[reuven]

I don't think that the Peace Prize is only meant for people who have made tangible changes in the amount of violence in the world. It's also a carrot that you can dangle in front of people to reward them for taking risks in the interest of reducing violence.

Rabin and Arafat (and Peres) tried, with the Oslo accords, to move toward a settlement of a long-standing, violent dispute. They didn't completely succeed. And indeed, you could argue (as many do) that the Oslo accords were a mistake. But they were willing to take risks in order to perhaps make things more peaceful for their people, and that's the sort of thing that the Nobel Committee wanted to reward.

Of course, now that I've described things in this way, maybe Snowden is an appropriate recipient...

[adharmad]

That sounds like the kindergarten definition of "Prize" - which is given to incentivize the person to do something as opposed to after he has actually achieved something of worth.

[netcan]

..assuming they were acting in good faith, which they have always accused eachother of doing. Kissinger and Le Duc Tho were certainly not acting in good faith. In any case, the official criteria is:

"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.*

IMO it should be like the other Nobel Prizes, awarded later when the things have settled. The Science prizes were changed to include a lag allowing for discoveries to face scientific rigor for a while. I think they should adopt the same policy. Wait until a war ends before handing out a prize to those who end it.