What are the key criteria used by the Nobel Committee to evaluate peace prize nominees?
Executive summary
The Nobel Committee evaluates Peace Prize candidates against the language of Alfred Nobel’s 1895 will — chiefly “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” — and applies that through nomination rules, expert assessment and internal deliberation [1] [2]. The committee’s public statements on the 2025 award say the laureate “meets all three criteria” of Nobel’s will and underline that nominations are scrutinized, shortlisted, assessed by advisers/experts, and finally decided by majority vote of the five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee [3] [4] [2].
1. The founding test: Alfred Nobel’s will is the legal and rhetorical lodestar
All official descriptions and reporting point to Nobel’s will as the core criterion: the prize should go to the person or organization “who has done the most or best” to advance international fraternity, reduce standing armies, or promote peace congresses — language the committee repeatedly cites when explaining choices [1] [2]. In 2025 the committee explicitly invoked those three provisions when announcing the laureate, saying she “meets all three criteria stated in Alfred Nobel’s will” [3].
2. Who can be considered: nomination rules shape the candidate pool
Eligibility and valid nomination procedures are practical gatekeepers for what the committee can evaluate. All living persons and active organizations are, in principle, eligible, but nominations must come from authorized nominators and arrive by the January 31 deadline to be considered; the Norwegian Nobel Institute registered 338 candidates for 2025 under those rules [5] [6]. The nomination rule therefore functions as a preliminary filter on whom the Committee may lawfully assess [5].
3. How the Committee actually evaluates: shortlist, experts, advisers
Multiple descriptions of the process show the committee reduces the long list to a shortlist and assesses candidates with help from permanent advisers and external experts; the Committee seeks to “reduce and reduce” before deciding [4] [6]. Reuters and specialist reporting confirm the Committee’s monthly deliberations culminate in an early-October vote that is final and without appeal [1] [2].
4. The decision rule: internal deliberation and majority vote
The Norwegian Nobel Committee — five members appointed by Norway’s parliament — makes the final call. They aim for consensus but ultimately decide by majority vote; their choice is final and not subject to outside review [2]. Press accounts and the Nobel body itself repeatedly emphasize this concentrated decision-making power [2] [6].
5. Interpretive flexibility and criticism: no rigid checklist
Despite formal anchors, observers note there are “no specific criteria” beyond Nobel’s will and that interpretation has evolved, generating controversy over politicization and the Committee’s application of the will [7] [8]. Media and academic commentary argue the prize sometimes rewards aspiration as much as concrete achievement and that the Committee’s discretion invites political impact and dispute [8] [7].
6. Evidence from the 2025 award: application of criteria in practice
When awarding the 2025 prize the Committee framed its choice as meeting the three will-based criteria and highlighted actions such as resisting militarisation and uniting opposition — concrete elements the Committee sees as advancing fraternity and peaceful democratic transition [3] [9]. That public justification illustrates how the Committee maps Nobel’s broad clauses to contemporary political acts [3].
7. Limits of available reporting and unanswered questions
Available sources describe the legal-text criteria, nomination mechanics, use of experts, and the Committee’s voting practice, but they do not publish a granular scoring rubric or a full record of how individual committee members weighed evidence in any year; nomination lists are sealed for 50 years [5] [2]. Therefore, specifics about internal weighting, the relative influence of outside experts, or detailed comparative assessments among shortlisted candidates are not found in current reporting [5] [2].
8. Competing perspectives: legitimacy vs. politicization
Official sources present a legalistic, deliberative process tied to Nobel’s will [2] [3]. Independent commentators and historians add a competing view: the Prize is inevitably political and opaque critics argue for clearer, more consistent criteria or more diverse committee composition — criticisms documented in reporting and historical analysis [8] [10]. Both perspectives are present in the available record and bear on how observers interpret any given award.
Bottom line: the Committee evaluates nominees by mapping Alfred Nobel’s will onto modern circumstances, using nomination rules, expert assessments and internal deliberation to produce a final majority vote — but the exact internal calculus remains confidential, and outside observers dispute whether the Committee applies Nobel’s language consistently or politically. [1] [5] [4] [2] [8]