The Sokovia Accords, Political Realism, Liberalism, Steve Rodgers and Tony Stark:

Where would superheroes fit in the world of International Relations?

My friend Kemi and I always disagree on the topic of the Sokovia Accords. For those not acquainted with the Marvel movie, Captain America: Civil War, the Accords are a fictional framework of legislation which sought to regulate the activity of the fictional band of superheroes - the Avengers. It is one of the main plot points in the movie and drove the Avengers storyline forward by sowing discord amongst the group. 2 sides emerged, Tony’s (Iron Man) side which supported the Accords and believed the Avengers should resign their sovereignty and Steve’s side (Captain America) which argued against it. I agree with Tony and Kemi agrees with Steve, albeit reluctantly.

Some of the Avengers discussing the Accords

Steve and Tony represent the two main theories in international relations – Political Realism and Liberalism. They are unlikely representatives of both camps, with Steve being influenced by Political Realism and Tony regurgitating Liberal ideas. Considering their character backgrounds, I would expect the opposite. Tony was initially a modern tech genius and arms manufacturer who flippantly disregarded the pernicious implications of the latter until it affected him personally. From the first Captain America movie, Steve was portrayed as an optimistic character who tried to see the best in everyone despite the circumstances. We only need to look to his tumultuous relationship with his best friend Bucky. Steve made it his vocation to repeatedly try and save his friend because he believed redemption was possible for Bucky despite him making numerous attempts on his life. To me, Tony seemed more likely to be attracted to the cynicism of Political Realism whilst Steve appears to be more aligned with the optimism and cooperative message of Liberalism. However, as the Civil War movie unfolds, we see Tony becoming the mouthpiece for Liberalism and Steve being the antithesis of that.

Steve (left) defending himself against Bucky (right)

What exactly are these Liberal and Realist ideas? Firstly, we have to start with the assumption that nation-states are an extension of humans and thus replicate human nature. Realists and Liberals have opposing views on human nature; the former espouse a Hobbesian view, that humans are inherently selfish and will pursue their own needs even if it is at the expense of another individual. However, Liberals posses a more positive view, believing that we are rational and have the capacity for cooperation. These diverging views produce contrasting ideas on the behaviour of states and power within the global system. According to Realists, states conceive power in any form as a zero sum game, you can only have it at the expense of another, if you have it - another state will be without. Conversely, Liberals believe power and sovereignty can be pooled via cooperation, that cooperation can not only be desired but attained in a functional international order.

Tony and Steve’s inclinations toward Realism and Liberalism are present in their view on the Sokovia Accords. International Relations theories can be applied to the two characters if the Accords are envisioned as a form of political governance. Steve argues, and Kemi agrees, that the Accords would simply be a way for signatories to pursue their own ‘agendas’, which would endanger other states. Kemi develops on Steve’s point, focusing on the United States, she argues it is a nation-state which has demonstrated on countless occasions that it will do anything to fulfil its own interests. These are reasonable points, we only have to briefly glance over the US’ modern conflict résumé and see case studies of it being at the centre of conflicts to serve US interests. For example, its contribution to the destabilisation of Syria from the early 2010s or, if we scroll further back in the same region, the US ‘War on Terror’ which became a vehicle for more destabilisation of the region in an effort to push US interests there. 

Syria in 2010 and Syria in 2016

However, at the crux of the Accords, is the notion that something needs to be done, something needs to be implemented to improve the status quo. In the case of the Avengers’ world, the Accords were a response to the widespread collateral damage caused by the superhero group when fighting villains. To its signatories, the current system could not go on, the Avengers needed to be held to account and regulated. This is a similar principle that governs international organisations, such as the United Nations (U.N.), that nation-states need to be accountable to a higher authority, they should not be able to act with impunity and wreak havoc without facing any consequences. This is a Liberal belief, that is often criticised due to the ineffectiveness and inability of such organisations to control powerful states and to prevent conflict. There is a plethora of examples for both arguments. A standout for the former is the U.N. being unable to prevent the joint invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the US and the UK despite some member states opposing it and the UN Security Council not offering its unanimous support. Its failure to prevent the Rwandan genocide in the late 20^th century will forever mar the legacy of the UN in being able to prevent conflict.

Steve and Kemi’s Realist arguments certainly deserve credit, especially considering the tangible case studies that support such arguments. However, as previously mentioned, I agree with Tony. But why? Tony and I share a more optimistic perspective on state behaviour. Whilst I agree that nation-states are selfish and will always prioritise their own agendas, I still believe all of the Avengers should have signed the Accords because the alternative is far more bleak. The alternative of letting the status quo continue solves nothing. As the Avengers demonstrated, life prior to the Accords meant autonomy but this always reaped an expensive cost. Similarly, whilst institutions of political governance are imperfect and sometimes paralysed by state egoism, they remain as a necessity. Imagine how much more destruction would ravage the global system if institutions such as the United Nations did not exist.

Both the Accords and wider institutions of global political governance are limited. Ergo, critique is not only natural but also encouraged. However, critique with no suggestions for reform means that that is all it is, a critique which does not provide tangible changes. Steve rejected the Accords whilst failing to propose a better alternative and arguing that we should simply accept the dire state of circumstances. To me that is insufficient. If institutions of political governance were to be disbanded, what would people like Steve implement to replace it? If his concern was that states are already selfish and the world order is anarchical, this would only be exacerbated with the absence of a system which tries to curb this behaviour out of nation-states.

To answer the question posed at the beginning of this post, I believe superheroes should be conceived in a similar manner to institutions of political governance, designed to maintain world peace and keep danger at a minimum. However, we would soon learn the same lesson all over again that egoism always looms and can undermine even the most hopeful of projects. Whether they were concentrated in the United States or dispersed across the world, all superheroes would be at the risk of being exploited to further state agendas at the expense of other states whilst simultaneously trying to provide stability to the global system. In this alternate reality, the Sokovia Accords would have to be something that is insisted on, because even though it has glaring limitations - similar to our global political institutions - it would be the only way of trying to enforce any semblance of checks and balances on superheroes as we attempt to do with powerful states.

Helpful Links:

• Sokovia Accords - https://marvel-movies.fandom.com/wiki/Sokovia_Accords

• Key Principles of Political Realism - https://www.britannica.com/topic/realism-political-and-social-science/Neorealism-in-international-relations, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/

• US role in the destabilisation of Syria - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18763672, https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2014/06/the-costs-of-us-restraint-in-syria?lang=en

• More on the UN and the invasion of Iraq