Since its inception in 1901, the Nobel Peace Prize has stood as the world’s most prestigious recognition for those who have dedicated themselves to the cause of peace. Established by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish inventor and industrialist, the prize was conceived alongside four others—Chemistry, Physics, Medicine, and Literature—as a means to honor those who, in Nobel’s own words, “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.” Over the years, the Peace Prize has become a symbol of hope, a testament to human resilience, and, at times, a lightning rod for controversy.
The process of selecting a Nobel Peace Prize laureate is both rigorous and steeped in tradition. According to The Island, the recipient is chosen by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a five-member body appointed by the Parliament of Norway. Since 1990, the award ceremony has taken place in the grand halls of Oslo City Hall, having previously been hosted at the University of Oslo, the Norwegian Nobel Institute, and the Parliament itself. The ceremony is a highlight on the global calendar, drawing dignitaries, journalists, and peace advocates from around the world.
Yet, as celebrated as the Nobel Peace Prize is, it has not been immune to criticism or political controversy. Some of its most debated decisions have left lasting marks on the public consciousness. Take, for instance, the awarding of the prize to Henry Kissinger for his role in ending the Vietnam War—a conflict he was deeply involved in perpetuating, allegedly in part to aid President Richard Nixon’s re-election campaign. More recently, the selection of President Barack Obama as a laureate sparked debate, given that his tenure saw both the elimination of Al Qaeda’s leadership and the continuation of American military operations abroad. These choices, as The Island notes, have led observers to question whether the committee’s decisions are sometimes influenced by political considerations rather than purely by the pursuit of peace.
One persistent criticism revolves around the absence of Indian figures among the laureates. Despite the monumental efforts of leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi—whose hunger strikes and peace missions helped quell communal violence in India—neither has received the Nobel Peace Prize. The omission of Gandhi, in particular, is often attributed to political antipathy, notably from figures like Winston Churchill, who famously derided Gandhi as “the half naked fakir who dared to climb the steps to the Viceroy’s palace in New Delhi.” While Lord Louis Mountbatten and his wife reportedly admired Gandhi, this was not enough to sway the Nobel Committee.
The evolving face of the Nobel Peace Prize is perhaps best illustrated by its increasing recognition of women’s contributions to peace. Since 1990, twelve women have been awarded the prize, a significant leap forward in an arena long dominated by men. The roster of female laureates reads like a who’s who of global activism: Marie Curie (1911), Mother Teresa (1979), Aung San Suu Kyi (1991), Wangari Maathai (2004), Malala Yousafzai (2014), Maria Ressa (2021), Narges Mohammed (2023), and, in 2025, a Venezuelan woman whose recognition marks a new chapter in the prize’s history. Bertha von Suttner, the first female recipient in 1905, set the standard for generations to come with her powerful antiwar writings and unwavering pacifism.
The pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize has, at times, taken on a life of its own—especially among political leaders eager for international validation. In 2025, former U.S. President Donald Trump made no secret of his ambition to join the ranks of Nobel laureates. Trump claimed credit for brokering peace in numerous conflicts and even suggested that his tariff policies were instrumental in global diplomacy. According to The Island, Trump’s efforts were widely perceived as self-aggrandizing; he reportedly believed that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s lack of support was a personal slight, prompting retaliatory tariffs.
The media response to Trump’s campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize was, to put it mildly, unsparing. As columnist Maureen Dowd wrote in The Guardian, “One piece of gold President Trump is never going to get his short, stubby fingers on: an 18 carat gold medal with three naked men embracing, awarded to those who promote peace, democracy and human rights. But the prize was not designed for someone like Trump. The Norwegian Nobel Committee would no doubt have discontinued the prize rather than award it a person like him.” Dowd went on to suggest that Trump’s longing for the prize was fueled, at least in part, by jealousy of Barack Obama, who received the Nobel Peace Prize after only eight months in office—a move that itself was met with skepticism. Trump, Dowd wrote, even envied Obama’s “airily” graceful descents from Air Force One, contrasting them with his own more cautious steps.
Such candid commentary underscores the degree to which the Nobel Peace Prize remains intertwined with the world’s political dramas. The prize’s history is replete with stories of ambition, rivalry, and the sometimes uneasy intersection of idealism and realpolitik. Yet, for all the debate and dissent, the Nobel Peace Prize continues to serve as a beacon—an aspiration for those who seek to mend the world’s divisions and advance the cause of peace.
The significance of the Nobel Peace Prize extends beyond the individuals who receive it. As The Island points out, the prize has become a symbol of the global community’s highest ideals. Its recipients are not merely honored for their past achievements; they are entrusted with the responsibility of inspiring others to work for a more just and peaceful world. The stories of laureates like Malala Yousafzai, who survived an assassination attempt to champion girls’ education, or Mother Teresa, whose life’s work redefined compassion, serve as powerful reminders of what can be accomplished through courage and conviction.
In recent years, the Nobel Peace Prize has also reflected the changing landscape of global activism. The recognition of journalists like Maria Ressa, who has fought for press freedom in the Philippines, and Narges Mohammed, whose advocacy in Iran has brought attention to women’s rights, signals a broader understanding of what constitutes a meaningful contribution to peace. The inclusion of a Venezuelan woman among the 2025 laureates further highlights the committee’s willingness to spotlight new regions and emerging voices.
Despite its challenges and controversies, the Nobel Peace Prize endures as a testament to humanity’s ongoing quest for harmony. Its legacy is not defined solely by its most celebrated or contentious moments, but by the enduring hope it represents—the belief that, even in a world riven by conflict and ambition, the pursuit of peace remains a cause worthy of the world’s highest honor.