The Sokovia Accords

[tanithryudo]

I still couldn't find anything online about the actual contents of the Accords aside from that one page which appeared in the trailers. I suppose it's a good idea not to show it so that movie watches wouldn't nitpick the thing to death instead of enjoying the movie itself, but still, that prevents me from nitpicking the thing to death. =P

Also, it seems that even internally, Marvel isn't very consistent about what the Accords do. Pretty sure movie canon takes precedence over TV canon though.

Anyway, I found this article online which pretty much explains a lot of my feelings about what we do know of the Accords, better than I can. Of course, this would be in a realistic USA in a realistic universe...so of course that wouldn't include the MCU. -_-!

Comments

[cashew]

Not sure why this didn't show up my f-page, so just got a chance to read this. *kicks DW for screwing up updates*

Anyway, in response to what MCU wants the Accords to do: It's actually not made explicitly clear that the Accords only apply to the Avengers. While the Avengers are supposedly the catalyst for the Accords, it's clear that non-Avengers enhanced people are also covered under the document. E.g., Black Panther was also arrested for going off to capture Bucky without UN approval. So, yeah, seems like this person is just a little confused.

With respect to the legality of the Accords: Um...yeah. Basically everything the person said with two minor nitpicks.

1. Peter Parker actually did read the Miranda rights. If you'll remember (have you even watched it yet?), he tells Falcon "You have the right to remain silent". Yeah, it's jokey, but the rights were read.

2. 117 countries were to sign and ratify the Accords, not 177.

3. The Raft is not an allusion to a prison ship. It's a maximum security prison designed to emulate Alcatraz. While the prison is submersible, there's no indication that the Raft is actually mobile. If anything, it seems to be solidly locked to the seafloor, thus making it an aquatic building, not a ship.

But none of this actually contradicts the article. Like I said, nitpicks. >.>;

[tanithryudo]

1. Peter was obviously joking around. No one else got read their rights. Tony outright shoots Sam when Sam was trying to sympathize with him over Rhodey's fall, despite the fact that Rhodes was downed by a friendly fire shot that he himself called rather than deliberate enemy action.

3. I don't think it's the "ship" part is that the article implies would violate the Bill of Rights. I mean it's not like the British prison ships were there to ferry prisoners around; they were most likely anchored for the duration of the war. The problem is the idea of a prison where it would be easy to offhand kill everyone inside with a single breach or accident.