The Nobel Peace Prize: Fairness, Justice, and Hype

Since its inception in 1901, the Nobel Peace Prize has been a globally recognized symbol of humanitarianism, conflict resolution, and international friendship. It represents not only a monetary award but also a validation of the recipient’s tireless efforts. However, in recent years, the hype and strategic maneuvering behind the Nobel Prize have become commonplace. The loopholes in its core mechanism—the nomination process—are being cleverly exploited, transforming a serious honor into a tool for global publicity, which erodes the reputation and value of the Nobel Peace Prize.

According to the Nobel Foundation’s regulations, the pool of eligible nominators for the Peace Prize is quite broad. It includes members of national assemblies and governments, judges of international courts, university presidents, professors in social sciences, history, philosophy, law, and theology, directors of peace research and foreign policy institutes, and former Nobel Peace Prize laureates. To ensure the selection process is independent, fair, and authoritative, the committee has established strict confidentiality rules: information about both the nominators and the nominees is sealed for 50 years and cannot be disclosed to the public.

The original intent of this rule was to protect the selection process from political pressure and public opinion, allowing committee members to focus on the nominees’ actual contributions rather than their public image. However, this “sacred” rule has a “secular” loophole: the confidentiality obligation primarily binds the Nobel Committee itself, but it lacks effective constraints on the nominators, nominees, or their teams. This loophole has opened the door for opportunists. They are well aware that the chances of winning are slim, but the “Nobel Peace Prize nominee” label itself is a valuable asset for publicity.

Behind this nomination hype is a clear chain of vested interests where nominators and nominees get what they want. For nominators, especially little-known politicians or academics on the international stage, nominating a high-profile (or even controversial) figure is a cheap shortcut to boosting their own visibility and influence. For example, a parliamentarian from a small country can instantly gain global media attention by nominating a leader from a major power.

For the nominees, the value is even more apparent. For controversial leaders, a “Nobel Peace Prize nomination” serves as excellent commercial and public opinion capital. It can be used to show their domestic population that they are “widely recognized internationally,” thus solidifying support and countering opponents. For activists, authors, or non-governmental organizations (NGOs), a “Nobel Peace Prize nomination” is a powerful brand endorsement. It can significantly boost book sales, attract donations, and increase speaking fees. An organization labeled as “Nobel Prize-nominated” immediately elevates its credibility and moral standing in the public eye, making it easier to secure resources and support.

In some geopolitical games, the nomination itself can become a tool for pressure or making a statement. For instance, by nominating a dissident or a specific group at the center of a controversy, the nominator can send a clear political signal to the relevant government. In recent years, many publicly disclosed nominees have been dissidents from various countries, such as Afghanistan, Iran, Belarus, Russia, and China. This practice has transformed the nomination process from an evaluation of “contributions to peace” into a geopolitical arena. For example, Sheikh Mohammed from Afghanistan, Narges Mohammadi from Iran, and “Teacher Li Is Not Your Teacher” from China.

This phenomenon of nomination hype has a systemic and profound negative impact on the Nobel Peace Prize. When the title of “Nobel Peace Prize nominee” can be easily acquired through political maneuvering and used for publicity, its value inevitably declines significantly, leading to doubts about the seriousness of the entire award. Media chasing “so-and-so was nominated” stories often creates a false atmosphere of “hot candidates,” distorting public perception. The Nobel Prize season is gradually devolving from a thought-provoking educational moment into a media frenzy filled with speculation and picking sides.

The Nobel Foundation should consider revising its rules and strengthening the binding nature of the nomination process by imposing clearer and more binding confidentiality responsibilities on nominators. For example, requiring nominators to sign a legally or morally binding confidentiality agreement when submitting a nomination. If a nominator or their team, or a nominee or their team, deliberately leaks nomination information for public hype, the nomination should be immediately invalidated. This would significantly increase the risk and cost of hype at the source.

The true value of the Nobel Peace Prize lies in its ability to inspire humanity’s most beautiful aspirations for peace and to honor those who turn those aspirations into reality. Defending the reputation of the Nobel Peace Prize means defending a universal value that transcends borders, races, and ideologies.