Speculation swirls in Oslo this week. The Norwegian Nobel Committee prepares to name its 2026 laureate on Oct. 9. Among the 287 candidates, one stands apart. Not a person. Not a familiar humanitarian group. The International Space Station itself has rocketed into serious contention.

Experts at the Peace Research Institute Oslo placed the orbiting laboratory high on their annual shortlist. AP News reported the development Friday, capturing the buzz. Haakon Gjerløw, director of the institute known as PRIO, sees the station as more than hardware. “The ISS — well, the organization behind it — is a rare symbol of global cooperation in a quest toward the heavens at a time when multilateralism is crumbling and many countries have retreated into narrower national interests on Earth,” he told the wire service.

The idea feels audacious. Yet it rests on two and a half decades of hard evidence. The station has hosted continuous human presence since 2000. American, Russian, European, Japanese and Canadian astronauts have lived and worked together aboard it. They have done so even as relations between their governments soured. Even as tanks rolled into Ukraine.

PRIO researchers made the case weeks earlier. In a September briefing covered by News in English, they traced the station’s unlikely origins. American and Soviet diplomats sketched the partnership during the Cold War’s final years. The project survived the Soviet collapse. It endured the 2014 annexation of Crimea. And it has persisted after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. “For more than 25 years, the ISS has shown that geopolitical rivals can cooperate around a shared, peaceful endeavor, sparking great scientific achievements even when relations on Earth deteriorate,” the researchers wrote.

That durability matters to the Nobel Committee. Alfred Nobel’s will called for the prize to go to those advancing fraternity between nations and the reduction of standing armies. The ISS partnership delivers both. Crews from rival powers conduct joint experiments. They share life-support systems. They practice emergency evacuations together. Political leaders on the ground may trade barbs. Up there, the focus stays on survival and discovery.

Fortune highlighted the same theme in its coverage. The publication noted how the station’s impending decommissioning in the early 2030s adds urgency. Space grows crowded. Commercial players multiply. Nations eye military capabilities in orbit. A Nobel now could underscore the value of the cooperative model before it ends. Fortune framed the possibility as the prize potentially leaving the planet.

Critics might scoff. The ISS is a scientific project, they say, not a peace initiative. Its budget runs into billions. Its management involves government space agencies, not traditional peace organizations. Yet history shows the committee has surprised before. It has honored institutions. It has recognized quiet, long-term efforts that build trust across divides. The European Union received the prize in 2012 for advancing peace on a continent once torn by war. The International Labour Organization won in 1969.

This year the field is crowded. President Donald Trump appears on nomination lists again, cited by some for diplomatic efforts including a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney earned mention for standing firm against U.S. tariffs. Grassroots groups in Sudan and child advocates in Ukraine also feature. The International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court draw attention, though both face criticism over selective enforcement and political perceptions.

Gjerløw’s list, considered among the most influential guides to the prize, balances these terrestrial names with the station. He points to the 287 total nominations, more than 70 of them organizations. The committee weighs durability of impact. It looks for work that strengthens international norms even when headlines scream division. The ISS record, spanning administrations from Clinton to Biden and multiple Russian leaders, demonstrates exactly that consistency.

Scientific output adds weight. Over 3,000 experiments have run aboard the station. Research on fluid behavior in microgravity has improved medical treatments back home. Combustion studies inform cleaner engines. Biological work helps understand aging and disease. None of it would exist without the framework that keeps Russians and Americans collaborating in tight quarters hundreds of kilometers above Earth.

Yet challenges loom. NASA plans to retire the station around 2030. Russia has signaled interest in its own orbital outpost. China operates the Tiangong station and invites select international partners. The risk of a fragmented, competitive space environment grows. Weaponization fears mount. Against that backdrop, honoring the ISS could send a clear signal. Cooperation in space remains possible. It delivers results. It offers a model worth preserving.

PRIO researchers put it plainly. Awarding the prize to the ISS partnership “would celebrate what humanity can achieve when we work together.” The words carry extra force now. Multilateral institutions face strain. Trust between major powers sits near historic lows. A Nobel that looks upward might remind governments and citizens alike of shared stakes beyond national borders.

The guessing game will continue until the announcement. Oddsmakers and Oslo insiders will parse every hint. But the station’s presence on prominent lists marks a shift. It forces consideration of peace in new terms. Not only the absence of conflict on the ground. But the active construction of common purpose in the harshest environment humans have reached.

Whether the committee agrees remains unknown. Its deliberations stay confidential. Past choices have drawn both praise and protest. This one would surely spark debate. Some would call it inspired. Others might label it naive. All would acknowledge the symbolism. A prize for an object that circles the globe every 90 minutes, carrying citizens of former enemies in joint pursuit of knowledge.

That image lingers. It transcends politics of the moment. It points to something larger. Something the Nobel Peace Prize has always tried, in its imperfect way, to honor.