Nobels vilje

The new book, The Nobel Peace Prize (2010), contains, as Part I, a rewriting of a Norwegian book (2008) and in an added Part II the account of methods used by Norway´s political elite to stonewall the strong criticism of their betrayal and corruption of Nobel´s original intent. This makes the new book a case study of democracy and the rule of law in Norway, containing discussions of the 2008 and 2009 Nobel awards, a riveting dissection of the Nobel speech of Obama and explains how the military sector undermines human security and welfare, delivering an illusion of safety at exorbitant cost - an antisocial and antidemocratic element of our societies, pursuing narrow self-interests rather than the real security needs of the nation.

The Nobel Peace Prize secrets contained in the private diaries of the longest sitting chair of the Nobel committee, Gunnar Jahn - secrets that prove many of the decisions and arguments of the committee manifestly wrong.

In a new book, The Nobel Peace Prize. What Nobel really wanted (Praeger, 2010), Fredrik S. Heffermehl, a Norwegian lawyer and peace activist, delivers undisputable evidence that Nobel intended to support the "Champions of peace", he wished to reward the struggle to end wars through an international order based on law and abolition of national military forces; the power of the law must replace the law of power. Since 1948 the parties in the Norwegian parliament have misused the Nobel committee seats to reward party veterans lacking insight in the peace ideas that Nobel wished to support. Over half of the awards since 1946 have not conformed with the intention of Nobel, who wished to change the international system in order to end wars and armaments. Post-disaster repairs would not do. The prize has long ago ceased to challenge the forces it intended to combat and instead been used to promote Norwegian policies and business interests.

Heffermehl claims that the Norwegian parliament and the Nobel committee have violated the law for six decades and, giving a riveting account of how the political establishment in Norway reacted by stonewalling his criticism, the book also becomes a most illuminating case study of how elites in the advanced Scandinavian societies circumvent the principles democracy and the rule of law.

The Nobel committee´s basic, elementary error is that, generations ago, they made it a prize for "peace",
instead of honoring "the champions of peace", the expression that Nobel actually used to describe what he had in mind. The committee entirely forgot what their task was.

The book sums up a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles governing interpretation of wills and their consequences for our understanding of the content of the testament of Alfred Nobel (page 37-38):

Interpretation—the determining factors
To sum up: the goal of the interpretation of a will is to find out what the testator intended, the purpose he or she had in mind. To describe the recipients he had in mind Nobel created a Swedish word, fredsförfäktare (‘‘champions of peace’’). Under the law it is both improper and illegal for the Nobel Committee to ignore the specific expression that Nobel actually used, champions of peace, and instead give its own content to the much less specific term ‘‘peace prize.’’ The committee is guilty of an unauthorized change of its mandate.
The interpretation of a testament, determining its content, is all about what the testator intended. The Nobel committee is left with six criteria to help it understand what Nobel had in mind and his idea of the most deserving and legitimate recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize.
First, thereare two general expressions that apply to all five Nobel prizes:
during the expired year
has conferred the greatest benefit on mankind
Then there are four particular expressions regarding the Peace Prize:
the champions of peace
the confraternization of nations
the abolition or reduction of standing armies
the holding and promotion of peace congresses

The concepts confraternization, disarmament, and peace congresses are interdependent and mutually helpful to understand what a champion of peace is. Although the other prizes are intended for persons who have ‘‘invented,’’ ‘‘discovered,’’ ‘‘improved’’ (physics, chemistry, medicine), or ‘‘produced’’ (literature), Nobel used the word ‘‘worked’’ (verkat) to explain what he expected the champion of peace to have done. This seems to exclude work with a more indirect and incidental bearing on peace. Even if the word work might appear to indicate practical activity, it is highly unlikely that Nobel wished to exclude intellectual activity and prizes rewarding bright and innovative ideas and thinking.
In the search for Nobel’s intention it is late-19th-century Swedish and his own use of language that counts. Further clues are the belief of the era in innovations that would change the lot of mankind and Nobel’s life and background, which made him see the needs of the world rather than narrow national interests. Then there is the particular history behind the will, especially his contact with Suttner and his promises to do something great for her peace movement. His trust in Norway as the most suitable executor must have been occasioned by the fact that the Norwegian parliament was the leading protagonist of arbitration, neutrality, and alternatives to military force in the 1890s.34 The fairly correct understanding of the mandate in the early decades, both in Parliament and in the Nobel Committee, is another strong indicator of his original intention.
In current usage, the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize may be summed up as honoring work toward the establishment of a ‘‘peaceful, demilitarized international community through negotiation between nations.’’ It is an idea whose time has come.

TRANSLATING NOBEL’S INTENTION FROM 1895 TO 2010

Having determined the purpose Nobel had in mind in 1895 we then need to translate this purpose to the present time. The task is to rediscover and recognize, as closely as possible, Nobel’s own intention in the modern world and formulate it in the usage of our time. Very often wills become outdated or irrelevant over time, but 115 years later Nobel’s approach to peace and security is a more urgent necessity than ever before. The error of the Nobel committee is not in adapting to a modern age, but in failing to understand the point of departure for this exercise. What they should have developed was Nobel’s idea of peace, not their own.
.....

A forerunner to The Nobel Peace Prize was published in 2008 (by Vidarforlaget, Oslo). Even if this book, Nobels vilje [Nobel´s will], appeared in Norwegian only it became known all over the world within three days of its publication! - Despite the devastating analysis of how the Nobel committee and Norway´s Parliament had appropriated the prize for their own purposes in blatant violation of the laws on wills and foundations, the Norwegian power elites continued as before, stonewalling the criticism; it was business as usual.

The new book, The Nobel Peace Prize (2010), contains, as Part I, a rewriting of the Norwegian book and in an added Part II an account of the methods used by Norway´s political elite to stonewall the criticism. This makes the new book a case study of democracy and the rule of law in Norway, containing discussions of the 2008 and 2009 Nobel awards, a riveting dissection of the Nobel speech of Obama and the secrets contained in the private diaries of the longest sitting chair of the Nobel committee, Gunnar Jahn - secrets that prove many of the decisions and arguments of the committee manifestly wrong.