The False Promise of the Nobel Peace Prize

Politicization is nothing new to the various Nobel prizes, the most distinguished of international awards. This is true even to some extent of those in the sciences, and it is obviously true of the award in literature. However, the Peace Prize is the most politicized of the awards, and it, more directly than the others, seeks to change the world through its very conferral. Recognizing those who have already succeeded in changing the world—that is, the criterion of accomplishment that guides the rest of the Nobel prizes—is secondary for the Peace Prize, as the Nobel Committee reminded us in 2009 in bestowing the award on President Barack Obama. Many naturally doubt that any award could have much impact even at the margins, let alone on enduring patterns, of international politics. Indeed, the award was early in its history, and more occasionally since, given to pacifists, and neither interstate nor intrastate conflict has been eliminated. The Nobel Committee itself has been careful to damp down extravagant expectations, usually arguing that the award works in more-subtle ways to advance the winnersʼ causes: by raising the profile of organizations and problems, by morally and politically bolstering the forces for peaceful conflict resolution, and by attracting international attention to repression and perhaps ultimately facilitating pressure for liberalization. Neither the skeptics nor the believers, however, are entirely correct. The consequences of the Nobel Peace Prize for the winners and their causes vary: sometimes, as skeptics expect, the Prize has little impact; occasionally, but