Chapter 4: Power, Security, and Superheroes as WMDs

International Relations Theories & Captain America: Civil War

International relations (IR) theories help us make sense of complex power dynamics, national interests, and the motives driving states on the global stage. In Captain America: Civil War, we’re given a fictional but rich scenario where superheroes—essentially powerful “states” themselves—struggle with questions of freedom, authority, and accountability. The Avengers, having saved humanity from countless threats, are forced to confront a new reality when their actions cause massive unintended damage. Governments around the world push for the Sokovia Accords, a set of laws to regulate superheroes’ activities and put them under international oversight. This conflict brings up many questions central to IR theory: How should powerful entities be governed? Can power be controlled without compromising freedom? And what role do ideologies play in shaping conflict and alliances? By looking at the events of Captain America: Civil War through different IR theories—realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism, and feminism—we gain valuable insight into how global politics operate, both in the MCU and in our own world.

Realism

Realism, one of the oldest and most influential theories in IR, would view the Avengers’ conflict primarily through the lens of power and survival. Realists argue that states, like people, are motivated by self-preservation in an anarchic world with no higher authority than themselves. In Civil War, Captain America’s stance reflects realist principles. He believes the Avengers should operate independently, free from international control, because outside influence could prevent them from responding effectively to future threats. To a realist, the Sokovia Accords represent a loss of sovereignty, making the Avengers beholden to other nations’ interests rather than their own. Realists would argue that Captain America’s mistrust of centralized power and preference for autonomy mirrors how states often resist submitting to supranational institutions. Just as some nations resist binding alliances or UN oversight to maintain independence, Captain America fears that aligning with the Sokovia Accords would ultimately weaken the Avengers’ ability to protect themselves and others.

Liberalism

In contrast, liberalism emphasizes cooperation and collective security as paths to stability and peace. From a liberalist perspective, Tony Stark’s support of the Sokovia Accords reflects a commitment to shared responsibility and international cooperation. Liberals argue that by working together under agreed rules and institutions, states—or, in this case, superheroes—can create a safer and more predictable world. The Sokovia Accords are akin to real-world treaties like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which aims to prevent unchecked nuclear arms while fostering peaceful cooperation. Tony’s position highlights the liberal belief that cooperation and accountability are vital for reducing chaos and preventing abuses of power. Even though the Accords limit the Avengers’ freedom, they offer a framework for collaboration that liberals argue is necessary for the greater good. Here, Tony Stark represents the classic liberal faith in institutions as a way to prevent conflict and ensure all “superpowers” are held to the same standards, making the world safer for everyone.

Constructivism

Constructivism, a theory that focuses on the influence of ideas, beliefs, and identities, would view the events of Civil War as shaped by the differing perceptions and identities of the characters. Constructivists argue that the behavior of states (or superheroes, in this case) isn’t just driven by power or self-interest but by shared norms and social understandings. In Civil War, the Avengers are divided not only by political beliefs but by their identities as heroes and how they see their roles in the world. For example, Captain America’s identity as a soldier committed to doing what’s right, even against authority, shapes his rejection of the Accords. Tony Stark, on the other hand, feels personal responsibility for the destruction he’s been part of, influencing his willingness to accept oversight. Constructivists would point out that the conflict isn’t purely about control but about how each Avenger understands their responsibility and duty. Just as national identities and historical narratives shape state behavior in real-world politics, the Avengers’ identities and past experiences drive their stance on the Accords.

Marxism

A Marxist perspective would interpret the events of Civil War as a clash driven by underlying inequalities and the interests of powerful groups. Marxism in IR theory often views global conflicts as rooted in economic structures and power imbalances, where the wealthy and powerful seek to control resources and labor to maintain their dominance. From this angle, the Sokovia Accords could be seen as a tool for controlling the Avengers, ensuring that their extraordinary “resources”—their powers—are directed in ways that serve those already in positions of authority. A Marxist analysis might question who truly benefits from the Accords: Do they serve global security, or do they give powerful states a way to co-opt and control the Avengers for their own agendas? Just as Marxism critiques how state decisions can prioritize the wealthy or the elite, it might interpret the Accords as a way for political leaders to keep the Avengers in line, channeling their power to support the interests of the most powerful states or individuals, rather than the collective good.

Feminism

Finally, a feminist perspective would ask us to consider how power, control, and authority are often gendered, and how this influences the dynamics in Civil War. Feminism in IR challenges the traditional focus on power and conflict by asking whose voices and interests are prioritized, and what perspectives are marginalized. In Civil War, the debate over the Sokovia Accords highlights who has the authority to make decisions and whose experiences are valued. Black Widow, for example, plays a unique role by initially supporting the Accords for their cooperative benefits but later rethinking her position based on loyalty and personal bonds with her teammates. A feminist analysis would examine how her perspective as a woman, and as someone often treated as an outsider, informs her stance in ways that differ from her male counterparts. Feminism also invites us to question whether the Accords are genuinely about security or about reinforcing power structures that exclude certain perspectives. By analyzing the Avengers’ conflict through a feminist lens, we see that issues of control and governance are not just about power but about who gets to define security and justice.

Through each of these IR theories, Captain America: Civil War becomes more than a superhero movie; it’s a powerful example of the complex motivations, power struggles, and differing beliefs that drive conflict and cooperation in global politics. Realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism, and feminism each offer distinct ways of interpreting the Avengers’ clash, helping us understand how international politics is shaped by everything from raw power to shared ideals, economic interests, and social identities. These theories remind us that behind every policy or alliance are people and perspectives that shape the world in ways both seen and unseen.