Wasn’t that because their CMS had URLs that were easy to guess?

https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1o51k61/upd...

Yes, it doesn’t really have anything to do with the actual Nobels but the name.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laur...

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.

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.

They have opinions and moral values. And a lot of times they coincide with western democracy ideals.

Or - like today - with rules based global world order.

I am actually curious who will win the FIFA peace prize next year? Or is it handled out annually?

And there is a long history of allegations of additional political influence beyond that.

It was political, quite possibly a mistake.

But it was most likely not requested by the Norwegian government.

You're just repeating yourself.

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?

Most people in the world are also not very powerful. Amongst the powerful people, how many eventually commit genocide ?

> 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.

> 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.

So it should be no surprise to USA that sovereign countries that abide to ICC rulings take actions against individual USA citizens.

> The US never ratified a treaty establishing the authority of the ICC, so it has not consented to that diminution of sovereignty.

True, they could ignore the ICC, but they shouldn't go around sanctioning and punishing and threatening its judges.

> 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.

It’s not hypocrisy. Don’t follow them. But when your interests conflict with ours, then we will exert our influence.

Science and economics contributes to weapons. This prize was the odd ball to counter weapons with peace

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.