Chapter 4: Power, Security, and Superheroes as WMDs

4.4: The Role of Alliances and Military Coalitions 

When states navigate the complex waters of global security, they must decide whether to act alone or join forces with others to achieve their goals. These decisions often involve weighing the benefits of alliances and military coalitions, as well as managing arms and security through careful policies. In Captain America: Civil War, we see a reflection of these choices as superheroes face their own version of international politics: Should the Avengers submit to international oversight, acting as part of a broader coalition, or retain their independence to act unilaterally? This dilemma mirrors real-world issues in international relations, where states regularly debate the pros and cons of working together versus going it alone. By exploring concepts like unilateralism, multilateralism, alliances, and military coalitions, we gain a deeper understanding of how nations collaborate—or clash—when pursuing security and stability in a complex world.

Choosing to act independently can sometimes seem like the best way for a state to protect its interests. This approach, known as unilateralism, is when a state chooses to pursue its foreign policy objectives alone rather than seeking consensus or cooperation with others. In Civil War, Captain America embodies this mindset as he rejects the Sokovia Accords, arguing that the Avengers must retain the freedom to operate without outside interference. Check out the scene from Captain America: Civil War below, where Steve Rogers (aka Captain America) explains that they must act “outside the law” (unilaterally) to stop a threat. This stance mirrors real-world examples, such as when the United States opted to invade Iraq in 2003 without the full backing of the United Nations, acting based on its own security concerns rather than waiting for international approval. Unilateralism allows states (or, in this case, superheroes) to respond quickly to threats or protect their own values, but it can also create friction with others who feel excluded or threatened by these actions. This tension sets the stage for contrasting approaches, where collaboration and shared goals can offer alternative solutions.

Working together with other states through collaboration, on the other hand, is often seen as a more stable approach to global security. This is known as multilateralism, where multiple states cooperate to address shared issues, such as security threats or humanitarian crises. In Civil War, Iron Man supports the Sokovia Accords as a way to place the Avengers under international oversight, essentially advocating for a multilateral approach to superhero intervention. Multilateralism is the foundation of many global institutions, like the United Nations and NATO, which promote cooperation among countries to address global issues through shared decision-making. For example, NATO allies operate under a principle of collective defense, meaning that an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all—a clear commitment to mutual security. This approach can increase legitimacy and trust among states, but it also requires compromise, which can slow down responses to urgent threats. In Civil War, this split over unilateralism and multilateralism illustrates the challenge of balancing national (or superhero) autonomy with the collective security benefits of working together—a theme that continues throughout the film and mirrors real-world political debates.

At the core of multilateralism are alliances, formal agreements between states to cooperate on military, economic, or political matters for mutual benefit. These arrangements are more than just friendly partnerships; they are strategic tools designed to increase collective strength and deter threats. Alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), founded in 1949, exemplify this logic by binding member states into a mutual defense pact. The famous Article 5 of the NATO treaty states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, a clause invoked for the first and only time after the 9/11 attacks. This collective commitment sends a powerful signal to potential adversaries: aggression against one state could trigger a coordinated and overwhelming response from many. By creating clear expectations and shared responsibilities, alliances offer both reassurance to member states and deterrence to would-be challengers.

However, alliances also come with political and strategic challenges, particularly when national interests begin to diverge. A striking example occurred in the 1960s, when French President Charles de Gaulle questioned the extent of U.S. influence within NATO and feared that France’s national autonomy was being undermined by its obligations to the alliance. In response, France withdrew from NATO’s integrated military command structure in 1966, though it remained a political member of the alliance. This decision highlighted a core tension in multilateral arrangements: the need to balance unity with sovereignty. States may value the security that comes from alliance membership, but they are also wary of being drawn into conflicts that do not align with their own national priorities. Thus, the strength of an alliance depends not only on its shared purpose but also on its flexibility to accommodate diverse interests within a cooperative framework.

While alliances are often long-term, sometimes states come together in a temporary military coalition to achieve a specific military objective. In Civil War, when Team Iron Man and Team Captain America split over the Sokovia Accords, they form temporary “coalitions” within the Avengers to achieve their goals—Iron Man’s side aiming to uphold the Accords, and Captain America’s side aiming to resist them. This setup resembles real-world coalitions, like the coalition formed during the Gulf War, where states united to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Unlike alliances, coalitions are more flexible and short-term, focusing on immediate goals rather than ongoing partnerships. In this case, the Gulf War coalition allowed countries with shared interests to work together for a common purpose without long-term commitments. However, as Civil War shows, these coalitions can quickly turn into battles if there are deep-rooted differences in goals or values among the members.

Some states aim to create more than just a coalition or alliance—they seek to build a security community. Coined by Karl Deutsch in the 1950s, the concept describes a group of states among whom war has become not just unlikely, but practically unthinkable. In a security community, member states have developed such strong levels of trust, communication, and institutional integration that they no longer view one another as potential military threats. Unlike alliances, which are often formed in response to external dangers, security communities reflect a more proactive and enduring peace—built not just on strategic interests, but on shared values and mutual confidence. These communities rest on the idea that cooperation and interdependence can become so deeply rooted that the very identity of states becomes intertwined with peaceful relations.

The European Union (EU) is one of the clearest real-world examples of a security community. After the devastation of two world wars, European nations—especially France and Germany—took deliberate steps to bind themselves together economically and politically to prevent future conflict. What began as a coal and steel agreement in the 1950s evolved into a robust regional union with common laws, institutions, a shared market, and, for some, a common currency. Within this framework, EU members resolve disputes through negotiation, courts, and diplomacy, not force. In many ways, security communities represent an aspirational model in international relations: a world where the tools of war are replaced by the habits of cooperation. While not without internal disagreements and crises, the EU demonstrates how sustained integration and shared norms can transform historical rivals into long-term partners committed to peace.

When tensions escalate, disarming can sometimes seem like a route toward peace. Disarmament is the process of reducing or completely eliminating certain weapons or military capabilities to promote stability and reduce the risk of conflict. In Civil War, the Sokovia Accords propose a form of “disarmament” for the Avengers by placing limits on their activities and requiring them to operate only under UN approval. Real-world disarmament efforts, such as nuclear disarmament treaties, aim to decrease the likelihood of large-scale conflict by limiting the tools available for war. For instance, after the Cold War, several nuclear disarmament agreements between the U.S. and Russia reduced nuclear arsenals, decreasing the chance of accidental or intentional conflict. Yet disarmament often faces resistance, as some states worry that reducing their weapons will leave them vulnerable if others do not do the same. In the Avengers’ case, heroes like Captain America view the Accords as limiting their ability to protect civilians, highlighting how disarmament, while promoting stability, can also leave those involved feeling constrained.

Where disarmament seeks to reduce weapons, arms control focuses on managing and limiting them to prevent escalation while still maintaining some level of defense. The Sokovia Accords represent a form of arms control by imposing regulations on when and how superheroes can use their powers, aiming to prevent unchecked action. Arms control agreements, like the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, allow states to maintain a level of security while placing safeguards against arms buildup. This treaty has helped to limit the spread of nuclear weapons by allowing only a few states to legally possess them while promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy. However, as Civil War demonstrates, these measures often spark debate. Iron Man believes the Accords are necessary for transparency and accountability, while Captain America fears that too much control over the Avengers’ abilities will hinder their effectiveness. This tension highlights a recurring challenge in arms control: the difficulty of balancing regulation with freedom to act in crises.

• Participation in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

  Participation Category	Color
  Recognized nuclear weapon state ratifiers	Blue
  Recognized nuclear weapon state acceders	Dark Blue
  Other ratifiers	Green
  Other acceders or succeeders	Light Green
  Withdrawn	Orange
  Non-signatory	Red
  Unrecognized state, abiding by acceders	Yellow

   

Finally, in any international system, the pursuit of dominance by one powerful state can affect all others. This is known as hegemony, where one state (or group of states) maintains significant influence or control over others, often through military or economic strength. In Civil War, the UN’s move to regulate the Avengers could be seen as an attempt to establish hegemonic control over the team, ensuring that superhero actions align with global interests rather than the heroes’ independent decisions. Throughout history, hegemonic states have wielded their influence to maintain stability and protect their own interests. For example, the United States has often been viewed as a hegemonic power, using its economic and military strength to shape international norms and policies. The U.S. influence in post-World War II Europe through the Marshall Plan and NATO helped to establish a U.S.-led order in the Western hemisphere. However, Civil War illustrates that hegemony can be a double-edged sword; as states or entities push for control, they may encounter resistance from those who value autonomy, creating friction rather than unity.

Together, these concepts—unilateralism, multilateralism, alliances, coalitions, security communities, disarmament, arms control, and hegemony—form the foundation of how states interact, collaborate, and sometimes clash in the quest for security. Captain America: Civil War presents a microcosm of these dynamics, showing that balancing individual freedoms with collective security is a central challenge in both superhero teams and international relations. By studying these terms and the tensions they reveal, students gain insight into the choices nations face as they navigate a world where cooperation and conflict are often two sides of the same coin.