today at 10:47 AM
I 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.
today at 11:09 AM
> 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...
today at 11:35 AM
Machadoâs 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...
today at 12:56 PM
Wasnât that because their CMS had URLs that were easy to guess?
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1o51k61/upd...
today at 3:39 PM
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.
today at 5:02 PM
today at 4:38 PM
Good point. You could hack someone and just lurk and never do anything directly malicious that would make them notice your presence
today at 4:47 PM
There was an interesting interview on the OddLots podcast recently with people who are doing this. They were remarkably sophisticated.
today at 6:47 PM
Do you remember the podcast number or title? Curious to hear more about it
today at 4:53 PM
gambling - this is news?
today at 9:31 PM
Perception and financial market movement is interesting to a curious and educated mind.
You know where to head for the cat memes.
today at 1:55 PM
The prize in economics is even more different, "in memory of alfred nobel"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom...
today at 4:12 PM
Yes, it doesnât really have anything to do with the actual Nobels but the name.
today at 2:42 PM
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.
today at 2:42 PM
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.
today at 7:15 PM
I hope it gets banned by the next administration.
today at 5:37 PM
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
today at 6:22 PM
Pretty stupid prize to bet on considering the committee keeps even the nominees secret for 50 years.
today at 9:39 PM
It would be funny to have such a prize finance itself by doing this. Openly. Game theory working over time on that one.
today at 10:49 AM
[flagged]
today at 10:50 AM
Can you explain why this choice is offensive to you?
today at 10:54 AM
[flagged]
today at 11:01 AM
"7 October 2025 marked two years since the brutal attack by Palestinian militants that killed 1200 Israelis and foreigners in southern Israel"
Statement by Navi Pillay, 28 October 2025
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/statement-by-navi-pillay...
today at 11:21 AM
today at 10:58 AM
What was the report about?
today at 11:01 AM
[flagged]
today at 11:19 AM
If I'm doing a report on the corruption of the LAPD (as an example), I don't tend to bring up the organised crime in LA, let alone the Mafia in Milan.
A report on abuses committed by the IDF should focus on abuses committed by the IDF. There are many reports on the the war crimes of Hamas, and there are many reports on the war crimes of Russia.
You can't water down the behaviour of the IDF by claiming their actions were somehow justified by the actions of another group. That's how the cycle of aggression perpetuates, and how political agendas overrule human decency. That exact behaviour has some very bad connotations in world history.
today at 8:38 PM
[dead]
today at 11:04 AM
What's the name of the committee? I need to check it myself
today at 11:19 AM
It's linked in another comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50018795
today at 11:23 AM
The report where she acknowledges the massacre on the very first paragraph? OC should have read the damn thing before posting nonsense
today at 11:26 AM
Yes, that report. There's no nuance to the OC argument - just denial of facts.
The reactionary propaganda of it being "one sided" or not including "Russia in Ukraine" in a report about genocide in Gaza has been common since the report came out.
today at 11:21 AM
Why should a report about crimes committed by the IDF write about crimes committed by Russia or by Hamas? That's the most ridiculous attempt at whataboutism I've seen in a long time.
today at 11:01 AM
[flagged]
today at 11:00 AM
[flagged]
today at 11:03 AM
today at 11:14 AM
[dead]
today at 11:07 AM
[flagged]
today at 11:18 AM
Israel isnt an occupied nation
today at 11:40 AM
[flagged]
today at 11:22 AM
[flagged]
today at 11:40 AM
One wonders how you would have felt about the 1973 prize if you had been alive at the time.
today at 5:37 PM
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)
today at 5:57 PM
L'enfant terrible is having a moment.
today at 6:08 PM
So butthurt! Jimmy Kimmel's writers will come up with a hilarious epithet related to this, I just know it.
today at 9:35 PM
[dead]
today at 10:22 PM
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/
today at 10:31 PM
While there may be legitimate concern with her, Iâd rather read sources that arenât pro-Israel lobby groups.
today at 11:07 AM
Great to see that they're not afraid to stand up to the rising authoritarianism
today at 2:08 PM
And last year it went to someone praising Netanyahu on multiple occasions and tried very hard to kiss Trumpâs assâTrump even got gifted that frigging medal, which was a huge embarrassment for the committee a couple months back. Thatâs among a long list of extremely questionable recipients. Sure they may have selected the ârightâ recipient (to some) this year. But why even bother paying attention to a broken clock.
today at 6:05 PM
MarĂa 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.
today at 10:23 PM
She genuinely fcked that one tho. Despite having skin in the game, that was one big loosing move.
today at 8:24 PM
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.
today at 8:59 PM
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?
today at 9:21 PM
She also advocated for the USA to invade her country to depose Maduro. That alone should disqualify her from a Peace prize.
today at 9:21 PM
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.
today at 10:36 PM
Venezuela is America's bitch. As is much of South America with the honourable exceptions of Mexico and Cuba.
today at 9:37 PM
[dead]
today at 2:33 PM
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.
today at 3:47 PM
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...
today at 2:50 PM
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.
today at 7:29 PM
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.
today at 8:47 PM
I canât comment on the others, but this perspective doesnât really make Kissingerâs case any better. Even his co-winner thought it was ridiculous and refused the prize.
today at 5:48 PM
Many "hard science" Nobel prize recipients also turned out to be complete embarrassment of themselves... There is even a name for that. "Nobel disease".
today at 6:18 PM
These horrible Nobel Peace Prize recipients (and in some cases, Literature Prize recipients as well) are nothing like âNobel diseaseâ. Said recipient was praising the genocide perpetrator and war criminal (according to this yearâs 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 theyâre getting into, and time and time again itâs nothing more than a political endorsement of a specific kind of âpeaceââwell, if you consider inviting foreign invasion an act of peace. Actually itâs more like endorsement of a particular ideology, sometimes not even peaceful.
today at 1:31 PM
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).
today at 11:30 AM
The committee is independent from politics although some dictators may at times misunderstand that.
today at 1:01 PM
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 UtĂžya AS, and last the former Labour Party Foreign Affairs Secretary.
today at 12:03 PM
I find it hard to see how the committee can be genuinely independent of politics when its members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament.
today at 1:10 PM
Norway is one of the few countries in the world that has âfuck youâ 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. Thereâs hardly anything positive to gain from it for a representative.
today at 2:25 PM
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.
today at 1:33 PM
how does this imply that they can be disconnected from politics, some may argue on the contrary due to what you just stated.
today at 1:47 PM
It cannot be disconnected from politics. The other poster mentioned independence.
today at 1:42 PM
The only country that has "fuck you" anything is unfortunately the US.
today at 2:08 PM
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.
today at 5:24 PM
Let's be clear that this is just an opinion and ignores China for example.
today at 3:41 PM
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.
today at 4:17 PM
Good old Rooseveltâs âTalk softly and carry a big stickâ worked really well.
today at 6:30 PM
american hegemony has been on the decline for decades. flexing its military is a last ditch attempt to reverse course, itâs not the beginning of the decline. whether it works or not is up for debate and for the future to hold, but what isnât up for debate is that the soft power gig clearly wasnât working.
today at 5:43 PM
Alas, in US art and civic culture, "you" refers to those eligible to serve in the armed forces.
today at 1:01 PM
"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.
today at 11:45 AM
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.
today at 11:49 AM
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.
today at 12:22 PM
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.
today at 4:37 PM
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).
today at 5:06 PM
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."
today at 12:29 PM
today at 12:31 PM
Yeah, I guess they act independently from international courts.
today at 12:35 PM
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".
today at 1:00 PM
The Norwegian nobel prize committee. (Your post was heavily edited, if you think i missed some point.)
today at 1:21 PM
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.
today at 1:54 PM
Fine, i also prefer being able to edit my comments.
today at 3:03 PM
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 youâve thought about what you want to say properly?
today at 4:06 PM
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.
today at 12:28 PM
today at 1:51 PM
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.
today at 2:20 PM
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.
today at 2:28 PM
I think that's fair, and they only get as much importance and attention as we give them.
today at 1:17 PM
There's always FIFA to give out a prize if necessary.
today at 3:33 PM
I am actually curious who will win the FIFA peace prize next year? Or is it handled out annually?
today at 3:55 PM
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.
today at 11:59 AM
The committee is selected by the Norwegian parliament, a political body.
today at 12:02 PM
And there is a long history of allegations of additional political influence beyond that.
today at 2:19 PM
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.
today at 12:31 PM
today at 4:56 PM
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.
today at 2:37 PM
giving the prize to Obama was not political at all.
/s
today at 3:02 PM
It was political, quite possibly a mistake.
But it was most likely not requested by the Norwegian government.
today at 8:34 PM
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.
today at 6:28 PM
whatâs wrong with authoritarianism?
today at 6:37 PM
i think there are plenty of books written about the topic. Im not sure hacker news is the best place to get your answer.
today at 6:31 PM
It seems like both sides want it, but only one admits to wanting it.
today at 4:28 PM
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.
today at 9:40 PM
[dead]
today at 10:47 AM
Yay, congrats Navi! Thanks for contributing to international law!
today at 7:00 PM
What a courageous woman. There is so much suffering and horror involved. And Scandinavians aren't shy to set a statement.
today at 7:19 PM
and here you go
US unveils sanctions on ICC in move court condems as 'assault on rule of law'
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj20vkkx3rdvo
today at 7:11 PM
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.
today at 7:48 PM
>"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.
today at 8:39 PM
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?
today at 1:29 PM
I'll be amused to see how the administration reacts. Perhaps we'll end up having the Trump Prizes.
today at 2:36 PM
Apparently they just imposed sanctions on the ICC, not sure itâs related but itâs 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...
today at 4:25 PM
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.
today at 1:32 PM
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...
today at 3:24 PM
I donât 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 successionâŠ
today at 8:57 PM
Iâve had a look to see if they have a contact email as Iâd like to ask them about this years award. I canât find one.
today at 1:52 PM
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.
today at 6:28 PM
They went for the IvsP and chose a side, nothing interesting here.
today at 1:06 PM
> 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.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1991/kyi/facts/
today at 1:25 PM
Committee canât 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 didnât 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
today at 1:46 PM
> Committee canât 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.
today at 2:37 PM
You're just repeating yourself.
today at 3:58 PM
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?
today at 4:14 PM
Most people in the world are also not very powerful. Amongst the powerful people, how many eventually commit genocide ?
today at 7:09 PM
A small fraction.
today at 4:28 PM
[dead]
today at 1:57 PM
today at 6:16 PM
She didn't commit genocide.
After she won the Nobel Prize, the Burmese legislature banded together to give her the power to:âcontact 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?
today at 8:41 PM
Do you think asking them to stop a genocide is unreasonable?
But either way, she wasnât 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.
âIn 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 Rohingyaâ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi
today at 10:40 AM
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...
today at 11:26 AM
"The ICC poses an intolerable threat to U.S. sovereignty â it claims the authority to prosecute and even imprison American servicemen and officials operating on behalf of Americaâs national interest. Americans never signed up for this, and all American presidents since the ICCâs 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.
today at 11:41 AM
Yes, thatâs 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.
today at 12:25 PM
> 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".
today at 6:30 PM
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.
today at 9:56 PM
Whenever the ICC has moved close to scrutinizing the U.S. or its close allies, Washington has retaliated with severe consequences.
today at 11:53 AM
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.
today at 12:18 PM
>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...
today at 5:59 PM
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.
today at 6:10 PM
> 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 ânarco-terroristsâ since Sept. 2, 2025."
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/6132578-pentagon-drug-car...
today at 9:13 PM
It makes a change from drone strikes on Afghan weddings, which was a thing for a while.
today at 1:46 PM
Sanctioning ICC judges. They did nothing relevant to US citizens.
today at 6:38 PM
Maybe the purported drug boat bombings have escaped your attention?
today at 9:02 PM
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.
today at 7:04 PM
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.
today at 4:44 PM
I mentioned several examples of US sanctioned human rights organizations just in this comment thread. That's some US law applied to foreigners.
today at 12:22 PM
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.
today at 2:08 PM
Ever heard of extraordinary renditions?
today at 6:54 PM
> When has this ever happened?
when has it ever not?
> Maduro
(Not an american citizen btw)
> extradition
...
today at 3:28 PM
> 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)
today at 11:51 AM
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.
today at 12:05 PM
This would more persuasive if the US didnât have a long history of prosecuting, even kidnapping, foreign nationals on foreign soil for violations of US law.
today at 4:23 PM
Itâs 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.
today at 12:43 PM
> 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.
today at 12:20 PM
> 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.
today at 11:52 AM
So it should be no surprise to USA that sovereign countries that abide to ICC rulings take actions against individual USA citizens.
today at 12:17 PM
This isn't true, the US considers prosecution by the ICC as an act of war.
today at 4:29 PM
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.
today at 9:58 PM
Our Jimmy Saville moment.
How fun.
today at 6:34 PM
Sure. But donât come traveling here (Sweden) and tell us we canât submit you to the ICC.
today at 3:33 PM
> 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.
today at 5:21 PM
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.
today at 10:35 PM
> 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
today at 11:39 AM
[flagged]
today at 6:42 PM
Oh, thatâs true. But when you come to a foreign country, youâll have to recognise its laws. And if that country happens to have ratified the ICC, and the ICC has a warrant for you, well then youâre bound for trial.
Itâs the same rules you apply yourself, right?
today at 12:00 PM
Oh but others must recognize America's laws right? Oh the hypocrisy
today at 12:21 PM
Itâs not hypocrisy. Donât follow them. But when your interests conflict with ours, then we will exert our influence.
today at 1:21 PM
As Americas star continues to wane over the coming decades y'all are really going to regret this "might makes right" stance.
today at 2:17 PM
Not very worried about it. Im 100% sure we will be fine.
today at 2:51 PM
you might want to check your infant mortality rate...
today at 9:26 PM
Delusional, but expected.
today at 2:20 PM
It's not hypocrisy if your argument is that "might makes right", but if your argument is that the US has other principles, it is indeed hypocrisy.
And in that case, so much for "western ideals", if it's purely "America first, no ideals".
today at 12:56 PM
Sometimes self-interest leads to cooperation.
today at 2:17 PM
I agree with you.
today at 12:35 PM
No you will kidnap people, have them killed, silenced, accounts freeze, etc. It's not merely "exercising influence", it's coercion. It's exactly the case here, it's the US's prerogative not to follow the ICCs judgements, it's none of your fkn business what laws other countries have. If a US citizen is in another territory, it's that territory's law that count.
Your government also routinely ignores its own laws and judgements.
Hypocrisy at all the levels, and lying to try to still have the moral high ground.
today at 12:56 PM
Typical American hubris.
today at 12:59 PM
I wish more people understand this very clearly instead of hiding behind "democratic values" and other moral lectures.
today at 11:44 AM
doing a pretty shit job at that too tbh
today at 12:22 PM
[flagged]
today at 1:07 PM
The US is a colony of Israel.
today at 4:41 PM
This announcement has become an annual troll event for the lunatic in the office; I heard he was pretty pissed off this morning, although thatâs usually the case with him.
today at 5:03 PM
[dead]
today at 3:20 PM
[dead]
today at 12:55 PM
[dead]
today at 11:24 AM
[dead]
today at 1:33 PM
[flagged]
today at 1:44 PM
is there no israeli lobby in washington though? have you heard of AIPAC?
today at 2:00 PM
[dead]
today at 2:11 PM
[flagged]
today at 3:49 PM
Drop of light in a sea of darkness. I wasn't expecting seeing this in hn. This site is infected.
today at 5:01 PM
You're welcome to find a more suitable place to visit. Nobody is requiring your presence here, unless they are. Which is a different conversation.
today at 10:47 AM
[flagged]
today at 11:02 AM
You mean war criminals like Netanyahu?
today at 10:54 AM
Get out of the Israeli bubble please...
today at 10:59 AM
[flagged]
today at 11:03 AM
No, being in a bubble means being disconnected from the broader reality.
today at 11:20 AM
Not from my perspective. Being in bubble means your lacking experience and living a sheltered life. Reality is subjective to ones view.
today at 11:33 AM
> lacking experience and living a sheltered life.
Hence "Israeli Bubble", sheltered from the reality of their (government/army) actions, convinced to be the most moral army in the world.
> Reality is subjective to ones view.
Maybe your subjective reality, that's your thoughts and feelings. But there is an objective reality, like tens of thousands of children killed, the use of a starvation campaign in Gaza, all of Gaza City being turned to rubble which you can see for yourself on google maps satellite view, and many more such war crimes that have been factually proven.
today at 12:07 PM
I'm still confused how this has anything to do with a noble prize?
Secondly did you ever watch the aftermath of the U.S dropping atomic bombs on Japan? How many children were killed? How many innocent people suffered? Thats the "reality" of war.
today at 12:49 PM
Not the person you were conversing with, but: Sheesh, how dismissive of the tens of thousands of dead (both in Gaza and in Japan).
If you want to claim to be more civilized than Hamas and their cheerleaders, not being angry when "your side" doesn't take all effort to kill civilians is not how to do it.
Some in Palestine cheered when 7 October happened. Some cheered when 9/11 happened. If you ask them "how can you, those innocents died for no reason" and they replied "That's the 'reality' of war", how would you feel?
And if you consider them uncivilized barbarics for not caring, how do you view yourself? Ah yeah of course you're different, you're on the "right side", and for you "it's fine" (or "it's reality of war") when the "wrong" innocents die...
today at 1:26 PM
How am I being dismissive? I simply stated two things around the discussion of "bubble" and "reality". I made no opinion or view, rather I defined bubble and stated the reality of what war really is.
Nothing I said is about whats wrong or right. I simply pointed out historical facts. The same way the original comment I replied to.
Innocent people everyday are victims in a system they have absolutely no control over. Especially in cases of war and international affairs. None of these statements reflect any of my personal feelings or passing a judgement on any grouping of people.
today at 10:42 AM
[flagged]
today at 12:38 PM
[flagged]
today at 12:44 PM
> "At this point"
Of the original 5 Nobel prize categories, 2 were always not about science.
today at 1:26 PM
That's what I was thinking.
I'm a lifelong scientist but it should be obvious that the Peace Prize is supposed to be bigger than science.
today at 4:17 PM
Science and economics contributes to weapons. This prize was the odd ball to counter weapons with peace
today at 4:33 PM
yes, love is the answer to everything
today at 1:27 PM
yes ... but who is she? and what has she actually done?
for comparison, i knew nothing about margaret hamilton or bill draper before reading their obituaries on HN this month. it literally took a few sentences to understand what legends they were .. not just in their respective domains, but in terms of their broader impact on humanity ..
with this navi lady, i've scrolled through two pages of text and still don't have a clear picture of what she actually DID to deserve whatever greatness the Nobel seems to bestow upon her.
i mean, if you can't even explain to a layman, in plain english, what someone actually DID to earn a prize of this stature .. without resorting to a laundry list of causes and buzzwords ... then what exactly are we rewarding here ? Her kindness ? Decency ? Morality ? wtf
today at 1:43 PM
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.
today at 1:53 PM
emmmm .. but not understanding a fieled fully doesnt mean we cant expect a clear explanation of why someone deserves its highest honour ..
ps: im not a software guy
today at 7:06 PM
You didn't understand her accomplishments and merits so she doesn't deserve it. Oh my, maybe ask your favorite llm for an eli5 then?
today at 8:07 PM
i actually fired my sw devs thanks to llms .. so maybe your idea is not bad afterall ..
today at 9:47 PM
Dont forget to add "in really really simple terms" to your prompt.
today at 10:13 PM
today at 1:40 PM
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.
today at 1:42 PM
[flagged]
today at 2:02 PM
[dead]
today at 1:14 PM
I suggest looking at the original Nobel* awards before deriding "modern politics" as a boogyman
today at 12:44 PM
[flagged]
today at 11:40 AM
[flagged]
today at 11:54 AM
Yes, but what has that to do with this year's winner?
today at 1:20 PM
Everything. She hasn't contributed to world peace. She has not stopped wars, she has not prevented them, south africa is not more peaceful than it was before.
Just rename the award to whatever - being outstanding human, standing up for human rights or whatever.
If Putin decides to freeze or stop the war in Ukraine tomorrow he will contribute more to world peace objectively than last 10 of the winners combined. Should we give him award too?
today at 2:56 PM
What does the condition of South Africa have to do with her? She doesn't run it and never has.
Though South Africa is, since 1994, a peaceful neighbour that has worked steadfastly to end and prevent wars on the African continent. Unlike the situation during Apartheid.
today at 2:56 PM
[flagged]
today at 5:00 PM
Thanks for your laconic, unexplained virtue signal of a response.
today at 10:51 AM
[flagged]
today at 11:01 AM
It is, like many things, how much meaning you attach to it yourself. Apparently Donald T. thinks it's very important, he makes a lot of fuss about it.
Anyway, the NPP is one of the things that tries to push humanity on a broad scale in a better direction, and I'm grateful for that. It is important to at least speak out about injustice, and to celebrate those who do so, otherwise those injustices are never going to be fixed (I'm not even talking about punishing, although that should be done).
today at 12:53 PM
I get the sentiment, but if you hijack peoples attention by pretending "look we are civilized, we have humanitarian organizations" instead showing the ugly reality, this in my book is worse.
today at 2:47 PM
Fair enough, too many western countries including my government keep supporting countries perpetrating war crimes/genocide (often ignoring popular sentiment btw).
And luckily we have journalism prizes as well, often for people showing the ugly reality.
today at 12:18 PM
Don't tell me that you think there's genocide in gaza?
today at 12:42 PM
Look at any recent pictures. Gaza was basically nuked
today at 1:20 PM
hamas tunnels under everything. /s
today at 12:51 PM
I would describe it more of a massacre/war crimes, you can't compare it to something like the East Timur genocide, that said it is going on for a long time.
today at 3:51 PM
[flagged]
today at 10:49 AM
A clear FU to the Cheeto, love it
today at 6:50 PM
Has she openly opposed Trump? I don't recognize the name, and the linked article is pretty vague.
today at 3:14 PM
next year it should go to a heckin pupper!
today at 2:29 PM
[flagged]
today at 5:11 PM
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.
today at 11:52 AM
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.
today at 12:03 PM
Which maybe is ok? Itâs not a âmost perfect personâ prize, itâs a âdid the most to advance peaceâ 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?
today at 1:22 PM
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
today at 12:08 PM
[dead]
today at 1:08 PM
The problem with the Peace Prize in general, or this time? It's not entirely clear to me what you're trying to say.
today at 6:43 PM
In general