Evidences of Case Norwegian Nobel Committee


Case 26-2017: Norwegian Nobel Committee


By Master Yan Maitri-Shi, Prosecutor



After Legitimating and Validating Evidences and Charges by Master Maitreya, President and Spiritual Judge of IBEC-BTHR, it is addressed the case against the accused party, NORWEGIAN NOBEL COMMITTEE. This investigation was initiated from a Legal Opinion on Aung San Suu Kyi (Nobel Peace Prize) and also from a Judgment against United Nations.

The Charges by which the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights is accusing NORWEGIAN NOBEL COMMITTEE are enumerated below:



Therefore, it is detailed a series of EVIDENCES that support the Charges referred so that the Jury members decide about the possible “Responsibility”, “Innocence” or “Insanity” of the accused. Such evidence come from graphic and audiovisual media that have been gathered, sorted and confirmed in their order and context as Means of Proof in order to know, establish, dictate and determine the Responsibility of the Accused for committing the aforementioned Charges.

The procedure established in the Statute of INTERNATIONAL BUDDHIST ETHICS  COMMITTEE & BUDDHIST TRIBUNAL ON HUMAN RIGHTS provides both bodies the ostentation to enjoy independence and liberty from state and national regulation and control, besides having the legality and acting as a Buddhist People in order to assert its customs, traditions, practices, procedures, judgments and rights as well as acting in pursuit of the development of Spirituality, of Buddhist Ethics, and of the defense of International Human Rights. This procedure has the particularity, singularity and distinction of having “Special Jurisdiction of the Tribal Law” and “Universal Jurisdiction of the International Law”, thus having the Character, Juridical validity, Legal Powers, infrastructure, Training and Capability necessary to be Actor, Administrator and Executor of Justice in this realm and exercise, by judging of the Accused by means of an Ethical Judgment whose Purpose is Truth, Reconciliation and Learning.-





EVIDENCE 3: NOBEL PEACE PRIZE TO US GOVERNMENT (President Woodrow Wilson, Secretary Cordell Hull, Secretary Henry Kissinger, President Carter and President Obama)




EVIDENCE 7: BETRAYAL the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize

EVIDENCE 8: Grave Embezzlement






Overview of the Case

Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights: The Nobel Peace Prize is the most important Award in the world during the last 110 years. However, in the recent decades, this Award has been corrupted, since heads of militarized States have been rewarded with Peace Prizes, betraying the will of Alfred Nobel. Our investigation reveals that the Committee which delivers the Peace Awards has come under political and economical pressures, ignoring the legal requirements of the Peace Prize by promoting its own personal interests instead of the humanitarian view that Alfred Nobel had.



Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights: Aung San Suu Kyi is the de facto President of Myanmar. This government has been founded Responsible of Genocide, Ethnic Cleansing and Crimes against Humanity. Since Aung San Suu Kyi has received a Nobel Peace Prize, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights has requested the Norwegian Nobel Committee the cancelation of this Prize. However, they have not reply to this international legal request yet.



Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights: The United Nations (U.N.) and the Peacekeeping Forces has been founded Responsible of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, War crimes, Corruption, Violations of the International Human Rights Law, and High Crimes against World Peace. However, they have received a Nobel Peace Prize by the Norwegian Nobel Committee.


EVIDENCE 3: NOBEL PEACE PRIZE TO US GOVERNMENT (President Woodrow Wilson, Secretary Cordell Hull, Secretary Henry Kissinger, President Carter and President Obama)

Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights: The Nobel Peace Prize has awarded to President Woodrow Wilson, who was racist against black-Americans and also signed bills making sterilization compulsory for criminals and mentally ill people. The Nobel Peace Prize has awarded to Secretary Cordell Hull, who during the Second World War denied asylum to Jewish refugees, who returned to the Nazi government of Germany. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has delivered a Nobel Peace Prize to Secretary Henry Kissinger, who has participated in War Crimes during the war against Vietnam. The Nobel Peace Prize has been granted to President Carter, delivering the prize during the War Crimes of the former USA President George W. Bush in Afghanistan. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has delivered a Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, who has performed bombing in several countries, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen.

Timothy Alexander Guzman: “The Félix Houphouët-Boigny Peace Prize in 1994 and the Nobel Prize in 2002 were both awarded to former US President Jimmy Carter.  Carter supported the dictatorship of the Shah of Iran and The Somoza dictatorship of Nicaragua.  He also supported Indonesia’s Suharto militarily and diplomatically during the invasion and occupation of East Timor.  Under President Carter, US Military Aid to Suharto’s Military increased under Carter causing the deaths of over 200, 000 East Timorese.  UNESCO’s Félix Houphouët-Boigny Peace Prize and the Nobel Peace Prize are in fact an insult to “World Peace”.  UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and the Nobel Peace Prize have both proved that “Western political influence” dominate both prizes.”[1]

Amy Goodman: “Sunday’s march against the European Union came three years after thousands of protesters filled the streets here in Oslo opposing the 2009 peace prize winner, President Obama, who received the award at a time he was overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has faced criticism over its secrecy and selections, perhaps most notably in 1973, when Henry Kissinger won the award. (…) Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize, famous as the national security adviser, then secretary of state for President Nixon, very well known for Vietnam War in which, what, 55,000 U.S. soldiers, millions of Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese died; supported the dirty war in Argentina against the people. (…) President Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger met with Suharto the long-reigning dictator, and gave the approval for the invasion of Timor.”[2]

Fredrik Heffermehl: “I mean, this prize is probably the most scandalous ever, but it created huge discussion and criticism afterwards. But I think the prize for Obama—he gave the probably most eloquent and brilliant speech that has been held on Norwegian soil when he accepted the peace prize, but I have analyzed his statements and his arguments, and I think they are disgusting, and they are a defense of American interventionism and aggressive wars everywhere and whenever they like.  I think there has not in the history of the Nobel Peace Prize been a worse affront to the memory of Alfred Nobel than the speech that Obama held. (…) There is an alternative to military control of people. I mean, really, this is in the interest of people all over the world in throwing off the yoke of militarism, or what you call the burden of militarism, and organize a much better world for everyone. (…) The peace prize shall go to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for brotherhood between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.  And what the committee has been doing is to say that this—they have not been concerned with the aspirations of the will at all. They have said, This is a peace prize, and we’ll give it for anything we think is useful for peace. That means, in practice, the Norwegian parliament has taken over the money entrusted by Nobel for this purpose of a disarmed world and used it for whatever they like. And they are then—of course, since they are very devoted to the NATO alliance and to the United States’ foreign policy and wants, so the prize has come to serve the exact opposite of what it was intended to serve. This is very unpopular in Norway, to really—nobody wants to address the truth about the purpose of the peace prize, which is to support the work for breaking the military tradition and creating a global peace or demilitarized global peace order. It’s a very radical idea. But it is, of course, very far from that which is cultivated by the political establishment of Norway and of the U.S. and of the European Union nations, for instance. That is the problem with the prize for 2012 for the European Union, that nowhere in their policy and programs can you find any mention of working for a global—demilitarized global order, peace  order—nowhere. And you find the exact opposite, that they are promoting arms research, production and development and trade, and they are developing a European army, European rapid deployment forces, battle groups, etc., etc. So, they have a program which is the exact opposite of the purpose of the prize.” [3]



Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights: The Norwegian Nobel Committee has awarded the European Union with  a Nobel Peace Prize. However, European Union has been involved in the war activities of the NATO and also in selling arms to conflict zones. For this reason, other Nobel Peace winners (like Archbishop Desmond Tutu) have protested about this Prize for the European Union. Moreover, the European Union has recently rejected thousands of refugees, which is a crime against humanity.

Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party: “I think it devalues the whole concept of the Nobel Peace Prize (…) What’s really happening is the EU’s having its worst year ever and it’s got its mates in the international community coming to its aid.” “This goes to show that the Norwegians really do have a sense of humour. The EU may be getting the booby prize for peace because it sure hasn’t created prosperity. The EU has created poverty and unemployment for millions.”

Martin Callanan, the British Conservative frontman: “The Nobel Peace Prize was devalued when it was given to newly-elected Barack Obama. By giving the prize to the EU the Nobel committee has undermined the excellent work of the other deserving winners of this prize.”

Elsa-Britt Enger, 70, a representative of Grandmothers for Peace: “Alfred Nobel said that the prize should be given to those who worked for disarmament, (…) The EU doesn’t do that. It is one of the biggest weapons producers in the world.”

Tariq Ali, political commentator and editor at the New Left Review in Europe: “The Nobel Committee never fails to amuse and dissapoint”

Petros Constantinou, a municipal councilor in Greece who runs a prominent anti-racism group in Athens: “ridiculous and provocative. (…) “To give the prize to an institution of war and racism is ridiculous, (…) It provokes democratic and anti-racist sentiment. With its partner NATO, the EU has invaded countries in the Middle East, not to mention Afghanistan. Its actions have created huge streams of refugees which then flood into countries like Greece and when they get here they not only encounter racism but hostile EU [border] agencies like Frontex.”

Stavros Polychronopoulos, retired lawyer: “I think it’s unfair,” “The leader of the E.U. is Germany, which is in an economic war with southern Europe,” “I consider this war equal to a real war. They don’t help peace.”

Wolfgang Grenz, General Secretary of Amnesty International Germany: “Europe’s sealing-off policy is partly responsible for the deaths of (refugees) human beings in the Mediterranean Sea” (…) “And after they’re caught in the Mediterranean in theory they would have to get access to the asylum proceedings in a member state of the European Union. But very often, that doesn’t happen” (…) “The Romany don’t have the same access to our system of education, to the health system, to accommodation, to the labor market like other citizens.” “That’s a very sensitive spot, where the EU has to do a lot more in the future.”

Dimitris Kodelas, Greek lawmaker: “When we heard that the Nobel Prize for peace will be given to the European Union, we first thought it was a joke, especially because this comes in days when mainly the peoples of South Europe are living with the results of a financial war, and their countries are turning to colonies of debt with deprived citizens and looted national wealth. (…) One-third of the society in Greece is below or at the edge of poverty. Is it ever possible that the initiators of this situation are given awards? (…) Mrs. Merkel is going to receive the prize. Instead of peace prize, she should be awarded the prize of neoliberal fundamentalism. ”

Hedda Langemyr, director of the Norwegian Peace Council: “The EU is a consolidation of strong powers and strong national powers. And it’s more difficult to divide between the member state actions and the EU as an institutional force. But I think both in our press releases and also in our presentations today, we’ve made it very clear that it is not only the member states that do export weapons, and it’s not only the one —member states facilitating the weapon industry, but it’s also EU on an institutional level. And that is the main reason, at least I’m here today, to contradict this prize.”  “I was very surprised. And I was surprised because not long ago we also had a strong negative reaction to the prize in 2009, when Obama received it. Last year, when it was given to Tawakkul Karman and Gbowee and Sirleaf Johnson, we, maybe naively, hoped that the Nobel Committee was on better thoughts and had better intentions for the prize. However, it was—it was a big disappointment for us, because we believe that this year’s prize contradicts with Nobel’s will and the intentions for the prize. (…) They haven’t done that much for peace the last year, and they are actively facilitating armament, processes which contradict with the disarmament component in Nobel’s will. (…) the member states of the EU, they have had an enormous increase in the weapon industry. This goes for Turkey. It goes for—well, particularly, it goes for Germany. The EU member countries also represent about one-third of the global arms export in the world. And there are nuclear weapons placed in five different EU countries. What the EU as an institution does to facilitate this is through something called the ICT Directive that was introduced this year. So the year they’re receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, they are launching a directive that facilitates weapon industry and export through making the industry a part of the internal market, which means that it’s much easier for the EU member countries to avoid their national legislators on this. So, it’s liberalizing the conditions for weapon production and export.”



Human Rights Watch: “The Agreement on Victims of the Conflict between the Colombian government and Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP) guerrillas will ensure that those responsible for atrocities on both sides of the conflict escape meaningful punishment, Human Rights Watch said today in an analysis of the 63-page agreement. Under the agreement, announced by government and FARC negotiators in Havana on December 15, 2015, a new Peace Tribunal would try those responsible for grave crimes committed during the armed conflict. Those responsible for crimes against humanity and serious war crimes who cooperate with the new judicial system and confess their crimes would spend a maximum of eight years under special conditions (…) But a close look at the text reveals a tangle of ambiguities, omissions, and loopholes that make these references seem, at best, an empty promise. The government and FARC announced in September that these special conditions would not entail prison time. The December 15 agreement establishes that these will under no circumstances include any form of detention equivalent to prison, and limits all restrictions on liberty to what is necessary for performing restorative and reparative projects to benefit victims. No international tribunal has allowed convicted war criminals to evade prison for these types of serious crimes, Vivanco said. The new agreement goes even further by ensuring they will not face any remotely serious form of punishment. Since 2004, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been conducting a preliminary examination of crimes in Colombia that could fall within the court’s jurisdiction. In 2014, the ICC prosecutor reported that it had informed the Colombian authorities that a sentence that is grossly or manifestly inadequate, in light of the gravity of the crimes and the form of participation of the accused, would vitiate the genuineness of a national proceeding, even if all previous stages of the proceeding had been deemed genuine. In 2006, Colombia’s Constitutional Court ruled that demobilized paramilitaries who had benefited from reduced sentences of up to eight years under the Justice and Peace Law should serve their sentences in ordinary prisons. The court noted that the right to justice could be affected by the perception of impunity derived from adding to the already significant sentencing benefits in the law other benefits in the execution of the sentence that would undermine it entirely. The ICC prosecutor and Colombia’s Constitutional Court should carefully review this agreement to ensure that victims receive the justice they truly deserve, Vivanco said.”[4]

Human Rights Watch: “Under the agreement announced by government and FARC negotiators in Havana on December 15, 2015, a new Special Jurisdiction for Peace – made up of a Peace Tribunal and Judicial Panels that determine which cases go to trial – will be established to handle “grave violations of human rights and humanitarian law” committed by FARC guerrillas. The new jurisdiction would also cover crimes committed by state agents that are related to the armed conflict and connected to it. According to Defense Minister Luis Carlos Villegas, these would include the systematic execution of as many as 3,000 civilians – known as false positive cases – committed by army brigades across Colombia between 2002 and 2008. (…) The agreement sets out a regime of sanctions to be used by the tribunal that do not reflect accepted standards of appropriate punishment for grave violations and make it virtually impossible that Colombia will meet its binding obligations under international law to ensure accountability for crimes against humanity and war crimes.  Punishment for Perpetrators? Colombia has an obligation under international law to provide punishments for human rights violations and serious violations of the laws of war that are proportionate to the gravity of the crimes.[5]  The practice and statutes of international tribunals show that this principle requires imprisonment – deprivation of liberty – for crimes against humanity and war crimes.[6]  The less the conditions of punishment in the agreement resemble those of actual deprivation of liberty – including limited areas of confinement, and effective control and supervision of those detained – the more likely it is that Colombia will be in violation of its obligation to provide adequate punishment.  Alternatives to prison? The agreement states categorically that perpetrators who confess to atrocities will be exempt not only from prison or jail, but also from any equivalent form of detention. They will instead be subject to sanctions that have a restorative and reparative function – as opposed to a punitive one – and entail carrying out projects to assist victims of the conflict. (…) The only restrictions on freedoms and rights that the confessed perpetrators will face are ones that are necessary for [the] execution of these restorative and reparative sanctions. (Perpetrators who refuse to confess, provide incomplete confessions, or confess only after a trial is underway will face prison sentences.) Restrictions on movement? Confessed perpetrators will apparently be required to reside in the places where the sanctions will be carried out. While the agreement establishes that their whereabouts will be monitored, it appears to allow them to engage in any movement that is compatible with the fulfilment of the sanctions. The agreement even allows the possibility of movement that is not compatible with the fulfillment of the sanction, provided that it is authorized by authorities within the Special Jurisdiction for Peace. (…) Duration of sanctions? According to statements by the Colombian government – including the joint statement with the FARC on September 23 announcing a preliminary agreement – confessed perpetrators would be subject to sanctions lasting five to eight years. However, the new agreement appears to allow them to be released from any restrictions on their liberty in an even shorter time. The new agreement also refers to a five-to-eight-year range for sanctions to perpetrators that had a decisive participation in the worst and most representative crimes, but it qualifies the five-year-minimum with language that appears to suggest that it refers specifically to the reparative and restorative projects. Then it states that a determination could be made that the sanctions have been carried out based either on a pre-established period or instead according to results, such as, for example, the completion of the construction of a certain infrastructure [project]. While the agreement states that such a determination will be without prejudice to the duration of the sanction imposed by the tribunal, this caveat would not appear to prolong the restrictions on liberty, given that these restrictions would no longer be necessary for carrying out the completed restorative and reparative project.    Consequences for non-compliance? In September, the government stated that confessed perpetrators who failed to comply with the conditions imposed by the Peace Tribunal would lose the benefits of the special jurisdiction. But the new agreement does not include any such language. It does state that perpetrators who fail to make full confessions will be denied benefits, and it mandates a system of verification of compliance with sanctions, including appropriate monitoring and supervising mechanisms and periodic reports to the Peace Tribunal. However, the agreement does not refer to any consequences for confessed perpetrators who fail to comply with the sanctions, thus leaving open the possibility that they will be able to continue enjoying the benefits of the special jurisdiction even if they disregard the conditions ordered by the Tribunal.  Criminal Responsibility of Military Commanders? Under international law, military commanders can be found criminally liable for a human rights crime carried out by their subordinates if it can be shown that they had effective control of the subordinates, had knowledge or reason to know about the commission of the crime, and had the means to prevent the crime and/or ensure it was properly investigated. The agreement provides a definition of command responsibility that is very similar to the established definition in international law. However, it contains two ambiguous phrases that could potentially be interpreted to provide loopholes that would allow military commanders within the Colombian armed forces and the FARC to avoid any accountability for atrocities committed under their watch. First, the agreement provides that liability on the basis of command responsibility requires knowledge based on the information at their disposal before, during and after the realization the respective conduct. Under international law, commanders’ knowledge includes both actual knowledge and constructive knowledge –that which they should have known or had reason to know. It is essential that both forms of knowledge are covered by the scope of command responsibility set out in the agreement and to be applied by the tribunal. Second, the wording of the agreement is that liability also requires “the effective control of the respective conduct. While effective control is an essential element of command responsibility, under international law control refers to control over subordinates who have committed the offending conduct, not over the specific actions themselves. It is essential that the correct legal definition and scope of effective control be used by the tribunal. The Constitutional Court has already explicitly recognized the form and scope of command responsibility liability in international law and contained in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court when it upheld Colombia’s ratification of the statute. Failure to adhere to proper international law interpretation would mean commanders could contend that they are not liable, per command responsibility, because there is no evidence to prove that they had either effective control over the acts or actual knowledge of the crime. This would place Colombia in violation of its international obligations. Restrictions on Holding Political Office? Under Colombian law, perpetrators of crimes against humanity should be barred from holding or running for office while serving their sentences. However, the agreement states categorically that confessed perpetrators will not be subject to any restrictions on their political rights, including the right to run for political office. The government and the FARC will negotiate reforms to the Constitution to make this possible. Human Rights Watch submits that nobody who is serving a sentence upon conviction of a war crime, crime against humanity, or serious human rights violation should be able to run or hold public office while serving that sentence. An Independent Tribunal? For any judicial process to be credible and legitimate, the body interpreting and applying the law must be independent, structurally and in practice, with sufficient safeguards to ensure it is free from undue political interference or influence by the parties to the matters its must resolve. The agreement provides no such guarantees. It does not indicate how the members of the Special Jurisdiction – including the Peace Tribunal – will be selected, nor by what criteria, or even the basic safeguards to be used in developing criteria to secure an effective, independent, and impartial tribunal. It states only that the FARC and the government will establish the mechanisms and criteria for selection by mutual agreement and before the signing of the final accord. (…) The lack of guarantees regarding the independence of the Peace Tribunal are particularly troubling given the gravity of the crimes over which it has jurisdiction and the obligations of justice owed to the victims. The tribunal will amongst other things be responsible for resolving many of the crucial questions outlined above, if they are not previously reformed. (…) While the agreement does not describe the legal situation of perpetrators not selected for prosecution, the government has announced that state agents who do not have a major responsibility in the worst and most representative crimes could have their sentences suspended or face no prosecution.”[7]

José Miguel Vivanco, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, Americas Division: “Recent polls in Colombia show that President Juan Manuel Santos could lose a national plebiscite to approve the peace accord his government is negotiating with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas.  Should he lose, it will be thanks largely to his predecessor, former President Álvaro Uribe, who has become the prominent critic of the deal, arguing—among other things—that it fails to guarantee justice to victims of atrocities committed by the FARC. This is unfortunate—first and foremost, because Uribe is at least partially right: the justice deal the parties reached last December will allow FARC commanders to get off the hook for the many atrocities they committed. But given his own record on human rights as president, Uribe is the last person you’d want to champion the cause of accountability in Colombia. Thousands of victims have suffered systematic atrocities at the hands of the FARC. Their leader, alias Timochenko, has been convicted in at least 10 cases for crimes that include child recruitment, terrorist attacks, kidnappings, and murder. With the agreement as it stands, Timochenko and the guerrilla fighters under his command could avoid spending a single day in prison if they confess their war crimes. Instead, they would be subject to modest and short restrictions on certain rights while being required to carry out community service projects. Perhaps more troubling, the agreement includes a definition of command responsibility —a key principle of international humanitarian law—that could be misused to allow FARC commanders to escape responsibility for atrocities committed by troops under their control. Yet when Uribe’s the one championing the rights of victims, any criticism of this seriously flawed deal risks being dismissed as self-serving hypocrisy. After all, during his administration (2002-2010), army brigades systematically murdered thousands of civilians, who were then reported as enemies killed in combat in what are known as false positive killings. As a senator, Uribe recently introduced legislation that would release members of the army convicted for these crimes. As president, Uribe also negotiated a peace deal with the leaders of right-wing paramilitary groups responsible for mass atrocities that would have guaranteed them full impunity, if the country’s Constitutional Court hadn’t intervened. That deal resembled the deal the current government has negotiated with the FARC in important ways. What Uribe doesn’t mention—and what too often gets left out of the debate—is that the FARC agreement will also promote impunity for members of the armed forces, including many of those responsible for the false positive killings. It could also benefit the paramilitaries Uribe sought to shield from justice more than a decade ago. When the current president, Juan Manuel Santos, took office in 2010, many feared his government would continue Uribe’s legacy of disregarding the rule of law. After all, he had served as Uribe’s defense minister. Santos broke with Uribe, however, rejecting many of his predecessor’s most problematic policies—including Uribe’s open disregard for the independence of the country’s judiciary. But unless Santos fixes the deal with the FARC, he will go down in history as the president who accomplished what Uribe sought but failed to deliver: a facade of justice that guarantees impunity for atrocities in Colombia.”[8]



Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights: The Norwegian Nobel Committee has never delivered Nobel Peace Prizes to pacifist people like Einstein, Gandhi, Ambedkar, Thich Nhat Hanh, Thomas Merton, Sivaraksa, Daisaku Ikeda and many others spiritual masters and social activist of world peace.


EVIDENCE 7: BETRAYAL the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize

Virginia Moffatt: “Nobel didn’t want us to go twisting his legacy – he wanted to give the prize to the people who spend their lives doing everything they can to end war. (…)  Interestingly Nobel never described the Peace Prize as such, but rather as a reward for those who worked for the brotherhood of nations, the abolition of armies, and the development of peace congresses – the champions of peace. Unfortunately, as Heffermehl clearly demonstrates, over time this aim has been subverted. Although the early Nobel Committees often gave awards to people who didn’t quite deserve them, recent decades have seen a staggering 60% of unjustified recipients. It is no coincidence that things changed once the Norwegian Parliament (who were given oversight of the prize in the will) voted to take control of membership of the Committee. Since then its members have frequently voted (…) for people who work for peace through the use of state-sponsored violence (Arafat, Peres, Rabin, Sadat, Obama). Heffermehl is one of the few people who has actually bothered to read Nobel’s will, which is why he is so sure its message has been distorted. In many ways this is a lament for what might have been, what the peace movement could have done with the publicity and money if the prize had gone where it should have. It’s a travesty that this important prize was awarded to Kissinger but not Gandhi and that the author’s challenge to the Norwegian Establishment has fallen on deaf ears.”[9]

Fredrik S. Heffermehl, director of Nobel Peace Prize Watch: “Since writing a book with a legal analysis of Aflred Nobel’s intention I have been reminding the world that the will Nobel wrote in 1895 is decisive in all questions about the prizes, even though it’s been frequently ignored. If the testament covers an issue, one may debate the wisdom of Nobel, but he is dead and the will is final. If it doesn’t cover an issue, the floor is open. He said all five prizes should go to those who have conferred the greatest benefit on humanity. Above all the will is important on the core question of who can win. Surprisingly many seem to think that to answer such questions they just need to go to the will and make sense of what the words mean – to them. But legal interpretation is about what the testator intended and requires extensive study of evidence and circumstance. What counts in law is what the words must have meant to Nobel irrespective of the words he used, said the Swedish jurist Torgny Håstad. So, does Nobel’s will require that the prize only recognize achievements? A mere linguistic analysis of the words is not conclusive. More helpful is to note that all his five prizes should go to those who have conferred the greatest benefit on humanity, and also consider the zeitgeist of boundless optimism and hopes of changing the plight of mankind through major inventions. As he signed the will he also took steps to buy a Swedish liberal paper, writing that he wished to end armaments and other remnants from Medieval times, this is also evidence of what went on in his head in 1895. The will´s most helpful word to identify Nobel´s intention is that prizes were to benefit the champions of peace and the evidence, mainly letters, show that by this expression he meant the movement for ending armaments through co-operation and nations relying on courts of law instead of strength in the battlefield. These ideas for a specific new, peaceful world order were inspired by Nobel’s friend, the prominent peace advocate Baroness Bertha von Suttner. As long as the Nobel committee is loyal to his vision of peace, I would allow it considerable leeway. But without even considering the question of achievement or aspiration, neither President Obama nor President Santos should be considered the champions of peace who Nobel had in mind. Nobel envisioned global disarmament, not mere resolution of national conflicts, as Santos tries to accomplish. And since receiving his prize, Obama has hardly pursued such a path.”[10]

Fredrik S. Heffermehl, director of Nobel Peace Prize Watch: “The interpretation that Nobel’s intention was to break the vicious tradition of militarism, is indisputable – and undisputed. The response from Parliament and Nobel committee has been silence or nonsense. Scott London joins the many who are eager to ignore my documentation of Nobel’s intentions and how miserably Norwegian politicians have betrayed his will and misused the prize for their own political ideas and other irrelevant interests. When, in 2007, I rediscovered, hidden behind years of mismanagement, the true purpose of the prize, it filled me with enthusiastic hope. The new global order that Nobel once had in mind responds to a dream shared by people everywhere on the planet, but with the present lack of direction and profile the “Nobel” prize will do nothing to combat militarism and build a world security system that is not as flawed and illusory as the one we have today. Respecting what Nobel had in mind the would make a most important and useful prize. (…)Norway is unlikely to be much worse than other countries, but my criticism was met with a deafening silence that proved my point. (…) The conclusion that the Norwegian awarders have consciously ignored Nobel and have done so since the end of WWII, is both undisputed and indisputable. The transcripts from the private diaries of Gunnar Jahn (Chair 1942-1966) speak clearly of disregard for the mandate, as do numerous public statements by later committee chairs about the committee’s own (not Nobel’s) concept of peace. (…)It makes me extremely sad to see so many – even after the purpose has been explained in my books – continue to squander a visionary prize. In the book I mention that the decline of the Nobel prize seems to be part of a pattern where access to influence and political power requires dropping any serious challenge to the military. All attempts to free the world from the yoke of militarism seem to succumb rather soon to overwhelming political force”[11]


EVIDENCE 8: Grave Embezzlement

Daniel Schwartz, CBC News: “In his will, the wealthy Swedish inventor Alfred Nobel left money to fund what would become among the most famous prizes in the world, the Nobel Peace Prize. Nobel was unmarried and had no descendants when he died on Dec. 10, 1896. Given the huge sums of money involved, the will was controversial. (…) That’s because of the prize Nobel wanted to be presented each year to the most worthy of the champions of peace. Nobel wrote in his will that his peace prize should go to the person who shall 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. (…)Heffermehl’s 2010 book includes a report card on the first 120 peace prizes. He grades 50 awards as not justified. Since 1963, when the Red Cross won (unjustifiably), to 2009, he rates 37 of the 61 winners as not meeting Nobel’s criteria. Heffermehl is quite critical of the Norwegian Nobel committee, the body that chooses the Peace Prize winners. U.S. President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, 11 months into his presidency. He accepted the prize uncomfortably, acknowledging his role as a leader at war while insisting that conflict could be morally justified. Nobel said in his will that a five-person committee elected by the Norwegian parliament should select the champions of peace. However, Heffermehl said, the five members oppose the idea of the will. Instead of people dedicated to disarmament — to the idea of Nobel — the parliamentarians are taking the seats for themselves, he said, adding it’s rather corrupt. (…)While the Norwegian committee decides on the winner, it’s the Nobel Foundation in Sweden that sends the winner a cheque. In early 2012, at Heffermehl’s request, the authority in Sweden that oversees foundations conducted an investigation which, he said, led to the Nobel Foundation recognizing that they are the ones who bear the final and ultimate responsibility for all funds being used in conformity with the purpose. Later that year the committee across the border in Norway awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union, infuriating Heffermehl, who sees the EU as supporting the use of military means as the road to peace. Four past laureates —South Africa’s Desmond Tutu, Northern Ireland’s Mairead Maguire, Argentina’s Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and the IPB— joined Heffermehl and others in protesting the choice. They wrote that the EU is clearly not ‘the champion of peace’ that Alfred Nobel had in mind when he wrote his will. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande and other EU leaders at the 2012 ceremony to present the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union, a choice that has led to legal action against the Nobel Foundation. (…) Today on their website, The Nobel Foundation says it does not have the right or mandate to influence the nomination and selection procedures of the Nobel laureates. Heffermehl disagrees, arguing that if the foundation doles out the money to someone outside the scope or purpose Nobel stated, that would constitute misappropriation of funds, an illegal payment for which the board members become personally liable. He has been pursuing several legal angles and on Sept. 21 in Stockholm, he and his colleagues initiated court proceedings against the foundation’s board members over the 2012 prize. In that case they are asking the Stockholm city court to declare the 2012 payment to the EU an illegal use of the foundation’s funds. Heffermehl said they are still awaiting a response from board members.”[12]



Fredrik S. Heffermehl: “Oslo, April 8, 2014. ØKOKRIM, The Norwegian National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and Environmental Crime. C. J. Hambros plass 2C. 0164 Oslo, Norway. REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION.  – UNLAWFUL MANAGEMENT OF THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. Thanking you for the meeting on 26.3 2014 with Thomas Skjelbred, the Deputy director of ØKOKRIM, I am glad that the Norwegian National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic Crime will look into potential criminal aspects of the Norwegian management of the prize for the champions of peace (fredsförfäktare) established by Alfred Nobel. We follow up with this letter of accusation. Those who bear particular responsibility for the misuse of the Nobel Prize are the Nobel Committee chair, Thorbjørn Jagland, and the committee secretary, Geir Lundestad. Their acts may be violations of the Penal Code § 255, jf. § 256 (grave embezzlement) and § 275, jf. § 276 (grave breach of trust). Enterprise liability based on § 48 a is also a possibility, considering subsection 2 that includes foundations in the concept enterprise in subsection 1. GENERAL BACKGROUND FOR THE REQUEST. Prosecution is not an end in itself. But after six years of work, countless requests to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, the Swedish Nobel Foundation, the Norwegian and Swedish Foundation Authorities to have the prize awarded to winners that meet the requirements of the Nobel testament, we see no other solution. The historical backdrop in this case is that Swedish inventor and industrialist Alfred Nobel in his later years took a keen interest in the cause of peace. He created the prize for the champions of peace to provide financial support for the efforts to abolish the military in all countries, and replacing power with law in international politics. Over the years, the Nobel Committee has forgotten the testament and the prize has been awarded more and more frequently to other people and organizations than the intended beneficiaries. This is illegal and punishable. The prehistory of this request is the following: The demand that the Nobel Committee must examine its mandate and the purpose of the prize was first put forward in an article in Aftenposten on August 14, 2007,see Attachment 1. A legal analysis of the purpose was presented in the spring of 2008, in letters both to the Nobel Committee and the Parliament, by the then President (later the Nobel chair) Thorbjørn Jagland. I have since researched and substantiated the demand for a change of the selection policy and a full replacement of the committee members in the book Nobel’s will (Vidarforlaget, 2008). The Nobel Prizes have been awarded since 1901, but this book is the first known legal assessment of the award’s purpose. It was followed up with a greatly expanded book in English, The Nobel Peace Prize. What Nobel Really Wanted (…). All attempts to have an honest and genuine debate about the prize and the mandate have failed. During six years, the Committee has not once related to 1) the legal significance of the testator ‘s intention, or 2) what kind of peace work Nobel wished the prize to support, and 3) the term champions of peace (fredsförfäktare). Neither Parliament nor the Nobel Committee has shown any interest in what Nobel intended. This made it necessary to try also complaints to the public agencies for the monitoring of foundations. (…) Many will undoubtedly have reservations to raising questions with political implications with the police. They should be resolved through the ordinary course of public debate. I fully agree. But for democracy and the rule of law to function some preconditions are indispensible. In this case, the Nobel Committee has refused to take any account of the Nobel testament as a limitation of its freedom of action. Solicitations that they award the prize in accordance with the will – even orders from a public authority that they do so – have had no effect. Freedom of speech becomes of no value when those entrusted with societal power do not heed protests based on solid documentation of criminal conduct and abuse of power. Perhaps the most serious in this matter is that the subjects of this complaint seem to feel free to push ahead confident that society’s law enforcement agencies will not enforce the laws against them. The case therefore raises fundamental questions of democracy. Politicians are elected on a mandate and must, like everyone else, abide by the laws. This is elementary and should, of course, not least be clear to Jagland. In the Nobel case (…) violates the very values of democracy and rule of law (…). As evidence in the case I filed, in the meeting with ØKOKRIM, my Swedish book on the Nobel Peace Prize and a four-page resume of salient points. Both in that resume (dated March 26, 2014) and in the following references to pages are – unless otherwise stated – to my Swedish book on the Nobel prize. (…) LEGAL BASIS. The law is not a problem in this case. According to the Inheritance Act § 65, what the testator meant – his subjective will – is to be implemented. What Nobel actually meant is a question of evidence. The political ideas and concepts of the period are the key to a correct understanding of Nobel´s purpose. Studying the evidence I discovered a concept that Nobel had used in the testament, but nobody had noticed. Nobel used the expression the prize for the champions of peace about the recipients, and this is the simplest and safest intake to the testator´s intention. Clear evidence of how Nobel understood the concept champions of peace are found in his correspondence with Bertha von Suttner. Nobel had reacted with strong enthusiasm to the Suttner bestseller Lay down your arms (1889), he joined her Austrian society of the friends of peace as a member, supported her work financially and promised her to do something great for the movement (60-61). The prehistory of the will is well summarized in the book Kenne Fant wrote on Alfred Nobel (…). By the will Nobel made a clear choice of side in the battle between two diametrically opposed views on the possibility of an agreement between all countries in full disarmament. The two views are described as follows in a contemporary report from the peace conference in The Hague in 1899: In the debate on ending armaments two world views were clearly exposed: Those who believed in the road of trust and cooperation were opposing those praising the old belief that nothing other than weapons can solve international conflicts. This latter category did their best to sabotage the deliberations. (quoted from Heffermehl, The Nobel Peace Prize, What Nobel Really Wanted, p. 21). Ragnvald Moe, secretary of the Nobel Committee (1910 to 1946) wrote in his work in French on The Nobel prize and the peace movement (Aschehoug, 1932) that the language in the final will was chosen to cover more fully the various aspects of the work of the peace movement of the 1890s (p. 99). This clear evidence makes it superfluous to discuss the three terms fraternity / disarmament / peace congresses in Nobel’s will. (…) Nobel left to the Parliament of Norway the appointment of five members of the award committee because our Parliament at the time of Nobel was a leader in promoting the peace program Nobel wished to support. There still are people supporting the idea of creating a disarmed fraternity of nations (p. 265-267), and they are more important than ever. But today the Parliament holds the opposite view. There is bipartisan consensus in Parliament on an increase of the military budget from year to year. The testament is the same, but the majority in Norwegian politics has abandoned the Nobel approach, and misuses his funds to freely promote their own ideas, a unison belief in and commitment to military strength and power games as the way to an enduring peace. This abuse of the Nobel money has become possible by cultivating the concept of a general Peace Prize and the idea that they are free to design its content, completely disconnected from Nobel ‘s intentions and the rules of law on how wills must be read (what Nobel meant). (…) One important element of this record has been the committee’s broad definition of peace, enough to take in virtually any relevant field of peace work. . . . although the Norwegian Nobel committee never formally defined peace, in practice it came to interpret  the term ever more broadly. (original text is in English, quoted from Heffermehl The Nobel Peace Prize, What Nobel Really Wanted, p. 77).  (…) The thought that Nobel´s own description and intention might be of any importance does not occur to him at all. Such a practice is not even close to being called an interpretation, it completely ignores Nobel and his will. Nobel´s purpose obviously bears no weight. (…) The specific idea of the Nobel prize is a choice of route, to create peace through disarmament, the opposite of peace through armament. This idea does not change over time, but the committee´s use of the concept Peace Prize has continued unaffected by all requests to the Nobel Committee to study the testament and implement the intention of Nobel.  (…) DISCRETION TO PROSECUTE AND ØKOKRIM´S PRIORITIES. During six years working with the Nobel testament, I have become more and more concerned with what the practice and selections tell us about a decline in democratic culture and respect for the rule of law. When the Norwegian book, Nobel ‘s will (2008), had no effect it was followed up with a second book in English (2010), supplemented by a part II which is using the responses to my criticism of the Nobel Prize as a case study of power and politics. My conclusion is clear: the attitudes Jagland and Lundestad have toward the law, power, and the legal rights of political opponents is problematic. Democracy and the rule of law depends on an honest, fact-based and truth-seeking debate to function. The first reaction of Jagland, in a letter to me June 24, 2008, was that the Parliament had not passed any act on the Nobel prize and therefore could not be in breach of law (p. 144). Jagland has never changed this bizarre attitude, in actual practice he has, both in selections of winners and public debates a.o. with me, acted as if the laws are without any interest as a frame that political activity must be kept within. (…) The core of the problem with the Jagland and Lundestad management of the Nobel prize was formulated already in a short article in Dagbladet on October 28, 2008, where Gunnar Garbo, a former Member of Parliament for the Liberal Party and a Norwegian ambassador, wrote on the book Nobel ‘s will (2008): A conspicuous silence surrounds the accusation that Fredrik Heffermehl has directed to Parliament and the Nobel Institute in his recent book Nobel’s will. …. What Heffermehl documents, is something that not only the awarders, but most of us have overlooked: that those who manage Nobel’s will are not entitled to interpret the purpose of the award in their own best judgment. They are bound by law and justice to select the winners that best correspond to what the testator meant. (…)  Fredrik Heffermehl accuses the Norwegian awarders of breaking the laws. They can keep silent, but they cannot silence him away. A serious accusation requires a response. Either they must prove that his legal and ethical arguments do not hold. Or they have to admit that he is right and change their practice accordingly. This is a moral challenge not only to the committee, but to the Norwegian Storting as well. Central to the democratic rule of law is the framework of law that politics and politicians are bound to operate within. If a political majority violates the law and neither the political nor the administrative control mechanisms do work, the institutions established to enforce the law are the last barrier to ensure people the protection of the law. Such considerations are strong grounds of principle for ØKOKRIM to accommodate the request for an investigation to be opened. The democratic rule of law is a method of non-violent conflict resolution, based on, inter alia, that everyone must obey the law. The obligation to comply with the law should not at least be clear to the legislators, they are not themselves above the law. This is elementary. But this is precisely how Thorbjørn Jagland has acted in this matter. Since June 2008 he has consistently behaved as if he has full confidence that the laws will not be enforced against the Nobel Committee. In a similar way Geir Lundestad obviously expects that so few will react that the committee does not have to consider the will of Nobel, but is free to define his own Peace Prize. When the Swedish Foundations Authority emphasized that the will has to be followed and that the supreme and final responsibility rests with the Nobel Foundation in Stockholm the Norwegian Committee must have realized that it has a problem. The purpose of having an application submitted to Kammarkollegiet was, according to Lundestad in a statement to me in June 2013, to ensure that the Norwegian committee should be completely free from all constraints – also from Nobel and his will. The statements of Lundestad on the historical aspects of the purpose of the peace prize appear odd coming from a professor of history. The unwillingness to show any interest in Nobel’s purpose and to consider evidence and arguments regarding Nobel´s purpose has lasted for more than six years. The determination to break the law has thus been firm and enduring and it is hard to believe that the two have acted in good faith. Finally; Those entrusted with social power cannot be permitted to operate without respect for democracy and the rule of law. Ignoring dissent and mowing down dissidents is a dangerous path to embark on. If we allow such norms to become political standard, how much democracy do we then have?”



Pieter de Wilde: “If the prize and its committee remain so clearly Norwegian, perhaps the rest of the world should reconsider the esteem it holds for the prize. The Nobel Peace Prize simply reflects the latest fad in Oslo, like the Oscars reflect the latest fad in Hollywood. We can value such a prize and celebrate its laureates, but we should be aware of the particularistic cultural and political background in which it is given.”[13]

Jonathan Mann: “There’s a certain nuance here, and help me with it, because the Chinese simply don’t believe it … The chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee is the former prime minister in this country. Every member of the committee is either a former member of the Norwegian parliament or former cabinet member of the Norwegian parliament. They are chosen for their positions by the Norwegian parliament. So, if the committee is not an office of the Norwegian government, it is nonetheless an offspring of the Norwegian political class (…) It speaks for a certain way of thinking, it speaks for the way Norway’s leaders think. You can understand why the Chinese might not care, really, where the punctuation is. It looks very much like another aspect of the government of Norway”

Ingvild Johnsen: “Ronald R. Krebs criticises the tendency to award “aspirational” prizes. He sees these prizes as political tools where the goal is to institute change rather than award achievements, one prominent example being the 2009 prize to Barack Obama (…) I focus on how the border between the committee and the state has been drawn, challenged and redrawn. The chapter shows that even though the committee has been distanced from the Norwegian state, it is still closely connected to Parliament. The practices of, and discussions in, Parliament, demonstrate that the distance is not as large as it is presented in the public sphere. (…) I establish how the prize gives Norway status internationally, and by implication how the peace prize can be seen as a part of foreign policy. This chapter gives an explanation of why it is so important for Norwegian authorities to keep the prize close. In line with the general development that states increasingly govern from a distance, we have seen an increasing distance between the Nobel Committee and the Norwegian state. But, in addition to the blurring of the dividing lines between state and society there are empirical reasons for rejecting the committee’s independence. While many would claim that today the committee is completely independent, I argue in this thesis that it is so closely connected to the Parliament, to Norwegian identity, and to Norwegian foreign policy and international status that it cannot be seen as independent. (…) The contribution of this thesis to the literature is that it links the question of the committee’s independence to theories of the state. I argue that the committee and the prize can be seen as parts of a peace ISA (Ideological State Apparatuses), which upholds Norwegian identity. I also demonstrate how the paradox that the government claims that the committee is independent while official practices and discourse in fact tie the prize closely to the state can be seen as one effect of this ISA (Ideological State Apparatuses) (…) it provides the justification for claiming that the peace prize is closely linked to Norwegian foreign policy and status. (…) I thus use statements and descriptions of action to support my claims that the Nobel Committee and the peace prize are closely connected to the Norwegian state, identity and foreign policy. (…) The aim here is to support two main claims about the Nobel Committee and the peace prize through looking at actors’ statements and practices: That the way of thinking one is socialized into in the state is brought into the Nobel Committee by its members, and that central actors in Norwegian politics construct the committee and peace prize as part of the state. (…) political representatives contradict themselves when they both say that the committee is independent and that it is an expression of Norwegian values and politics (…). Although the committee formally has been distanced more and more from the Norwegian government, its members are still chosen based on the relative strength of the political parties and they are still mostly former members of the Parliament or the cabinet. In other words there has never been a non-Norwegian in the committee despite the fact that it has been debated several times – even the very first election committee in 1897 considered this question. What the review of the history of the committee and the prize will show is that both practices and what has been said have often emphasized a connection between the prize and Norway instead of a distinction. (…) It could be argued, in other words, that the Nobel Peace Prize has played a central role in Norwegian nation building, and that it is still an important part of Norwegian identity. (…) Since 1905 this situation has changed drastically, and the tension between foreign policy and the prize has grown – “the highly political nature of the peace prize” has been exposed. The Nobel Committee itself cannot acknowledge this tension, and there are also others who see the prize as independent. (…) Some choices “fitted well into government policy” while other candidates might have been ignored because they would conflict with it, the non-award to Ghandi being a possible example (…). But the whole ‘Nobel system’ was established at a time when Norwegian diplomacy was at its most intense period. The Nobel Institute even functioned as a semi-diplomatic tool during the process which led to Norwegian independence. In a politically tense period the Institute was valuable because the people there were well-connected, they had close ties to the political elite (and to some extent consisted of it), and could communicate the Norwegian stance to other states (…). The award to Roosevelt in 1906 was one of the most controversial awards in the history of the prize. The official reason why he received it was the role he played as a mediator in the Russo-Japanese war and his support of the international court at The Hague. Advisor to the Nobel Committee, Halvdan Koht, wrote a negative report on Roosevelt: In Koht’s opinion, Roosevelt believed that US expansion was ‘a great blessing for all mankind, and even though it may take place with armed force and injustice, he believes that it will ultimately create peace and happiness.’ Chairman Løvland became foreign minister in 1905, and more than one source speculates that his dedication to Norwegian foreign policy was the reason Roosevelt received the prize. (…) But based on other sources, “idealistic peace thoughts and pragmatic Norwegian foreign policy seem to have been decisive in this case.” (…) American media also reacted to the prize. The New York Times wrote that “a broad smile illuminated the face of the globe when the prize was awarded …  to the most warlike citizen of these United States” (…) Asle Sveen writes about the period from 1919 to 1931 that “it was necessary for the candidates to have advocates among the members of the Nobel Committee in order to have a chance of being chosen … Another qualification to get the prize was to be of significance for Norwegian foreign policy.” Two illustrating examples are the prizes in 1925 and 1926 which were awarded the US Vice President and prominent members of the foreign ministries of Great Britain, France and Germany. Geir Lundestad sees this as an “effort by the committee to strengthen Norway’s relations with the four international powers that mattered most for its interests.” (…) Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Johan Ludwig Mowinckel, who was now a member of the committee, found that he could achieve more than one goal with the prize. At the time, Norway was pursuing an expansionist policy in the Arctic and Antarctic regions, and was trying to avoid conflicts with Britain among others. (…)  Foreign Minister in Argentina Carlos Saavedra Lamas won the 1936 prize. The Norwegian ambassador to Argentina, Rolf Andvord, worked hard to convince the committee that he deserved it. Saavedra Lamas was delighted with the news and ambassador Andvord took advantage of this goodwill towards Norway. He approached the laureate expressing a wish for a reduction on Argentinian customs duties on Norwegian stockfish, “Saavedra Lamas instructed his civil servants to respond favourably to the Norwegian initiative, and negotiations on the matter began.”100 A deal was agreed upon that secured lower duties for Norwegian fish in return for reduced duties on Argentinian apples. (…) Since 1977 it has been common that former politicians are members of the committee. Currently, four out of five are former members of parliament, the other is a former state secretary, two of them have also served in a cabinet, and their political background is from four different political parties. The chairman Thorbjørn Jagland (the Labour Party) is former Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and speaker of the Parliament. He is also currently the secretary general of the Council of Europe. (…) Nordlinger sums the system up as follows: “In brief, the Norwegian people elect the Parliament, and the Parliament elect the committee. Therefore, we can say that the committee is a reflection of the Norwegian people and its political culture.” (…) the committee cannot reflect the balance of power between political parties in Norway and recruit its members exclusively from the political elite and still claim to be independent. (…) It seems as if the large parties in the middle of the political spectrum are more likely to support the arrangement as it is, perhaps because members of the committee are selected on the basis of the parties’ size in the Parliament? In either case, none of these practices can be seen as a clear demarcation between the Nobel system and Norway the state, here in the shape of the Parliament and its representatives. (…) After Obama won the prize in 2009 Erik Bergesen wrote that even if he was a devoted Obama fan, it was his experience from comedy that provided him with the best perspective on the prize. The prize inspired a new expression – Thorbjørned – which seemingly means to overwhelm someone with an award they don’t think they deserve and which constrains their freedom of action. (…) To the Stoltenberg government it was also an opportunity to show that Norway is on good terms with this great power. It was in short an opportunity to practice diplomacy, and the peace prize provided an excellent frame for it. When someone as important as the American president visits Norway, all talk of independence of the prize is less important. And of course, it would be strange if Stoltenberg did not meet Obama. But if it was very important to underline the demarcation between Norway and the Nobel system, it would be better to keep diplomatic meetings and the awarding of the peace prize separate to a larger extent. (…) Jan Egeland expressed that it was something that could not take place because the Nobel prize “is the most important international award. If it at any time looked as if this is a prize which is adapted according to Norway’s national interests, it would be worthless.” (…) In a press release from the prime minister’s office on the announcement of the prize, it is stated that “Norway enjoys close and extensive cooperation with China. Our ties are longstanding and cover all the areas that link our countries together. Discussions of human rights issues are part of these relations (…) Norway has raised Liu Xiaobo’s case with the Chinese authorities on several occasions.” Hence there is a continual blurring of the distinctions between Norway the state and the Nobel peace prize, even as its independence is upheld. (…) The prize is a product of the ‘political climate’ in Norway all the while the committee members are almost a perfect, aged, replica of the Parliament. (…) During the first years of the Nobel Peace Prize there was no real separation between the Nobel system and the Norwegian government and foreign policy. Instead, the Nobel Institute was an important ‘foreign policy institution’ in the years before and after 1905. Also in the following decades it was common for government ministers to be members of the committee, a practice which did not end until 1937 when it was added to the statutes that ministers could not take part in Nobel Committee meetings while still in office. (…) there seems to be some resistance in the Norwegian parliament to cutting all the bonds to the committee: 1) Candidates are still proposed on the basis of the composition of the Parliament – the relative strength of the parties – which could almost be seen as a kind of ‘parliamentarism.’ (…) 2) Most members have a clear connection to the party which proposed them and are in many cases former parliamentarians and/or former ministers. As has been seen throughout history, the effect of this is that there is a mutual loyalty between members of the committee who don’t want to disappoint their fellow party members, and those members of the Parliament. (…) In other words, bonds of loyalty to the internal political groupings in Norway seem to be the basis upon which members are nominated and elected to the Nobel Committee. Once they are in the committee, those bonds will continue to exist. (…) Chairman of the Nobel Committee, Thorbjørn Jagland, also serves as Secretary General of the Council of Europe. He has been criticised because of this dual role, most recently by professor of law, Eivind Smith, who said that Jagland’s impartiality should be questioned. Smith, and researcher Julie Wilhelmsen, pointed out that Jagland would be inhibited by his role as secretary general in awarding the peace prize to a Russian dissident, for instance, Russia being one of the members in the Council of Europe. He could definitely not give the prize to the council itself which illustrates that there is a dilemma connected to the two roles. Smith pointed to the saying that it is not enough for justice to be done; it must be done in a visible and trustworthy manner. (…)The Nobel banquet is a formal dinner to honor the laureate: (…) The symbolism in having a private audience with both the King and the Queen and the Prime minister increases the impression that the Nobel Prize is closely related to the Norwegian state. (…) As an addition to this infrastructure, the Nobel Peace Center was opened in 2005, a center with exhibitions and lectures to inform about the prize, its winners, and the promotion of peace in general. It was officially opened by the Norwegian King “as part of the celebrations to mark Norway’s centenary as an independent country.” It is not strange that important events are marked by the presence of the Royal family or the Prime Minister, what becomes clear is that the distance between the Norwegian state and the Nobel Prize is highly ambiguous and that this is reflected in both discourse and practice. Seemingly, one is blind to the fact that linking the opening of a center informing about the peace prize to the independence of Norway communicates that there is a strong link between the two, involving more than questions of where the prize is awarded. (…) As such, it is “another aspect of the government of Norway.” Even if Norway is a pluralistic society, both the government and the majority of Norwegian opinion agreed with the peace prize. This view is in line with Geir Lundestad’s more pragmatic observation that the Nobel committee’s choices have reflected the general political orientation in Norway. (…) Even though the committee is not officially a part of state bureaucracy, it functions as an apparatus which upholds all that Norway is. In contemporary Norway, the peace tradition and identity as a nation for peace is confirmed and repeated in political statements and speeches, while the Norwegian people also adhere to this image of Norway. (…) What this ISA interpellates in individuals is simply the Norwegian identity which involves a tautological logic that binds the Nobel Peace Prize to the whole concept of what Norway is and should be. (…) One of its effects is that the Norwegian identity as a peace nation seems immune to empirical evidence, (…) has shown that defence and military organization was integrated in the peace discourse, which already had established what Norway’s external relations were like. Norway can wage war but remain a peace nation, because Norway only fights the ‘good wars.’ Almost all aspects of war are left out of public discourse. (…) n Norway, war and peace are not established empirically, but categorically. In this way Norway’s identity legitimises waging war – because these wars are only military operations to create peace and democracy (…) The concept of ISA can also explain why Norwegian politicians in reality confirm Chinese allegations when they state that Norwegian policy is consistent with the values of the Nobel committee and peace prize, seemingly without realizing it themselves. In addition, through practices such as the winner’s meetings with the Royal family and the Prime Minister, the link between Norway and Nobel is amplified. (…) one could also say that the Nobel Committee and the peace prize is simultaneously constructed as both independent from, and connected to, the state. The ‘state’ seems unable to decide whether they are “within the competencies of the state” or not. The reason, which is elaborated in the next chapter, is that these two institutions provide Norway and Norwegians with an identity with which they can recognize their own place in the world. If the prize was in fact to become independent, it would be a tragedy. (…) In light of the practices and discourses of Parliament and other central political representatives I have concluded that the committee and the prize is so closely connected to the state that it cannot be seen as independent. What I am going to delve into in this chapter is how the Nobel Peace Prize functions in the foreign policy construction of Norway, and how it can be seen as something which gives Norway status and ‘puts Norway on the map’. This chapter in this way gives a broader view of how the peace ISA functions in Norway, through identity, foreign policy and status seeking. (…) Norway is a ‘peace nation’, it sets itself apart by being a ‘good power’, by donating large sums of money to development, and by facilitating peace and reconciliation processes around the world. The peace prize can be seen as the cherry on top of Norwegian foreign policy. In short, it is an invaluable ‘foreign policy tool’ (although it can cause problems in the foreign ministry as well as ease their work), a diakritikon which marks Norway as different, and something which confirms and upholds Norwegian identity. As such it is also something which gives Norway status. (…) the Nobel Peace Prize effectively communicates Norway’s place in the world. The prize also displays Norway as a good power in two senses: The prize emphasises Norway’s moral authority and mission, and it displays Norway as a good partner in international politics. (…) the Norwegian government is trying to balance two seemingly contradictory goals: To separate Norwegian politics and foreign policy in particular, from the prize and the committee, while keeping the prize as Norwegian as possible. (…)The conception of Norway as an altruistic state is probably the oldest self-image. (…) As Pharo writes the Nobel Peace Prize is one of the symbols which bring life to the Norwegian identity as a peace nation. This is also clear in the way former Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik talks of the prize: To me it is a vision that Norway will be a nation promoting peace. I see the awarding of the Nobel peace prize, which takes place each year here in Oslo, as a powerful reminder of the importance of international peace efforts. The peace prize demands commitment from the nation which hosts it. (…)  Under the current administration one has toned down the notion of Norway as a humanitarian superpower, but the notion of the peace nation and the policy of engagement have not been abandoned. (…) My argument here is that the peace prize is interlinked with Norwegian identity and Norwegian foreign policy. The link with foreign policy consists both in that the peace prize is important for Norweigan status and image (next section) and because it functions in a specific way in politics. (…) the (Nobel) prize is used politically when there is room for it. (…)This leads to the (rhetorical) question: how can the Nobel Peace Prize be seen as a tool in public diplomacy and status seeking? First of all we have seen that it is closely connected to the other ways Norway seeks to be visible and gain status on the world stage, namely to the promotion of peace. It is also one of the elements of this promotion which is most widely recognized outside Norway’s borders. Second, it gives Norway a yearly event, not in the size of the Olympics but still of some magnitude, which brings a lot of state leaders and foreign journalists to Norway, and which makes Norway world news each October and December. (…) the 2010 prize enhanced Norway’s status as a moral power. It was also in line with another part of foreign policy, the human rights dialogues with China. (…)Taking into account how the Nobel Peace Prize gives political opportunities and gives Norway a place on the world stage it seems obvious that the peace prize is one of the most important status tools Norway possesses. (…) the values underlying foreign policy in general have been in line with the prize. (…) In Norway, the peace prize is constructed as part of the Norwegian state through practices and discourse despite the fact that politicization of the prize is harmful both for Norwegian foreign policy and the prize itself. The reason why central actors do not seem to realize this fact is that the peace ISA is such a central part of what Norway is, and gives Norway a place in the world. (…)Today it is difficult to speak of the committee as independent because it is a part of a larger foreign policy consensus – it is a part of the way Norway’s leaders think.”[14]

Jay Nordlinger: “Then there is the question of moral arrogance, vanity: Are Norwegian officials and intellectuals prone to it? Sure …Norwegians sometimes lecture, preach, and scold, in addition to guide. They relish their role – usually self-appointed, and in one case Nobel-appointed – of arbiter: of judge of the world.”[15]



Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights: In the Case against the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights created a Legal Act on Adolfo Perez Esquivel (Nobel Peace Prize), since he is endorsing the Human Rights Violations performed by the President Maduro of Venezuela.


[1] Timothy Alexander Guzman, When “War is Peace”: “Peace Prizes” Awarded to War Criminals

[2] Amy Goodman, A “Radical Idea” Reversed: Author Says Nobel Committee Has Betrayed Founder’s Anti-Military Intent.

[3] Amy Goodman, A “Radical Idea” Reversed: Author Says Nobel Committee Has Betrayed Founder’s Anti-Military Intent.

[4] Colombia: Agreeing to Impunity. Government, FARC Deal Sacrifices Victims’ Right to Justice. https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/12/22/colombia-agreeing-impunity

[5] See e.g. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture), adopted December 10, 1984, G.A. res. 39/46, annex, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51(1984), entered into force June 26, 1987, ratified by Colombia on December 8, 1987, art. 4; Inter-American Court, Manuel Cepeda case, Judgment of May 26, 2010, Inter-Am Ct.H.R., Series C. No. 213, para. 150; Inter-American Court, Heliodoro case, Judgment of August 12, 2008, Inter-Am Ct.H.R., Series C. No. 186, para. 203; Inter-American Court, Rodríguez Vera et al case, Judgment of August 14, 2014, Inter-Am Ct.H.R., Series C. No. 287, para. 459; International Criminal Court, The Office of the Prosecutor, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2014, December 2, 2014, para. 114; United Nations, Updated Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity, E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1, February 8, 2005, Principle 1.

[6] See e.g. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), A/CONF.183/9, July 17, 1998, entered into force July 1, 2002, art. 77(1); Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY Statute), S.C. Res. 827, U.N. Doc. S/RES/827 (1993), as amended, http://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/Statute/statute_sept09_en.pdf (accessed December 19, 2015), art. 24; Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR Statute), S.C. Res. 955, U.N. Doc.S/RES/955 (1994), as amended, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatuteInternationalC… (accessed December 19, 2015),  art. 23; Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL Statute), January 16, 2002, http://www.rscsl.org/Documents/scsl-statute.pdf (accessed December 19, 2015), art. 19.

[7] Human Rights Watch Analysis of Colombia-FARC Agreement, https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/12/21/human-rights-watch-analysis-colombia-farc-agreement

[8] Colombia Peace Deal’s Unwelcome Critic. https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/08/16/colombia-peace-deals-unwelcome-critic

[9] Virginia Moffatt, Review of the book The Nobel Peace Prize: What Nobel Really Wanted by Fredrik S. Heffermehl.

[10] Fredrik S. Heffermehl, Nobel’s Will Determines What the Peace Prize Should Recognize.

[11] Fredrik S. Heffermehl, Peace prize – Norwegian politicians more visionary than Nobel?

[12] Daniel Schwartz, Nobel Peace Prize committee accused of ignoring what Alfred Nobel wanted

[13] Pieter de Wilde, The Homemade Nobel Peace Prize: Why the European Union is This Year’s Winner

[14] Ingvild Johnsen, Conceptualizing the State Within: Norway, the Nobel Committee and the Nobel Peace Prize

[15] Jay Nordlinger, Peace, they say.

One thought on “Evidences of Case Norwegian Nobel Committee

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s