A Peace Prize Nobel would have liked
This comment by CMI senior researcher Arne Strand was first published in Panorama Nyheter. It has been translated from Norwegian to English using Chat GPT and has been quality assured by Arne Strand.
This year’s Peace Prize is true to Alfred Nobel’s will and reminds us that democracy is a prerequisite for lasting peace.
The award to Venezuelan María Corina Machado was unexpected, yet it stands in a long tradition of prizes honoring individuals with deep commitments to peace and the courage to risk their own lives.
This is the first time the Peace Prize has gone to a woman from South America.
More broadly, the prize addresses many of the challenges our conflict-ridden world faces today while also raising debate about acceptable means in the pursuit of peace.
More conflict and a weakened international order
The world has grown less peaceful in recent years, a development that in itself challenges the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize.
According to PRIO, 2024 saw the highest number of state-based conflicts since 1946, and was the fourth most violent year since the end of the Cold War.
Ukraine and Gaza exemplify systematic and sustained violations of national sovereignty and, not least, international law. There is also little doubt that democracy as a form of governance is in retreat, while autocracies, largely ruled by older men, are on the rise.
Multilateral cooperation has been deprioritised and is under attack. The United Nations plays an increasingly limited role as a shared arena for dialogue and conflict resolution.
Peace agreements that once emphasised broad inclusion and long-term conflict resolution, such as the process in Colombia, have been replaced by short-term deals that prioritise merely ending military activity. As a result, civil society, women’s organisations, and rights-based actors are losing space and influence.
In short: securing peace has never been more important, yet the space for negotiating peace has decreased.
Nobel’s will and its interpretation
According to Alfred Nobel’s 1896 will, the Peace Prize should be awarded those who “have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
Since its establishment, the prize has been awarded 105 times to 139 recipients: 92 men, 19 women, and 28 organisations.
The interpretation and emphasis of the will have evolved over time. Since World War II, according to the Nobel Institute, the prizes can be grouped into four main areas:
- Arms control and disarmament
- Peace mediation
- Democracy and human rights
- Efforts toward a better organised and more peaceful world
In recent years, work addressing environmental threats and human-induced climate change has also been added to this list.
Our time
A closer look at the laureates of the past 25 years reveals both the committee’s priorities and how they have shifted. Two trends stand out: more women have received the prize than before, and more prizes have been shared between multiple recipients.
Over time, arms control and disarmament have remained consistent priorities. Four prizes have been awarded for contributions to the elimination or regulation of nuclear and chemical weapons, the most recent in 2024.
In the field of peace mediation, six prizes have gone to former or sitting presidents and prime ministers. The most recent was awarded to Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed in 2019. That award, like the 2009 prize to U.S. President Barack Obama, was met with strong criticism.
Critics argued that these prizes were based more on hope than achievement. In contrast, awards to Kim Dae-jung, Jimmy Carter, Martti Ahtisaari, and Juan Manuel Santos appear more closely aligned with Nobel’s intent.
Most of the recent prizes, eleven in total, and a majority since 2011, have gone to individuals and organisations working for pluralistic democracy, human rights, women’s rights, freedom of expression, and the strengthening of civil society.
These include efforts to secure the right to education, protect against sexual violence, ensure women’s participation in peace processes, defend press freedom, and promote economic and social rights.
The prizes for freedom of expression awarded to Liu Xiaobo (China, 2011) and Narges Mohammadi (Iran, 2023) were poorly received by their governments; the former even led to political and economic repercussions for Norway.
The final category includes awards to multilateral institutions. The 2001 prize was shared between the UN and its Secretary-General; in 2007, between the UN’s climate panel and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore; in 2020, it went to the World Food Programme; and in 2012, to the European Union.
The prize’s relevance
All four thematic areas have been represented over the past 25 years, but there has been a growing emphasis on democracy, human rights, and freedom of expression, often with an implicit critique of state systems.
The prizes to Xiaobo in 2011 and Mohammadi in 2023 carried an unmistakable critical edge. Both were imprisoned at the time. Similarly, the 2020 and 2021 prizes implicitly criticised the shrinking space for media and free speech in Russia and Belarus.
In that sense, the Peace Prize has grown sharper in tone in recent years, with greater consequences for those who receive it.
Prizes for arms control and disarmament have also contained implicit criticism of both the U.S. and Russia for their failure to uphold international agreements. This theme may gain renewed relevance as disarmament treaties come up for renegotiation.
The “goodwill” prizes, such as those to Abiy Ahmed and Obama, did not yield the expected results and may have overestimated the Nobel Prize’s power to foster peace. It is likely the committee has learned from that.
The prizes to the UN and EU have long served as steady reminders of the value of “a better organized world” and were once largely uncontroversial. That is no longer the case.
Many are now critical of the Security Council’s lack of effectiveness, and there is broad recognition of the need for comprehensive reform. Yet former President Trump’s attacks on, and U.S. withdrawal from, UN agencies and processes have further undermined the multilateral system.
As a result, organisations that can safeguard a more cooperative world have become even more relevant candidates for the Peace Prize.
The 2025 Peace Prize
The core message of this year’s Peace Prize is that defending democracy is essential to lasting peace, a principle also embedded in the UN’s mandate.
That it goes to a woman provides an important contrast and commentary on today’s many male-dominated autocracies (and those moving in that direction), while also highlighting the indispensable role of women and civil society in peacebuilding.
In relation to Nobel’s will and its interpretation, this year’s award emphasizes peace through mediation, but above all, it underlines that peace must rest on democratic and participatory governance that protects human rights.
The prize is therefore highly relevant to our time - a timely correction to an increasingly conflict-prone and authoritarian world. It does not attempt to provide a blueprint for peace, but instead shines a light on one person that has dared to challenge an authoritarian and repressive regime. One can only hope the prize also helps protect her.
Laureate María Corina Machado is not without controversy. She has supported sanctions against Venezuela, endorsed U.S. military strikes on ships in international waters, and been critical of Norwegian peace initiatives. These are valuable debates to engage in - there are no easy answers to how peace can be built.
The views expressed in this text are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of CMI.