The Marvel Civil War Dichotomy: Revisiting Morality Of Law
Sistla Naveen Teja
17 Aug 2022 2:22 PM GMT
To make the world safer, there was an idea to bring together extraordinary people, to fight the battles that ordinary people never could. MCU calls them Avengers; they were the first line of defence. The Avengers fought unprecedented wars, but after the death of tens of thousands of people following the events of the New York battle in 2012, these people were subjected to restrictions under the newly passed law by the United Nations with the help of the king of Wakanda; T'Chaka, i.e. The Sokovia Accords. This proposed restriction raises concerns on the question of morality in law. Two dominant people with equally prevalent jurisprudential opinions venture into civil war, which has consequences on their personal and professional relations, apart from the death of many people. The confrontation revolves around the proposed law, intended to keep the enhanced individuals in check. There were only two ways out of this confrontation either to submit & follow the law or to reject & resist the pressure. It's astonishing that the whole issue would only be resolved if the philosophy of law is understood in its true nature. Where Tony Stark (Ironman) follows the lead provided by Hart, i.e. the positivist idea of law, Steve Rogers (Captain America) treads the line of Fuller by analysing the inner morality of law.
This action of Ironman and Captain America brings in the question of Hart-Fuller debate in MCU's Civil War. It is always stated that every decision taken by the government is an important one in the grand calculus as it serves the needs of individuals by looking at the majoritarian segment, but how far is the idea of inner morality of law being considered while taking such decisions. Various UN officials reasoned with the ideal steps taken via implementing the Sukovia accord. They were passed on to the very superhero wing stating the obvious fact that boundaries do apply to enhanced individuals. The whole confrontation began while the ideology of "Submitting to the Will" of powerful nations and giving up the essential character of the superhero tag, which in the movies is questioned by Captain America, stating that if the same law had been viewed from a moral standpoint of view enhanced individuals are submitting their rights to a greater power just because these individuals have a will to mend things. The principle established by the accord speaks volumes about the intent of the law makers and influential communities i.e. Welfare of Individuals with minimum damage via forced exertion of rules over enhanced individuals. If we refer to the idea coined by fuller via Inner Morality of Law, we can sense that the law which is made is conditioned with doubts & fear. The law failed to acknowledge the fairness aspect. It stated, "If individuals are not submitting to the same, they would either lose their right to exercise their powers or would go to prison for using their powers", which stands in the way of a superhero. The whole agenda of the accord is to bring uniformity & discipline. Still, the lawmakers forgot that there are other ways and means to attain society's ends other than by resorting to law. Captain America, through the tone of Lon Fuller, claims that the lawmakers must realize this if they are to make the most efficient use of the law as an instrumentality in ordering the society. The one making the law should exercise restraint in establishing rules directed at regulating the conduct of individuals, as it only gives rise to imbalance and chaos. Too many legal interventions would only stop individuals from developing to their full potential in terms of capabilities. The same can be observed in MCU's saga as individuals who went against the draconic law ultimately tried going beyond their existing capabilities by understanding the threat and neutralising it.
It is a fact that no law possesses the power to ensure complete compliance with the statute & law only, as it only gives rise to further complications by making individuals more insecure. In reading Fuller's assertion that the bare existence of a directive of a sovereign is not of itself law since its presence does not ensure obedience, similarly if a law is being followed out of sheer fear of being imprisoned and a law which stops individuals from using their instincts isn't a law in its true sense.
Lawmakers must take into consideration all and any exceptional circumstances surrounding the issue at hand. Trying to stop enhanced individuals from using their power or asking an individual with extraordinary memory not to use the same to come up with something new (essential military-grade inventions) would be foolish. Even though captain America and Tony are divided because of accepting or rejecting the accord, they are still united because of their ideology, i.e. to serve individuals with minimum/ or no damage. Yes, Legal intervention is required to ensure enhanced individuals are kept in check. Still, the law must be tailored to cater to the need by bringing in the sense of responsibility, which would not be achieved by meddling with the autonomy status enjoyed by avengers. It would only be achieved by making a law which considers the morality aspect but also paves the way for individuals with superhuman abilities.
The current law was only talking via a penal tone, which led to this civil war; instead, the lawmakers must have concentrated on the element of workforce distribution based on the strengths they possess. Avengers as a group have a specific skill set. Sukovia accords must have focused on what kind of missions and enhanced beings to go for that particular mission. There is a never-ending conflict between law & morality which can be balanced with appropriating informed thought about the subject in question and how it is to be operated.
Author: Sistla Naveen Teja, Assistant Professor of Law School of Law GITAM University. Views are personal.
