Since March 1901,[9] it has been awarded annually (with some exceptions) to people who 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.

It also notes that at the end of the 19th century, the Norwegian parliament had become closely involved in the Inter-Parliamentary Union's efforts to resolve conflicts through mediation and arbitration.

[28] Over time, many individuals have become known as "Nobel Peace Prize Nominees", but this designation has no official standing, and means only that one of the thousands of eligible nominators suggested the person's name for consideration.

The Nobel Committee typically comes to a conclusion in mid-September, but occasionally the final decision has not been made until the last meeting before the official announcement at the beginning of October.

[33] The money awarded varies over time, depending on the profitability of the Nobel bequest's investments and the exchange rate to the recipient's local currency.

[35] The edge of the medal is inscribed with the year of its awarding, with the name of its recipient and "Prix Nobel de la Paix".

[38][39] Some commentators have suggested that to award a peace prize on the basis of unquantifiable contemporary opinion is unjust or possibly erroneous, especially as many of the judges cannot themselves be said to be impartial observers.

[40] Further criticism holds that the Nobel Peace Prize has become increasingly politicized, in which people are awarded for aspirations rather than accomplishments, which has allowed for the prize to be used for political effect but can cause perverse consequences including the breakdown of fragile peace processes due to the failure to account for the realities of power politics.

[41] In 2011, a feature story in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten contended that major criticisms of the award were that the Norwegian Nobel Committee ought to recruit members from professional and international backgrounds, rather than retired members of parliament; that there is too little openness about the criteria that the committee uses when they choose a recipient of the prize; and that the adherence to Nobel's will should be more strict.

Military cemeteries in every corner of the world are silent testimony to the failure of national leaders to sanctify human life.

Criticisms that have been levelled against some of the awards include allegations that they were politically motivated, premature, or guided by a faulty definition of what constitutes work for peace.

[45] The awards given to Mikhail Gorbachev,[46] Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat,[47][48] Lê Đức Thọ, Henry Kissinger,[49] Jimmy Carter,[50] Barack Obama,[51][52][53][54] Abiy Ahmed,[55][56][57] and the European Union[58] have all been the subject of controversy.

The 1973 award to Henry Kissinger and Lê Đức Thọ may have been the most controversial, with two members of the selection committee resigning in protest and widespread derision in the press.

[49][59][60][61][62] Foreign Policy has listed Corazon Aquino, Mahatma Gandhi, Eleanor Roosevelt, U Thant, Václav Havel, Ken Saro-Wiwa, and Fazle Hasan Abed as people who "never won the prize, but should have.

"[68] In 1948, following Gandhi's death, the Nobel Committee declined to award a prize on the ground that "there was no suitable living candidate" that year.

Later, when the Dalai Lama was awarded the Peace Prize in 1989, the chairman of the committee said that it was "in part a tribute to the memory of Mahatma Gandhi.