Right! Either scrap it, or award it only to (A) those recently deceased who have devoted their lives to making peace, or (B) defunct organizations who have completed their mission and had operated in the interests of peace.
Giving a "peace" award to living people/organizations -- who can and do go on to sully the award with most unpeaceful deeds -- is a proven failure.
Right! Either scrap it, or award it only to (A) those recently deceased who have devoted their lives to making peace, or (B) defunct organizations who have completed their mission and had operated in the interests of peace.
The legal trust for all the Nobel Prizes state (AIUI) that they can only be awarded to living persons.
The only option would be to not award it (like happened in 1948).
Comments
Right! Either scrap it, or award it only to (A) those recently deceased who have devoted their lives to making peace, or (B) defunct organizations who have completed their mission and had operated in the interests of peace.
Giving a "peace" award to living people/organizations -- who can and do go on to sully the award with most unpeaceful deeds -- is a proven failure.
The thing is, they don't "need" to do anything.
This is the prize.
If people find it irrelevant it will become irrelevant.
The committee didn't ask for the US president to put so much relevance into it.
He got the FIFA peace prize. It would be better if he valued that prize higher.
You have to ask yourself. Why is it important for you that they change?
The legal trust for all the Nobel Prizes state (AIUI) that they can only be awarded to living persons.
The only option would be to not award it (like happened in 1948).
Can the Nobel Foundation change their rules? Or is static, forever set in stone? In a complex world, you need to be able to adapt.