This is a problem the various committees have struggled with for a long time: Nobel’s testament says to award the person(s) responsibile for the most advanced of a given field in the previous...
This is a problem the various committees have struggled with for a long time: Nobel’s testament says to award the person(s) responsibile for the most advanced of a given field in the previous year. But that is clearly something that can only conclusively be determined long after the year it was achieved. The scientific and literature prizes tend to be based on a life’s work; meanwhile, the Peace Prize has been struggling with its definition lately, rewarding a number of things that are only indirectly connecting to the core message. So now they’re trying to focus more on issues that directly create peace and end war right now - but then there’s a chance that it won’t work out long-term. The alternative would be to only award the resolutions of very old conflicts decades after the fact (as in the sciences), or exclude issues that indirectly affect global conflicts. All of which also violate the mission statement.
It’s not easy for the Nobel to be the prize that everyone wants it to be. It has to stay within the spirit of its founding document, which means move fast, but it also has to maintain credibility, which means move slow. It has to look for actual conflicts ended, but also conflicts prevented via unconvential means. I don’t envy them one bit.
Seems like kind of an over dramatization to say Aung San Suu Kyi is responsible for the massacres in Myanmar. Really, she is guilty of not speaking out against the military junta that had kept her...
Seems like kind of an over dramatization to say Aung San Suu Kyi is responsible for the massacres in Myanmar. Really, she is guilty of not speaking out against the military junta that had kept her on house arrest for years. It's not like she was issuing orders or anything.
This is a problem the various committees have struggled with for a long time: Nobel’s testament says to award the person(s) responsibile for the most advanced of a given field in the previous year. But that is clearly something that can only conclusively be determined long after the year it was achieved. The scientific and literature prizes tend to be based on a life’s work; meanwhile, the Peace Prize has been struggling with its definition lately, rewarding a number of things that are only indirectly connecting to the core message. So now they’re trying to focus more on issues that directly create peace and end war right now - but then there’s a chance that it won’t work out long-term. The alternative would be to only award the resolutions of very old conflicts decades after the fact (as in the sciences), or exclude issues that indirectly affect global conflicts. All of which also violate the mission statement.
It’s not easy for the Nobel to be the prize that everyone wants it to be. It has to stay within the spirit of its founding document, which means move fast, but it also has to maintain credibility, which means move slow. It has to look for actual conflicts ended, but also conflicts prevented via unconvential means. I don’t envy them one bit.
Wow, I didn't knew the responsible for the massacres in Myanmar had a Nobel Prize. Truly ironic and sad at the same time.
Seems like kind of an over dramatization to say Aung San Suu Kyi is responsible for the massacres in Myanmar. Really, she is guilty of not speaking out against the military junta that had kept her on house arrest for years. It's not like she was issuing orders or anything.