Nobel Peace Prize for 2026 to Navanethem Pillay
nobelprize.orgI 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.
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...
Machado’s odds suddenly surged to almost 80% 12 hours before the announcement
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1o383a1/oc...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/10/nobel-peace-pr...
Wasn’t that because their CMS had URLs that were easy to guess?
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1o51k61/upd...
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.
Good point. You could hack someone and just lurk and never do anything directly malicious that would make them notice your presence
There was an interesting interview on the OddLots podcast recently with people who are doing this. They were remarkably sophisticated.
Do you remember the podcast number or title? Curious to hear more about it
gambling - this is news?
Perception and financial market movement is interesting to a curious and educated mind.
You know where to head for the cat memes.
The prize in economics is even more different, "in memory of alfred nobel"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom...
Yes, it doesn’t really have anything to do with the actual Nobels but the name.
I wonder...
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.
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 would still be detectable though: Does sum(price of all Yes) have an early unexpected down draw?
this seems a bit odd to me (change the link to 1 day)
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
Pretty stupid prize to bet on considering the committee keeps even the nominees secret for 50 years.
I hope it gets banned by the next administration.
It would be funny to have such a prize finance itself by doing this. Openly. Game theory working over time on that one.
Related ongoing thread:
US imposes sanctions on ICC hours after former judge wins Nobel Peace Prize - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50021066 - Oct 2026 (288 comments)
L'enfant terrible is having a moment.
Great to see that they're not afraid to stand up to the rising authoritarianism
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.
She genuinely fcked that one tho. Despite having skin in the game, that was one big loosing move.
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?
She also advocated for the USA to invade her country to depose Maduro. That alone should disqualify her from a Peace prize.
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.
Can you explain how you can praise Trump if you
> advocated for free and fair elections, rule of law, separation of powers, civil liberties, decentralization, private property, and competitive markets.
Venezuela is America's bitch. As is much of South America with the honourable exceptions of Mexico and Cuba.
Upvoted for using the word "vendepatrias".
For those who don't speak Spanish, it means someone who would sell their homeland, the worst kind of traitor.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laur...
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).
That was Infantino's FIFA, please. Prior to that FIFA had been corrupt but largely apolitical.
The committee is independent from politics although some dictators may at times misunderstand that.
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 find it hard to see how the committee can be genuinely independent of politics when its members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament.
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.
how does this imply that they can be disconnected from politics, some may argue on the contrary due to what you just stated.
It cannot be disconnected from politics. The other poster mentioned independence.
The only country that has "fuck you" anything is unfortunately the US.
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.
Good old Roosevelt’s “Talk softly and carry a big stick” worked really well.
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
Let's be clear that this is just an opinion and ignores China for example.
Alas, in US art and civic culture, "you" refers to those eligible to serve in the armed forces.
"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.
There's always FIFA to give out a prize if necessary.
I am actually curious who will win the FIFA peace prize next year? Or is it handled out annually?
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.
They have really not made the impression that they are independent of politics, all laureates taken together. But if they improve I'm all for it.
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.
You remember Machado though...
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).
It's possible the Azerbaijan/Armenia thing and lack of outcry or attention helped Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Gaza, Sudan/Darfur, etc get rolling.
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."
No it really didn't those conflicts began before Azerbaijan/Armenia and Azerbaijan/Armenia aren't really significant enough to influence anything.
Yeah, I guess they act independently from international courts.
How do you mean, and who?
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".
The Norwegian nobel prize committee. (Your post was heavily edited, if you think i missed some point.)
Yeah, I can be slow in getting them finished.
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.
Fine, i also prefer being able to edit my comments.
So put them in a draft rather than polluting the thread and making people guess what you meant.
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?
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.
They also had connections to Epstein
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.
I think that's fair, and they only get as much importance and attention as we give them.
The committee is selected by the Norwegian parliament, a political body.
And there is a long history of allegations of additional political influence beyond that.
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.
This process is decided by the Alfred Nobel will.
They're so independent from politics they gave a Peace Prize to President "Drone Strikes" Obama after he was in office for merely a year.
giving the prize to Obama was not political at all.
/s
It was political, quite possibly a mistake.
But it was most likely not requested by the Norwegian government.
As dubious as some of the things Obama did, nothing will ever beat Henry Kissinger winning it.
At least Aung San Suu Kyi waited until after her award to do some genocide.
what’s wrong with authoritarianism?
i think there are plenty of books written about the topic. Im not sure hacker news is the best place to get your answer.
It seems like both sides want it, but only one admits to wanting it.
Yay, congrats Navi! Thanks for contributing to international law!
My wife (also of Indian descent and from Durban) was happy when I forwarded her a BBC link of this news.
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.
and here you go
US unveils sanctions on ICC in move court condems as 'assault on rule of law'
What a courageous woman. There is so much suffering and horror involved. And Scandinavians aren't shy to set a statement.
Does nobelprize.org really need to have targeting cookies?
Nobel Peace Prize once again being given out to terrible people.[0] She'll fit right in with Kissinger and Arafat.
[0] https://unwatch.org/un-watch-documents-navi-pillays-bias/
While there may be legitimate concern with her, I’d rather read sources that aren’t pro-Israel lobby groups.
> While there may be legitimate concern with her, I’d rather read sources that aren’t pro-Israel lobby groups.
You can find details from other sources as well.[0][1][2][3][4][5][6] She quite often runs cover for antisemitism.
[0] https://www.newsweek.com/new-low-antisemitism-un-opinion-172...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-israel-geneva-race-an...
[2] https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world%2Fambassador-decries-...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/20/un-race-confer...
[4] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/eu-threatens-to-boycot...
[5] https://www.france24.com/en/20090419-growing-western-boycott...
[6] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us-politics/australia-...
I only checked the Guardian article but there's nothing in there that shows she ran cover for anything.
> I only checked the Guardian article but there's nothing in there that shows she ran cover for anything.
I mean, she basically let the antisemitism run wild at the Durban conference.
and Menahem Begin and Itzhak Rabin and Shimon Perez
> Menahem Begin
Why? From my understanding he was given the award for his part in negotiating what ultimately became the Camp David Accords, which have held to this day.
> Itzhak Rabin and Shimon Perez
At least they were negotiating for peace in good faith, unlike Arafat[0].
They went for the IvsP and chose a side, nothing interesting here.
Congratulations to everyone who won
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.
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.
>"There are actually people who spend their lives working for peace, and die in the effort."
These people would not be eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize, because its rules disallow deceased candidates.
It would be politically untenable to condemn Saudi, so there is that element too.
If they cut up the journalist Jamal Khashoggi with a bone saw on foreign soil and get away with it, why would they change?
I think you might have replied to the wrong comment; my post said nothing about politics or Saudi Arabia.
I'll be amused to see how the administration reacts. Perhaps we'll end up having the Trump Prizes.
Apparently they just imposed sanctions on the ICC, not sure it’s related but it’s a strange coincidence [0]
[0] US imposes sanctions on ICC hours after former judge wins Nobel Peace Prize - https://www.reuters.com/world/us-imposes-sanctions-internati...
Apropo to nothing, Jack Smith, who is teed up to try Trump for the Jan 6 insurrection, was an investigation coordinator for ICC.
Probably nothing to do with it.
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 had a look to see if they have a contact email as I’d like to ask them about this years award. I can’t find one.
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.
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.
[1] https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...
"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".
Yes, that is correct. Any Americans who have been found guilty by the ICC of crimes wouldn't visit signatories of the ICC's establishing treaty.
All zero of them...because no Americans have been found guilty by the ICC of any crimes under its jurisdiction.
Whenever the ICC has moved close to scrutinizing the U.S. or its close allies, Washington has retaliated with severe consequences.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Nicol%C3%A1s_Ma...
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.
You can't be serious.
> Probably still happens, who knows.
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...
It makes a change from drone strikes on Afghan weddings, which was a thing for a while.
Yes, America has been shitting on international law since forever. Now it’s just a lot more blatant.
Sanctioning ICC judges. They did nothing relevant to US citizens.
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.
Maybe the purported drug boat bombings have escaped your attention?
Maybe the bombing of a school? Or destroying civilian infrastructure? Assassination of a head of state? Or kidnapping a head of state?
Limiting things to this year.
i was just going to bring this up, but a different aspect: I'm not curious about the drug charges, I'm curious about the gun charges as unlevied.
I mentioned several examples of US sanctioned human rights organizations just in this comment thread. That's some US law applied to foreigners.
Ever heard of extraordinary renditions?
> When has this ever happened?
when has it ever not?
> Maduro
(Not an american citizen btw)
> extradition
...
> 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.
[0] https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/07/1168025
[1] https://www.ejiltalk.org/unrecognized-governments-and-the-ic...
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.
> 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.
So it should be no surprise to USA that sovereign countries that abide to ICC rulings take actions against individual USA citizens.
This isn't true, the US considers prosecution by the ICC as an act of war.
The US also considers prosecution of the Epstein child rapists as unnecessary.
Point being, I don't really think that "the US considers" carries a whole lot of weight these days.
Our Jimmy Saville moment.
How fun.
Sure. But don’t come traveling here (Sweden) and tell us we can’t submit you to the ICC.
> 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.
To be clear i find the us campaign disgusting.
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
Right. I was not very careful with "only if". :)
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...
> 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.
> in 2019 she became an ad hoc judge on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case in which Myanmar stands accused of genocide.
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.
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
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.
> Committee can’t predict the future man
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.
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 ?
A small fraction.
She didn't 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?
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’.
Why is this even on hacker news. It’s got nothing to do with tech and clearly falls under the “off topic” definition https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This kind of explains why the Trump clique declared total war against the International Court of Justice against potential pedophile victims. We really need to do our own investigation into the Epstein situation - the whole behaviour of Trump acting here is very strange. Obviously Trump acts on behalf of other people telling him what to do, be it him acting as agent Krasnov serving Putin, or here, in the name of Netanyahu.
Trump is like the ultimate tool. And he is getting richer by the second.
Why is that money not given to The People?
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.
A clear FU to the Cheeto, love it
Has she openly opposed Trump? I don't recognize the name, and the linked article is pretty vague.
next year it should go to a heckin pupper!
[flagged]
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....
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.
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 problem with the Peace Prize in general, or this time? It's not entirely clear to me what you're trying to say.
In general