlikely to be executed.
> Governments change, but treaty obligations stay.
When governments change treaty obligations tend to mostly matter to the degree they are enforce in practice.
> They could have withdrawn at any point (with 1 year notice) if they felt like it. they still havent.
Well...apparently they can't because the Taliban is not UN recognized.[1]
> The main point of withdrawing is rescinding the ICC's permission to use the states soverign ability to prosecute crimes as a basis of jurisdiction. Like yeah, there is also the cooperating in apregending fugitives bit as well, but that was always mostly on the honor system.
I mean, the apprehending fugitives part is kind of important, since that's the enforcement mechanism. Clearly the honor system doesn't seem to be working all that well.
> In most cases the situation is more that the accused has either fled or otherwise not present in the territory, which is pretty normal for courts.
I guess that has happened a bit in Africa, with how dysfunctional the courts there can be I can see cases where something like the ICC would make sense. On the other hand most of the middle east never became member states so it's rather useless there.
> Like with ukraine, i'm sure ukraine would have no problem prosecuting putin if he presented himself to ukraine. The issue is he is at large outside of the territory.
Well they would probably do that themselves rather than hand him over to the ICC. From my understanding ICC is generally only supposed to step in if local courts fail to act.
> In many ways, the ICC is best viewed as an extradition pact with its own court.
Which I guess is the main problem, the enforcement mechanism is kind of terrible, paired with the ICC seemingly deliberately trying pretty hard to stretch their jurisdiction makes them look like they are just playing political games a lot of the time.
The court probably shouldn't be making threats of arrest it can't carry through on. Similar to how Trump was making threats against Iran that he clearly wasn't willing to carry out made him look weak when they called his bluff.
[0] https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/07/1168025
[1] https://www.ejiltalk.org/unrecognized-governments-and-the-ic...
Hypocrisy at all the levels, and lying to try to still have the moral high ground.
And in that case, so much for "western ideals", if it's purely "America first, no ideals".
It’s the same rules you apply yourself, right?
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
In any case ICC warrants are not public. Only state parties know the content of the warrants. We don't know what's exactly in them. Only PR is public.
Anyway, it sounded like you're arguing that ICC warrant is something OTP asks for willy nilly on suspicion of a crime. But there is a long prior process where even opening the investigation has to be approved by the chamber or asked for by a state party. Then there's investigation, which in this case was likely quite extensive and helped by third parties, given that just Pillay's UN commission of inquiry alone provided ~7000 pieces of verified evidence and that's just scratching the surface, given that several state parties refered the situation in Palestine to the court, including Palestine itself, court does its own outreach to victims, and I know several projects that periodically sent/d tons of data collected from social media where Israeli state itself publicly posted its massacres of hundreds of civilians per strike early on.
https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2024/6/19/never-see...
I don't think its willy nilly. The office of the prosecutor did significant investigation to get to this point. Its just far away from a guilty verdict.
Even at the pretrial stage the court rejected some of the charges proposed by the prosecutor. The prosecutor asked for a charge of extermination, but the pre trial chamber found there wasn't evidence of the requirements being met. Its entirely plausible at an actual trial some of the other charges might be rejected.
From what i understand the conviction rate of the ICC is fairly low (if you include people who had warrants/summons but had case dropped before it went to trial as while as people acquited). Which isn't a bad thing, it means it is a fair court.
> Pillay's UN commission of inquiry alone provided ~7000 pieces of verified evidence
Justice isn't a numbers game. The quality not the quantity rules the day (not necessarily saying the evidence isn't quality - i havent seen it, just that the number of items is irrelavent)
> several state parties refered the situation in Palestine to the court,
state party referrals tend to be a joke. People refer things to the court for all sorts of political grandstanding reasons. The prosecutor is the person that matters when bringing a case.
Ultimately, part of the reason to have trials is so the accused can present evidence in their defense. Its an important part of determining a just verdict.
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...
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
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.
It's like having your house on fire but patting yourself on the back for fixing a lamp.
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.
Guys,there is no vast tunnel infrastructure operated by hamas so we must close our mind to the possibility that hamas is the evil guy compared to idf /s
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.
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."
>Our strength lies in our quickness and in our brutality; Genghis Khan has sent millions of women and children into death knowingly and with a light heart. History sees in him only the great founder of States. As to what a weak Western European civilisation asserts about me, that is of no account. I have given the command and I shall shoot everyone who utters one word of criticism, for the goal to be obtained in the war is not that of reaching certain lines but of physically demolishing the opponent. And so for the present only in the East I have put my death-head formations' in place with the command relentlessly and without compassion to send into death many women and children of Polish origin and language. Only thus we can gain the living space (lebensraum) that we need. Who after all is today speaking about the destruction of the Armenians?
The speaker of the above quoted words is Adolph Hitler.
I think Timur, Genghis Khan, etc. and a bunch of people of that sort are over the line.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
> advocated for free and fair elections, rule of law, separation of powers, civil liberties, decentralization, private property, and competitive markets.
Oh and don’t get me started on what historically passed as “free and fair elections, rule of law, separation of powers, civil liberties, decentralization, private property, and competitive markets” for puppets ruling South and Central America.
For those who don't speak Spanish, it means someone who would sell their homeland, the worst kind of traitor.
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.
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?
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.
Are there any awards that are without controversies (or at least, little controversy)? I am sure there are unknown people quietly doing great work in this world who deserve the recognition, I suppose the tricky part is finding them. In any case, it is not an easy task to pick a person that most (if not all) people would agree on.
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?
Yes, the military committed mass murder and torture, but genocide has a specific legal definition and the military atrocities did not come anywhere close to that definition. In her appearance, she defends the military against charges of a specific legal nature. She does not deny that the killings took place.
https://www.fifa.com/en
[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.tamilguardian.com/content/nobel-laureate-navi-pi...
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.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8641wv0n4go
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.