The short version
- Betting markets currently favor Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, but analysts argue these candidates conflict with the Nobel committee's historical standards.
- Experts highlight international courts, humanitarian organizations, and press freedom groups as more aligned with the prize's focus on institutional cooperation.
- The rising number of global conflicts in 2025 underscores the need to recognize entities that uphold international law and protect civilians.
The upcoming announcement of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize has sparked a divergence between public speculation and expert analysis regarding who truly merits the honor. While betting markets heavily favor high-profile political figures such as US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, specialists in conflict resolution argue that these candidates overlook the fundamental purpose of the award. The prize is designed to recognize sustained efforts toward peace through institutions and cooperation rather than diplomatic visibility or national leadership during active warfare.
Critics of the market favorites point out significant disqualifying factors for both leaders. President Trump faces scrutiny due to ongoing military engagements involving Iran, which contradicts the goal of advancing peace. Furthermore, allegations regarding US conduct in these conflicts present a substantial barrier to recognition by a committee that evaluates the totality of a candidate’s record. Similarly, awarding the prize to President Zelenskyy, as the commander-in-chief of a nation engaged in major combat operations, risks transforming the award into an endorsement of one side in a conflict. This would run counter to Alfred Nobel’s original intent to promote fraternity between nations and reduce standing armies.
Beyond these political figures, other contenders identified by betting platforms include Save the Children, Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms, and the International Court of Justice. These entities collectively hold a significant probability of winning according to market data. However, experts suggest that even this list may not fully capture the breadth of deserving peacebuilders. The focus should remain on organizations and bodies that work quietly to establish legal frameworks, protect vulnerable populations, and maintain international stability despite escalating global tensions.
The backdrop for this year’s selection is particularly grim. Recent data indicates that 2025 saw 65 state-based armed conflicts, marking the highest number recorded since tracking began in 1946. The continuation of wars in Ukraine and Sudan, alongside new hostilities involving Iran, has created an unstable international landscape. In this context, the argument for awarding the prize becomes stronger rather than weaker. Recognizing those who uphold order amidst chaos serves as a vital reminder that peace is constructed through deliberate institutional effort rather than achieved by chance or singular diplomatic breakthroughs.
Among the most compelling candidates are the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. These bodies enforce the principle that international law applies universally, even to powerful actors. At a time when some governments impose sanctions on ICC officials, honoring these courts would reinforce the importance of a rules-based global order. The enforcement of legal norms is essential for long-term stability, and recognizing these institutions would signal a commitment to accountability over impunity.
Journalistic integrity also plays a crucial role in maintaining peace by documenting atrocities and holding power to account. In 2025, the Committee to Protect Journalists recorded 132 deaths among journalists and media workers, the deadliest year in its history. A significant portion of these fatalities was attributed to actions by Israeli forces. Honoring press freedom organizations would acknowledge the dangerous work required to establish facts in war zones, which is a prerequisite for both accountability and eventual reconciliation.
Humanitarian efforts focused on civilian protection, particularly children, represent another critical area of peacebuilding. Organizations like Save the Children operate globally to prevent violations against minors in conflict zones. Specific initiatives, such as those led by Mykola Kuleba’s Save Ukraine, have facilitated the return of thousands of children from occupied territories. In Sudan, community-led networks known as Emergency Response Rooms provide essential food and medical services amidst widespread destruction. These grassroots efforts sustain life and dignity where state structures have collapsed.
International cooperation in non-political spheres also deserves recognition. The International Space Station stands as a testament to sustained peaceful collaboration among geopolitical rivals for over two decades. As the station nears the end of its operational life and space becomes increasingly commercialized and militarized, honoring this partnership would highlight the value of common rules and scientific diplomacy. It serves as a model for how nations can maintain constructive relationships even when terrestrial relations deteriorate.
Ultimately, the Nobel Peace Prize offers an opportunity to redefine what constitutes peace in the modern era. It is not merely the absence of war but the presence of robust institutions, legal accountability, and humanitarian protection. By looking beyond famous names and toward the structural foundations of global stability, the committee can affirm that peace is a deliberate construction requiring continuous effort from courts, journalists, aid workers, and cooperative ventures alike.
As the October 9 announcement date approaches, the debate underscores a broader tension between popular perception and institutional values. While public interest gravitates toward charismatic leaders and dramatic diplomatic events, the reality of peacebuilding lies in the steady, often unglamorous work of upholding law, protecting the vulnerable, and maintaining channels of cooperation. The choice of laureate will signal whether the prize remains a celebration of fame or a reinforcement of the systems that keep global conflict at bay.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian US↗Forget the famous names. Here is who actually deserves this year’s Nobel peace prize | Haakon Gjerløw
