Between Heroes and Nations: Examining Globalisation through Captain America: Civil War
- Ratish Mehta
- 6 days ago
- 11 min read
Updated: 4 days ago
As published in the Volume 2(2) of Ramjas Political Review
Abstract
In a world increasingly shaped by globalisation, the ideological struggles between sovereignty and global governance, individual freedoms and collective security, are being debated across both the real and fictional worlds. Captain America: Civil War, in this sense, presents a compelling narrative that explores these tensions. The ideological divide between its protagonists transcends superhero fiction, depicting the tensions of modern globalised societies. Through their conflicting perspectives on authority, control, and responsibility, this article highlights how Civil War not only reflects upon the complexities of globalisation, but also engages with the fundamental debates surrounding the challenges presented by such forces.
Keywords: Globalisation, Sovereignty, Non-state actors, Captain America, Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Introduction
"The Personal is Political” (Hanisch, 1970)
Watching a film is often considered a personal experience, yet it can also be a political act in itself. Our individual beliefs and ideologies shape how we connect with characters, interpret their actions, and relate to their struggles. This is the essence of the famous saying in political theory: The personal is political. The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), a cinematic juggernaut of our time, offers a stage where various ideologies coexist within the confines of its stories—allowing viewers to see themselves in its characters. This paper engages with one such story, Captain America: Civil War, and attempts to explore the larger debate on globalisation that it brings to the fore through its central and peripheral conflicts.
The core conflict in Captain America: Civil War revolves around the ideological clash between two central characters, Steve Rogers and Tony Stark, over the signing of the Sokovia Accords. These accords, introduced by the United Nations in the movie and endorsed by 117 countries, aim to place the Avengers under the oversight of a UN panel, thus subjecting them to the authority of a group of sovereign states. The Avengers are accused of disregarding state sovereignty in their pursuit of justice, with their use of unregulated power becoming the very source of tension with national governments (Foundation for Economic Education, 2018). But what if, instead of the Avengers, we imagine powerful multinational corporations occupying their role in today's world? How would a world built on the principles of Westphalian sovereignty confront a post-Westphalian reality, where the actions of non-state actors, driven by globalisation, increasingly challenge the authority and autonomy of nation-states? The broader implications of such a reflection reveal to us how the evolving dynamics between global powers and transnational f irms are reshaping the traditional understanding of state sovereignty in a globalised age.
Contesting Claims of Globalisation
To begin with, it is important that the claim of globalisation at the forefront of the film be critically examined. Globalisation, and the agencies driving it, assert that national and geographical boundaries are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the face of interconnectedness, suggesting that the distinctions between territories are of diminishing importance in the broader context (Lerche, 1998). This claim, while compelling, holds merit only to a certain extent. To truly understand its implications, however, requires a deeper assessment of the conceptual framework that globalisation threatens to render obsolete.
At the heart of modernity lies a political concept that has been fundamental to the structure of the international order—sovereignty. The idea of sovereignty, as we understand it today, emerged from The Westphalian Treaty, which established that legitimate state power is defined by its control over a defined territory and its authority over the people within it (Croxton, 1999). This principle of territorial jurisdiction has shaped the very fabric of modern statehood, positioning the principle of sovereignty as a fundamental source of state authority. However, this notion has also been historically contested, particularly in cases where non-state actors, such as the East India Company, exercised de facto sovereignty despite lacking traditional statehood. The Company’s rule in India exemplified how economic entities could control vast territories, collect taxes, and administer laws, effectively blurring the lines between state and non-state authority (Stern, 2011). Even in contemporary times, multinational corporations and international organisations challenge the exclusivity of state sovereignty, as seen in cases where private entities influence regulatory policies (Strange, 1996).
As Josef Joffe highlights in his essay ‘Rethinking the Nation State: The Many Meanings of Sovereignty’ (Joffe, 1999), Stephen Krasner’s conception of sovereignty rests on two fundamental principles: territoriality and the exclusion of external actors from domestic authority structures. In simpler terms, this is the principle of non-intervention, where the state’s authority is sacrosanct and free from external interference. This principle has for long defined the relationship between nation-states, serving as a cornerstone of the Westphalian system.
The point of exploration then begins by asking how these principles of sovereignty, as articulated in the real world, are reflected in the fictionalised world of the MCU. The conflicts that drive Captain America: Civil War, particularly the ideological battle between Steve Rogers and Tony Stark over the Sokovia Accords, bring these age-old concepts to life, showcasing the tension between state sovereignty and the growing influence of non-state actors (here, superheroes) in a globalised world. However, beyond simply mirroring real-world debates on globalisation, the MCU explores the limitations of traditional sovereignty in the face of transnational threats. Just as global challenges like climate change, cybersecurity, and pandemics demand governance beyond national borders, the concerns emerging from the Sokovia Accords question whether rigid notions of sovereignty can withstand the realities of a world where power is no longer solely vested in states. These parallels invite a deeper inquiry into how international institutions and legal frameworks adapt, or even struggle to adapt, to the erosion of well-defined sovereignty in a globalised era.
Captain America: Civil War - An Epitome of the Globalisation Debate
“The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” (Paine, 1776)
In a specific scene from Captain America: Civil War, the Secretary of State of the United States of America (USA) arrives at the Avengers' headquarters and begins by acknowledging their immense contributions, stating, “The world owes the Avengers an unpayable debt” (Russo & Russo, 2016). This sentiment follows the devastation wrought in Sokovia, where the Avengers were forced into a deadly battle with Ultron, an anti-hero bent on saving the world by annihilating it. Yet, as the Avengers fought to prevent a global catastrophe, the core question that lingers in the shadows of the film is sovereignty. Sokovia, a sovereign state, had its borders violated by the Avengers, who had no legal jurisdiction to act within its territory. This recognition of sovereignty is keenly addressed by the Secretary of State, who later frames the Avengers' unchecked actions as problematic in the eyes of the global community. He raises several questions that challenge the Avengers' autonomy and their disregard for national borders. He questions the legitimacy of a group of ‘US-based enhanced individuals’ who constantly operate outside the bounds of sovereign borders, imposing their wills whenever they choose. He also challenges their unprecedented powers, asserting that governments around the world could no longer accept such a proposition (MCUExchange, 2016).
Following these statements, the Secretary of State proposes the Sokovia Accords: a solution to bring the Avengers under international supervision, with a panel of nation-states holding them accountable for their actions. The accords, signed by 117 countries, would impose a regulatory framework on all superhumans, binding the Avengers to the authority of a global governance system (Marvel Cinematic Universe Fandom, n.d.).
The primary concern from the perspective of the globalisation debate here is not simply the limits to the unchecked power of non-state actors, but the larger complexities that arise from the Sokovia Accords themselves. The debate in the film with respect to globalisation, unfolds in two key dimensions. First, it examines how transnational forces transcend territorial boundaries, often challenging the very foundations of the Westphalian nation-state. Second, it raises the question of governance and accountability; should power be regulated by international institutions, or is autonomy, even at the risk of disorder, the more justifiable course? In this sense and within the larger understanding of globalisation, the Avengers serve as a metaphor for the forces that challenge the traditional authority of the nation-state, highlighting how even non-state actors, regardless of their moral imperatives, can destabilise established notions of sovereignty and governance.
If we were to momentarily set aside the Avengers as individuals and instead consider them as a transnational entity, one that operates beyond the constraints of any singular jurisdiction, the parallels to multinational corporations (MNCs) and other global actors become evident. Like MNCs, the Avengers possess immense resources, operate across sovereign borders, and intervene in state affairs with limited accountability.
From a theoretical standpoint, this dilemma reflects the broader transformation of global governance, where traditional hierarchies of power have become increasingly fluid. The very forces, such as MNCs, that states have leveraged to advance their own economic and strategic interests, global supply chains, technological networks, and international institutions, have also alternatively presented them the opportunities, akin to the Avengers, to exert influence outside conventional state oversight. In this sense, Civil War presents a cautionary narrative; as global actors continue to challenge national sovereignty, what mechanisms, if any, can be implemented to reconcile transnational intervention with the principles of self-determination and non-interference? The answer to this question lies in the second major debate within the film, where the question of oversight and governance moves from being a peripheral to a central debate in the latter half of the film. But before examining this dimension, it is essential to contextualise the broader implications of global governance.
Susan Strange (1996) provides a compelling framework for understanding the shifting nature of state authority in an era of globalisation. Her critical insights into the issue highlight the historical evolution of state accountability, stating that the struggle for liberty and rights led to states being more responsive to their citizens. However, globalisation has fundamentally altered this dynamic by redistributing power from states to multinational corporations. As Strange argues, this shift has eroded the state’s ability to govern effectively, particularly as international bureaucracies, which operate beyond the reach of national authorities, diminish state accountability. This loss of control to non-state actors, who often lack transparency and are unaccountable to the public, deepens the sovereignty crisis faced by nation-states. Her reflection brings to focus the growing tensions between the increasing autonomy of non-state actors and the weakening of state sovereignty. Both Strange’s analysis and the film illustrate the dangers of unchecked powers, where the erosion of sovereignty, whether through corporate dominance or superhero intervention, not only undermines state authority but also threatens the very framework of global governance.
Furthermore, the growing power of non-state actors poses a critical challenge to the traditional notions of state sovereignty. Strange (1996) argues that while Transnational Corporations (TNCs) do not replace state governments, they have increasingly encroached upon state sovereignty by sharing authority with governments in areas such as economic management, technological innovations, labour relations, and so on.
Governance versus Autonomy: The Sokovia Accords and the Debate on Global Oversight
At the heart of Captain America: Civil War lies a fundamental debate on governance and autonomy, framed specifically through the ideological conflict between Tony Stark and Steve Rogers. The Sokovia Accords serve as a mechanism for state-imposed oversight, raising whether powerful non-state actors, such as the Avengers, should be subject to international regulation or retain their autonomy (MCUExchange, 2016). Tony Stark, advocating for greater oversight through the Sokovia Accords, aligns with the perspective that non-state actors, including the Avengers, should be held accountable by state institutions. In contrast, Steve Rogers, representing a more libertarian view, argues that surrendering autonomy to global institutions compromises personal freedom (Langley, 2016). This disagreement is not just about how the Avengers should operate but stretches into a much deeper ideological conflict that reflects the struggles faced by contemporary globalising forces. For Rogers, as with many who oppose the rise of global governance, the danger lies in ceding too much power to institutions that are not directly accountable to the people. As he puts it, even if these superheroes are imperfect, “the safest hands are still our own” (Russo & Russo, 2016). Yet, from the perspective of the nation-state, the Avengers’ refusal to submit to the Sokovia Accords represents an infringement upon the very principle of non-intervention and sovereignty that has long defined international relations (MCUExchange, 2016). The resulting tension embodies the central conflict of our time: How do we balance state sovereignty with the growing influence of non-state global actors?
In addressing the tension between state sovereignty and the growing influence of non-state global actors, a viable approach is found in the work of Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye (1977), who propose the model of complex interdependence. This model, developed in their seminal work Power and Interdependence (Keohane & Nye, 1977), emphasises the intricate web of relationships between states, international institutions, and non-state actors in an increasingly globalised world. According to Keohane and Nye, states no longer operate in isolation but are deeply embedded in networks of economic, social, and environmental interconnections. These networks, while often transcending national borders, require collaborative governance that goes beyond the traditional notions of sovereignty.
The model of complex interdependence suggests that global governance should not be viewed through a zero-sum lens where one actor's gain comes at the expense of another’s sovereignty. Instead, it recognises that states, while still crucial actors, must work in tandem with international institutions and non-state actors, such as MNCs, to address shared global challenges. This cooperative approach does not negate the importance of sovereignty but seeks to balance it with the need for effective governance in a world where global issues, such as climate change, economic inequality, and security threats, transcend national borders.
Conclusion: Superheroes, Sovereignty, and the Struggles of a Globalised World
The Sokovia Accords, as represented in Civil War, thus serve as a metaphor for the challenges inherent in such a system of governance moving towards a highly globalised world. Stark's support for the Accords reflects an endorsement of this kind of interdependent global governance, where state sovereignty is tempered by the need for international cooperation. On the other hand, Rogers' opposition embodies the libertarian concern about the potential for overreach by external institutions, which could undermine personal and national freedoms. Ultimately, the debate between Rogers and Stark brings to focus the broader debate in political theory and international relations on the need to reconcile sovereignty with the demands of an interconnected and globalised world.
Keohane and Nye’s (1977) model of complex interdependence provides a way forward, suggesting that the solution to the tensions between sovereignty and global governance lies not in the absolute rejection of one for the other, but in the creation of flexible frameworks that allow for cooperation without undermining core principles of self-determination and accountability.
In this regard, Civil War serves as a reflection on the challenges that globalisation poses to traditional notions of state sovereignty, yet it also provokes deeper reflection on the evolving dynamics of global governance. The film challenges us to think critically about the engagement with the intersection between state authority and the growing influence of non-state actors, such as multinational corporations, within an increasingly interconnected world. It compels us to question whether these governance models can be made more accountable, equitable, and responsive to the concerns of the people they serve. Thus, Captain America: Civil War functions not only as a narrative about superhero dynamics and their ability to lead as larger-than-life characters, but also as a metaphor for the broader ideological and practical challenges of balancing state autonomy with the demands of a globalised world. In this way, these stories offer more than just entertainment; they become a means of understanding the deeper, often invisible forces shaping our world, while also offering a sharper perspective on the potential consequences of globalisation on sovereignty; a question that remains unresolved but crucial for understanding the future of governance.
References
Croxton, D. (1999). The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty. The International History Review,
21(3), 569–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.1999.9640897
Foundation for Economic Education. (2018, September 6). Iron Man vs. Captain America: Who’s right? [Video].
Hanisch, C. (1970). The Personal is Political. In Notes from the Second Year: Women's Liberation (pp. 1-5).
Joffe, J. (1999). Rethinking the Nation-State: The Many Meanings of Sovereignty. Foreign Affairs, 78(6), 122-127.
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
Langley, T. (Ed.). (2016). Captain America vs. Iron Man: Freedom, Security, Psychology. Sterling.
Lerche, C. O. III. (1998). The conflicts of Globalisation. The International Journal of Peace Studies, 3(1).
Marvel Cinematic Universe Fandom. (n.d.). Sokovia Accords. Retrieved from
MCUExchange. (2016a, June 1). Why The Sokovia Accords Are A Great Idea - MCU Explained [Video]. YouTube.
MCUExchange. (2016b, June 8). Why The Sokovia Accords Are A Terrible Idea - MCU Explained [Video]. YouTube.
Paine, T. (1776). The American Crisis. American Battlefield Trust.
Russo, A., & Russo, J. (Directors). (2016). Captain America: Civil War [Film]. Marvel Studios.
Stern, P. J. (2011). The Company-State: Corporate Sovereignty and the Early Modern Foundation of the British Empire in
India. Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/book/11841
Strange, S. (1996). The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge University Press.
The author, Ratish Mehta, is a research associate at Organisation for Research on China and Asia (ORCA).
Featured image credit: Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Comments