Here's my biggest problem with stories like this one, where Tony is somehow able to magically negotiate new stuff into the Sokovia Accords: in the real world (and, presumably, the world of the MCU), typically you can't negotiate the terms of a legal document (such as a contract agreeing to be monitored) once you've signed the document- once it's signed, it's done. People who go all "Oh, Tony renegotiates parts of its"- sorry, but that's BS. Steve was right about the Accords from day One (even though he never actually said the reason he was against them) because he recognized that they were utter garbage.
I respect that you think one man can't affect international policy. However I think you are applying too much rigidity to the ideas of law.
I'm sorry but this idea that laws are absolute is complete nonsense. New legislation, adaptations, overturning, or making amendments happen all the time! In every level of government. All it takes is enough people agreeing that the document in question doesn't cover a new situation. In the US we have a whole branch of government (courts) where people can protest legislation that is unfair (which Steve should have done). So even if amendments couldn't have been made (which is unlikely cuz superheroes are magnets for causing new an unprecedented situations) they could have sued!!! Not to mention Cap holds a tremendous amount of sway over public opinion, especially in the US.
However back to my main point. Amendments happen all the time, which is how new bills are often introduced so as to cover new circumstances. Or if a legislative body doesn't want to risk overturning a document, they just add the amendments. This is especially prevalent in international polices. In fact several agreements between nations have a time limit because they know when the countries next meet adjustments will have to be made.
So no it's is totally possible that amendments can happen, and if based on reality it likely would. Politics and law can be flexible. I think of it like this: Man doesn't serve Laws. Laws serve Man.
I am going to have to say that I respectfully disagree. One, it's not just Tony negotiating the Accords. Yes, he is a big part of that in my fic, but I did make a point to name several other people (real world politicians and diplomats) that worked on the Accords. And two, amendments happen all the time. New laws are introduced all the time. Look to the US government if you want an example. If you want examples from the UN: on July 3 the UN removed countries from one of its resolutions (sanctions list), the UN Charter has been amended four times, and there are several cases of the UN pushing countries to make amendments to their own legislations. I'm sure there's more out there if you search hard enough but I'm tired and it's midnight currently.
I do understand why some disagree with the Accords (and keep in mind I never actually gave my opinion on the Accords), but once again I'd like to state that there is a big difference between agreeing on the Accords and signing them. People sign documents they don't agree with all of the time so they can change them later down the road. It's called compromise. I would love to discuss why even those who disagreed with everything the Accords said should have signed (literally this is what half of my conversations are with my best friend, he's a die hard Team Cap member).
With all that said I do see where you're coming from and completely respect what you said. (Although if we're gonna talk about unrealistic political occurrences in the MCU can someone explain how the Accords were drafted, written, originally negotiated, and signed and ratified by 117 in the span of one year???)
I'm happy to say that your wrong. All the country that have ratify an international treaty CAN make agreements and modification, it's a lengthy process and you must have all the other countrys that have previously ratify the trety re-confirm and re-ratify the new one. Additionally, in a internation treaty -as whith all others international documents- you not just CAN make renegotiations, modifications and agreements but it's the -as you used the word- "typical" and most common occurrence.
Here's my biggest problem with comments like this one: You don't know you international law works and talk as if you did. I would advise you to read some ooks on the subject or even the Treaty of Rome if you want to talk with property.
Sorry if I sound mad or angry, but I had to said something! English is not my mother tongue; please excuse any errors on my part.)
First off, the UN is not a legislative body. And there is not just ONE Sokovia Accords. There are technically 117 different versions (keep this in mind)-. And that's only to start with- you have to assume that other countries might want to join in.
Second, for the Sokovia Accords to become law, it has to go through the ratification process for each country involved (that's where the 117 comes in)- in the US, for instance, the treaty has to be introduced into the Senate and get the appropriate 2/3rds vote of the Senate before the President signs it, and that can take days if not months. So, on a side note, the CIA presence in Berlin to assist with the Accords was technically illegal because the Accords were not yet ratified by the US.
Third, yes, a treaty can be amended- and it is difficult. A single formal amendment would require a complete renegotiation of the original document and re-ratification of the entire thing by EACH party- that could take years (now multiply that by God knows how many amendments you could introduce on the subject); informal can only be done for procedural stuff, and a protocol could amend the document, but it is not binding on any of the earlier parties (and that's utterly useless). But the Sokovia Accords are not a treaty. Nor are they a law or a Constitutional Amendment. They are an Accord, which is legally distinct from a Treaty. One could argue in a fictional MCU court that the distinction renders the Sokovia Accords as nothing but a gigantic contract. And, at least in the US, contracts are more likely than not be considered non-negotiable after you sign (after all, it's not like you can sign a car loan, and then ask for a lower price 2 months later).
Fourth, which is the biggest reason to oppose the accords. It isn't because of the idea (I am in favor of accountability). It's the fact that the 117 countries locked the Avengers out of the negotiation process for at least 6 months (if not more depending on how long they were working on it), and then gave them 72 hours to read over that gigantic stack of paper (with all of the attached legalese) with a lawyer not provided by Tony Stark (lawyer should be neutral), come to an informed opinion, with the lawyer not provided by Tony Stark, and come up with and have all reasonable questions answered by the other parties, and then make a decision, with the help of the lawyer not provided by Tony Stark, based on that informed decision. Combine that with the fact that Steve and Sam basically lost an entire day because of Peggy Carter's funeral, that was never, in any rational mind, going to happen. Combine that with all of the illegal shit going on (some mentioned in the story above), and the Accords would be thrown out in the US (and, arguably, other) courts faster than you can say "Unconstitutional." This movie threw the Sokovia Accords in a way that would make a sleezy politician proud.
My biggest problem, though, is that Tony Stark in the movie is an idiot. I mean come on. Basic business practice- Negotiate BEFORE you sign ANYTHING. Oh, and bring a lawyer. Tony Stark has no leverage now- he is bound to obey the Accords (presuming that they are ratified and not thrown out by the courts), why should any country run by rational people amend- they got what they wanted. There is no reason to do anything more.
In all, it is a reasonable idea, but really not likely to happen in reality.
Fuck yeah man. Actual well thought out arguments about Marvel politics is what I am here for.
Your first three points can really be combined into saying that the Accords cannot be amended in that short a period of time because of the nature of international law and how the UN works? Correct? First off, amazing argument. Well done. Really what I have to say to that is that amending and negotiating law is how stuff like this works. Yes it takes a while and my timeline was probably a bit exaggerated but amendments do happen. Also Accords and Treaties are very similar by definition so I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Comparing the Accords to a contract is a valid comparison to some extent but when you look at this at the global scale you have to differentiate between the two.
Another comparison one could use is a law. Once a law is put into effect you are legally bound to follow it. If you want to change said law you don't go about it by breaking it. No, you follow the law, even if you don't like it, and then you work on changing it. Nothing gets done by just blindly ignoring authority.
You also said that the US never ratified the Accords, I don't know if I'm just interpreting this wrong (it's four AM and your girl is sleep deprived as fuck), but they did. The thing in Vienna was all the countries that signed them ratifying the Accords. Granted they sort of got interrupted but it's never fully established when that interruption occurred. I'd assumed they did sign it so the shit in Berlin would have been legal. Again I could have just misread all of that or could be remembering things wrong, who knows.
Now, before I go to sleep because Goddamnit Charlotte you actually have plans tomorrow, I'll just address your last point. Which, sorry if this sounds rude, is completely baseless. And I don't blame you. The movie did a particularly horrible job of establishing the timeline. And I will admit that I changed it entirely for my fic just because...I wanted to. But all I did was push it a few months. Things still happened in the same amount of time and developed in the same order.
Now stay with me here. May 3 Lagos happens. May 5 the Accords are "revealed". Now the public has access, but one could also argue that news of the Accords was circulating prior. Then, on June 20, Ross presented the Accords to the Avengers. Meaning that they all had legit over a month to read through them. Yet almost all of them (if you remember correctly Tony had already made up his mind) treated this like it was the first time they'd seen or heard of them. And they should have known about the creation of the Accords beforehand because that shit would have been in the news.
Yes Steve just learned Peggy died, yes they are given three days before the signing, but they had over a month to decide on their own. A month which I would bet my Team Stark t-shirt that Tony had his lawyers (that you seem to think are all Tony's responsibility to provide when the other Avengers could have just, I dunno, read the documents concerning them) pour over the Accords and look at them from all angles.
And, my final rebuttal, Tony never had a say in the writing of the Accords. He's not in the UN. He's not a government official. He was asked to sign them, nothing more. The Accords would have existed no matter what he did, sign or not sign. But signing, signing gave him an in. It gave him a foot in the door. Even if you disagree about amendments and all that shit, you have to know that not signing would have locked him out completely.
Steve not signing was like a kid being told he couldn't play outside unsupervised, but if he waited ten minutes he could go play with his mom watching. But if he went outside anyway he would be banned from playing outside ever again. It may be harsh, but the choice should've been clear. And look what Steve chose. He chose that option that gave him nothing.
Well that was fun! I though I was done with Debate after Nationals but you, you smart cookie, have proved me wrong.
(None of that was sarcastic by the way, I thought your whole case was awesome.)
Great work! I've been looking FOREVER for a politically-minded piece that establishes the shitshow that went down after CACW, thanks for writing. Can I ask you a more personal question? Which debate competitions/ programs were you involved in, and which resources did you use to learn about int'l affairs? I'm interested.
I noticed that someone mentioned the fast timeline of the Sokovia Accords- one year is a short time for the UN to get anything done. Take the Paris Climate Agreement- arguably vital, and it took several years to write and for each member nation to ratify. But I think after the events of Cap2, the Accords would have been drafted. Probably a few committees here and there, with the intent of increasing government oversight over intelligence organizations. (Come on, a Nazi organization was in one of the top peacekeeping groups for about 60 years? That would have been a shitshow of the first order, and the US gov't should have passed some legislation after that event increasing transparency. Or just impeaching the corrupt officials involved with SHIELD/HYDRA.)
But after Sokovia, politicians have a rallying cry (Justice for Sokovia, Superheros are Not Above the Law, that sort of thing. I see many protests in the MCU timeline.) and an impetus to speed things up. I think here, Ross would have stepped things us and pushed for harsher restrictions- the Raft, imprisonment w/o trial. He could very well justify it as "protecting against imminent threat by the superhuman community. First SHIELD, then Sokovia, then Lagos; what's next?".
It wasn't explicitly stated in CACW, but I'm like 90290099049028910% sure Stark knew about the Accords, and had his legal team run them through the fucking shredder. But considering media outlets would have castigated him for Ultron, blaming him for the deaths of millions and billions in property damage (provided he didn't use SI power to hush things up/it didn't work) Stark would not have much political power in the UN and US gov't. (Calling senators "assclowns" probably didn't help either.)
A thought: if the entire truth about Ultron and Vision had not been available to the public, could Ross have blackmailed/strongarmed Stark into complying with the Accords?
Another thought: this takes place 2016-ish. (Stark gets kidnapped 2007-2008, which could be a push for the global recession, given that his company is super fucking huge.) How would the 2016 elections change? Probably a law-and-order candidate- Trump would have an advantage, promising to bring stability to a nation that's been fucked up by SHIELD/HYDRA, Loki, etc. Or, Clinton could've touted her credentials as an experienced Sec of State (real world timeline), and possibly become a power in shaping the Accords.
Anyway, so Stark's out of the bargaining, and he sees signing as a toehold into negotiations. Captain America and his team doesn't. (I think the good Captain never had much of a grasp on 21 century politics.)
Cue CACW.
Anyway, that's my take on the political issues that went down surrounding the Sokovia Accords. I would love to hear your input- I want to learn more about international law and diplomacy. Thanks for writing this!
Aw thanks man! I do Public Forum Debate (went to Nats over the summer) but currently don't have a partner. So we shall see what happens this year. For research I mainly just had to use very fine worded Google searches and then shifted through a fuckton of UN documents and research papers and the like. So basically I treated it like researching for a PF resolution (all evidence and empirics because facts trump feelings, PFers unite). At one point I got so interested in the UN that I ended up watching livestreams in class instead of learning about the Cold War, but that's fine. And I ended up writing this fic instead of paying attention in Econ, but that's fine, too.
Anyway. The way I've always seen it is that, because of the name, the Sokovia Accords were a direct response to Ultron. I think the ideas were definitely discussed by world leaders and by the UN, how could they not have been? But nothing was ever written or drafted until the late spring of 2015. But who knows man? Not me, that's for sure.
Stark must have known of the Accords, but I doubt he knew about them any time prior to the rest of the Avengers. They were given a month before Ross met with them to look them over, so that's probably enough time for his legal team to go through them in depth. I'm not sure what his level of political influence is currently, probably not as high as it once was but as the head (which I guess is actually Pepper but his name is the company) of a major corporation still gets you a lot of pull (@RexTillerson). However there is absolutely no way that he could have had any hand in writing the Accords. He's in R&D, not the UN.
I don't think Stark was blackmailed into anything, I think he just genuinely believed in the Accords. Don't get me wrong, he fucking hated Ross (just watch The Consultant if you don't believe me), but seeing as Ross is Secretary of State he didn't have a whole lot of a choice as to whether or not he could "work" with him.
Stark was gone for three months so there definitely would have been an impact on the global market (although you know Pepper tried her damn best to keep everything afloat). Maybe a global recession, but not a very long one. Think longer than the US in the 1980 recession (like eight or nine months) but shorter than the the Great Recession (like almost a year and a half to two years). Hey maybe I did pay attention in Econ after all! Of course it would be different depending on what country you're in, but you get what I mean.
Oh Trump. You see my main reason for shifting the timeline was that I didn't want to have to include the election. I couldn't decide if I wanted to stick with real world politicians or make up ones like Marvel did for Ellis (who, by the way, with the current fucked up timeline has been President for twelve years). But now that a sequel will be a thing I'll have to. Joy. I mean would Trump or Clinton have even gotten past the primaries in the MCU political world? What are their views on enhanced individuals? How would either of them responded to the incident in New Mexico? Were either of them Hydra? You see this is the shit that keeps me up at night.
The best way to give my views on Cap currently is through this title I gave him while talking to a friend: Steve "I know nothing about foreign policy or world politics" Rogers.
One of my main issues with Civil War fics and the fandom in large is that no one seems to understand how these movies were made. The entirety of the MCU is from the hero's perspective. Understanding why and how the Accords exist is a lot easier when you realize that if you lived in the Marvel world you would not be Iron Man. You'd be the kid practicing alien attack drills in schools. You wouldn't be Captain America. You'd be the kid who's dad lost their job after the bank he worked at got destroyed by Robot Attack #34. The Accords are the first time the MCU has introduced the civilian's perspective and it's hard to grasp after almost a decade of the seeing everything through the hero's eyes. In fact the only character who was a civilian throughout basically everything is Peter. And believe me, he has some things to say. Probably very loudly. And angrily.
Not sure why we are arguing about an imaginary amendments in a comic book story line that is supposed to be a suspension of disbelief in the first place.
If you ask me the whole Accords was a plot device to break the Avengers in the first place which will most likely be scrapped the minute the impending doom of Thanos is announced. As for the Accords it always seems to me Ross actions seems out of place of the UN and more like a US government thing who shouldn't even have jurisdiction to make those decisions.
Unlike Steve and the rest who even if they don't sign can hide out people seem to forget if Tony Stark became a fugitive like them he is not the only one affected.. he represents Stark Industries going against the government is gonna adversely affect every employee under his company. Besides this whole Accords was glossed over so much we didn't even know what those contingencies were. Sure maybe the way Tony went about the house arrest was wrong but this whole movie was just a catalyst of the mistrust that happened long before Ultron to be honest since the Avengers the cracks were there. Like Banner said they were a time bomb and it was a matter of the time before the countdown expired and catastrophe began.
I understand Steve's point because he experienced "government control" with Shield being Hydra but to because of that just not be willing to compromise that's naive. The world is not black and white but that's how he sees it. Because Shield had Hydra corruption he exposed everything without thinking about the other innocent Shield agents who were on missions and what it might mean for them and their family. The problem with his stance is that it's obvious he was already willing to sign but hearing about Tony which is why I said he worded it wrongly Steve did not sign. And the fact that Tony was able to secretly help them goes to show on face value he was gonna be for the Accords but he knows how to make use of loopholes to help the team which if Steve had trusted and known him like he should have and told him about this that whole airport scene could have been avoided.
Argh no matter both were right and wrong in their actions the only thing I can't accept is the poor excuse of an apology letter that is so fake it boils my blood.
I think the only light in the tunnel is knowing Chris Evans himself was Team Iron Man but oh well I just hope people don't confuse the Accords to the SHRA just coz the Raft scene seems fishy to me in the first place since unlike the original one which originated from America this one is supposed to be decided by the UN. Either way I think yes it is true Tony probably doesn't have the resources to do all these changes which I think is something Fury and Hill seems to have more clout which make me wonder what they are up to??
What's that line Steve said about government have agendas? Well people have agendas including Steve and of course Shield even before Hydra and yet he willingly worked for them who is a government organisation albeit a private one. And I'm sure if Steve had done all those destruction against the orders of Shield he would have gotten his ass in jail too. Same strokes different brush is basically what I am saying.
So I don't think it's that hard to believe out of anyone in the entire Avengers roster Tony has the most chance to work with others to make those changes.. it's not that hard to believe and lastly it's not even close to that Registration Act and unlike the comics which I mean let's be honest villainify Tony this movie not so much.
Either way we won't know exactly how the Accords work it was summarised in such a way that I guess we have to wait to see what works and what does not. But all I am saying is if you want to make changes in the real world causing public property damage and then just vanishing is not the way. But then again super heroes don't exist so I guess it depends on whether you like living in a world where military troops from other country invade your country and whilst saving people also cause irrevocable carnage and and when they cause needless damage to be able to walk away without a care in the world ? I think not.
I'm maybe wrong, but for me there are rules to make amendment possible even irl. Especially when there is already a close in the document saying that we can do it.
Have you heard of something called the Bill of Rights, also known as the first ten AMENDMENTS to the US Constitution? Laws, like the US Constitution, are a living document and they can and are changed. Heck there's even Prohibition where the Constitution was amended to make alcohol illegal then changed back again because it wasn't working out so well.
You're completely right. Though, a better example would be the changes that allowed African-Americans equal rights and equal rights for women. You'd be surprised how many people don't know that for a period of time, drinking alcohol was actually illegal in the United States.
I recently toured some old wineries, so prohibition was on my mind. It's amazing how many wineries managed to survive prohibition by making Communion Wine. I left the tour with the impression that they must have served whole bottles instead of the thimble I'm used to.
The Catholic churches kept that business rolling. ;)
When I became Catholic - some of my non - Catholic friends were like is wow - look at all those bottles of wine they are serving - AT CHURCH! Lol.
Also, don't forget the speakeasy business. The hilarious fact of the day? More people drank booze during Prohibition than any other time before. They had a very Loki style - I do what I want to.
33 amendments to the USA Constitution says that you are wrong.
Laws change because people change. Great example is slavery. It was acceptable in almost every country in the world. Laws were written to be very pro - slavery. However, the world slowly changed. As each country changed amendments were added to existing laws or some laws were abolished. As for the USA, the 13th amendment dealt with the act of slavery.
Also, the Bill of Rights in the USA Constitution is the 1st ten amendments. They wrote the Constitution and then almost immediately started doing amendments. Wow. Sound familiar?
And yes, contract can be amended or even broken under certain circumstances. I am currently dealing with buying a home. Our close date fell because of the VA appraiser had not turned in the paperwork. We were able to extend the date due to an amendment of the current contract - both parties agreed. Circumstances out of either sides control happened.
A former owner of a company I once worked for was in the news briefly. He had some people to sign a contract under duress. Guess what? The contract was declared null and void. He was forced to pay quite a bit of money out.
So, all these examples are reality. Honestly, if anyone thought that the majority stock holder of a multi billion dollar company would sign anything that couldn't be changed at a later date - well, I have a lovely bridge to sell them. That includes people who do commentary about certain movies. I never believed that they were expert in everything that these things would effect in the world. I do expect the directors, writers and actors to be good at their job - which is make an entertaining movie. Oh and give their uneducated opinion on what they see or is that give their opinion that reflects the company line. Hmm. I never could tell the difference. ;)
Comment on Protocol SOTERIA
ajones363 Fri 07 Jul 2017 02:46AM UTC
Comment Actions
charminghex99 Fri 07 Jul 2017 03:22AM UTC
Comment Actions
Platos_Ghost Fri 07 Jul 2017 04:12AM UTC
Comment Actions
Platos_Ghost Fri 07 Jul 2017 04:11AM UTC
Comment Actions
Jess (Guest) Fri 07 Jul 2017 05:50AM UTC
Comment Actions
ajones363 Fri 07 Jul 2017 07:13AM UTC
Comment Actions
Platos_Ghost Fri 07 Jul 2017 08:01AM UTC
Comment Actions
Karen (Guest) Thu 17 Aug 2017 02:24AM UTC
Comment Actions
Platos_Ghost Thu 17 Aug 2017 05:15AM UTC
Comment Actions
BloodyVanessa Fri 07 Jul 2017 11:23AM UTC
Last Edited Fri 07 Jul 2017 11:31AM UTC
Comment Actions
Lucade Fri 07 Jul 2017 12:05PM UTC
Comment Actions
Kizmet Fri 07 Jul 2017 10:40PM UTC
Comment Actions
MysticWolfShadows Fri 07 Jul 2017 11:12PM UTC
Comment Actions
Kizmet Sat 08 Jul 2017 03:14AM UTC
Comment Actions
silvermuse Sat 15 Jul 2017 11:13AM UTC
Comment Actions
silvermuse Sat 15 Jul 2017 10:59AM UTC
Comment Actions