Peace is about far more than conflict.

To suggest otherwise is in my opinion, utterly naive, but in the very least shortsighted.

But why is that relevant? Malala worked on education in war-torn areas. Plenty of laureates worked on alleviating poverty, Red Cross (and associated people) got the prize for health, as did Albert Schweitzer. Snowden blew the lid off US governmental surveillance.

I don't care about the Nobel Peace Prize one jot, but if I did, I'd definitely want a prize for Assange, though he is a very controversial figure.

You're right. Conflicts involving equality and human rights between peoples and their governments has only happened in the past, and the USA is currently immune from such conflict, so we can hardly define it as such.

I don't regret the sarcasm: your presumption that defining what can be classified as a veritable struggle for human welfare can, in turn, be used as an argument for which struggles are most deserving of praise is what is called a straw man argument, perhaps the most annoying fallacy to refute before an audience of undecided thinkers as it is effective despite being logically inconsistent.

To be fair, since the referendum didn't pass, Santos' legacy is also pretty up in the air

> Is there a notable prize for civil disobedience or similar?

The Rafto Prize comes pretty close; its purpose is more or less explicitly stated as raising awareness of lesser-known human rights activists to make their work easier and provide the modicum of protection that international awareness gives.

> Is there a notable prize for civil disobedience or similar?

Jail time, usually.