Captain America: WAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRR- Well of course it's good. Black Panther and Spider-Man stand out. The final battle is brutal, amazing, and in a lot of ways is probably the only time the film really digs into the pro-accords argument; these people are TERRIFYING under the right conditions and regular people have no hope against them.
But actually I wanted to talk about the Accords, both because it's that time of the annual cycle and because the movie doesn't expound on it in a very straightforward way.
Okay, so as written, this is what we're told about the Sokovia Accords:
- signed by ~117 nations
- Overseen by 'The UN'
- Grants overseers sole control over how, when, and where to deploy the Avengers
Now the argument Cap gives in-movie is "we don't know what their agendas might be", an oblique allusion to how deeply and highly Hydra had infiltrated the government, SHIELD, etc. Which sounds insane but hey, Cap's been keyed to paranoia pretty hard over the last couple movies, not the most objective evaluation. But it does brush against the fact that, as presented, the whole thing is basically built for abuse. The Avengers could be deployed to destabilize unpopular regimes while creating plausible deniability and letting individual nations was their hands of deploying their own troops. Or the unscrupulous dealings of member states could operate with impunity.
Now, the other argument presented along those lines boils down to government agility; that is, the Avengers need to be able to deploy quickly, and being forced to wait for overseer clearance could be a critical and costly delay. This is valid, but leads to two branch possibilities. Both involve a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Avengers are.
1. All 117 signatory nations have representatives who convene to sign off on Avenger deployment.
I don't think this is what they're actually going for, even though it's the natural reading of the dialog, because it's abysmally stupid. This assumes the Avengers are a non-governmental military force, where operations are planned events based on outside intelligence. While they have done this, since they have to step in for SHIELD now, it completely ignores their function as emergency response to extra-normal threats. So more likely
2. Signatory nations will (or have) formed some smaller selection to act as governing council over the Avengers
For purposes of agility, small groups have to be formed. It also vastly increases the potential for abuse as outlined above. It also gives them the agility to perform much more minute oversight of the team, which might hinder their third function as a global intelligence force, but that's minor.
It's also not all that different from how SHIELD and the World Security Council worked. I mean, by evidence presented in the films, the WSC were basically appointees from several nations: the US, Brittain, China, and India, with 2 americans and 6 total members. One almost assumes that the remaining member was French and Russia just didn't want to get involved so America got an extra rep because THAT would basically be the five members of the UN Security Council plus India... which makes sense. And may even have been the original intent behind the group, but they seem to now suggest that while they were appointed in similar fashion, they were non-public and had low accountability to their parent nations. So, same concept, but without the middle man spy agency and slightly more public.
That seems functional, but I keep remembering that the WSC unanimously voted to nuke Manhattan four years ago, despite assets on the ground having the matter relatively contained and their vote to do so coming some half an hour after the incident began.
of course, there's a third option.
3. One of the previous is true, except actually the Avengers just answer to Everett Ross and he has to go between them and one of the above.
I suspect this is the de facto norm for the MCU going forward honestly, but I also suspect it wasn't the original intent of the Accords.
So independently of any arguments about individual liberty versus collective good or whatever, the Sokovia Accords as presented are just not a very good or effective treaty. The fact that the ink isn't even dry and they make a monumentally abusive decision* suggest this is actually intended to be how the law reads for the audience.
Y'know, I imagine the original Civil War was meant to be some sort of commentary on the PATRIOT Act or other such reactionary law passed in the fear-driven fever nightmares of 9/11. Do I respect the Russos enough to think they have tuned that plot to much more accurately make the statement "we can't let fear prevent us from making rational evaluations of laws"? I dunno. But do I think there are a lot of similarities in these two acts which seem incapable of serving their stated purpose but are AWESOME at opening new opportunities for abuse by the influential and well connected? Definitely.
*I mean, in the modern world an order of "do not attempt to arrest, shoot to kill" for a dangerous terrorist is, while terrible, perhaps ultimately to the good. In a universe where brainwashing is effective, long-lasting, programmable, and public knowledge, and the terrorist involved is a known victim of this brainwashing, this is murder. What, Russia afraid he knows some damning state secret?
